stevestojan Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 You mean to tell me that this "my brain is bigger than your brain" thread is still here? Obviously, AKC wins... didn't you all get the memo? OK, now that this matter is cleared up, we can move on, no?
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 Your argument is bogus, and the pompous manner in which you propound it is tiresome (although not surprising from you). The NFL stats are not weighted. The stats at fooballoutsiders ARE weighted. Again, you choose to invert my arguments rather than actually address them head-on (and again, no surprise coming from you). 200800[/snapback] "Weighted" means manipulated, the stats from the NFL are pure listings of exactly where O's and D's ended up. Why can't you debate with unmanipulated facts?
Coach Tuesday Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 "Weighted" means manipulated, the stats from the NFL are pure listings of exactly where O's and D's ended up. Why can't you debate with unmanipulated facts? 200810[/snapback] Because it's "manipulated" to account for the VERY REASON you suggest the stats are skewed! YOU are the one who insists that the D got a "free pass," and is therefore overrated, due to strenght-of-opponent; and that our offense had the harder schedule, and is therefore overly criticized. I then pointed you to stats showing that, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT STRENGTH OF OPPONENT, our D and ST STILL RANK #1 OVERALL. Similarly, our offense, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT STRENGTH OF OPPONENT, ranks in the bottom 3rd. So, TO MAKE IT SIMPLE FOR YA, I've pointed you to stats that have been manipulated to counter YOUR ARGUMENT. Why don't you exercise your brain and argue with their regressions? Either that, or concede that you were wrong.
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 You mean to tell me that this "my brain is bigger than your brain" thread is still here? 200805[/snapback] And at what point in your life did it become absolutely clear that "my brain is bigger than yours" was an obvious disqualifier for your participation?
stevestojan Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 And at what point in your life did it become absolutely clear that "my brain is bigger than yours" was an obvious disqualifier for your participation? 200830[/snapback] Nice. Thanks for proving my point, you pompous douchbag.
Grant Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Boy, AKC, this sure is a lot of posting in a short period of time all concerned about one player. Weren't you the chief critic of Spiked Lemonade's "6000 [posts] in 6 months"? Wouldn't this fall into your own definition of crusading?
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 Because it's "manipulated" to account for the VERY REASON you suggest the stats are skewed! YOU are the one who insists that the D got a "free pass," and is therefore overrated, due to strenght-of-opponent; and that our offense had the harder schedule, and is therefore overly criticized. I then pointed you to stats showing that, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT STRENGTH OF OPPONENT, our D and ST STILL RANK #1 OVERALL. Similarly, our offense, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT STRENGTH OF OPPONENT, ranks in the bottom 3rd. So, TO MAKE IT SIMPLE FOR YA, I've pointed you to stats that have been manipulated to counter YOUR ARGUMENT. Why don't you exercise your brain and argue with their regressions? Either that, or concede that you were wrong. 200824[/snapback] You require manipulated stats to support your faulty conclusion at the onset- and now you desperately try to hide it behind false representations of my original post such as: "YOU are the one who insists that the D got a "free pass," Show me where at any time I said it or suggested it. Anything short of that will be an admission that you are willing to admit falsehoods to support your flawed argment.
Coach Tuesday Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 We surely did face different competition each week this season, but it was our offense that far and away faced the indisputably tougher assignments over the course of the season. We saw 8 top 10 defenses while our defense saw only 4 top 10 offenses all season. We faced top half of the league defenses 11 times this season while our defense saw only 7 of the upper half offenses. That means our offense more weeks than not faced a top half defense while exactly the opposite was true of our defense. The fact is that the defenses we faced, based upon the final rankings of the regular season, prove our offense faced defenses that were 29% tougher than the offenses our defense played over the same span. 197890[/snapback] There you go. Man, you're something else.
Dawgg Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 And here's another: "But I'm waiting patiently for the first refutation of the FACT that our D skated almost the whole season while our O played the far tougher schedule- know anyone who might make the mistake of engaging me? ;-) " Show me where at any time I said it or suggested it. Anything short of that will be an admission that you are willing to admit falsehoods to support your flawed argment. 200836[/snapback]
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 There you go. Man, you're something else. 200838[/snapback] Everything I said in that post is an absolute fact- what is it about facts that you find troublesome other than the fact that they don't support your flawed theory? Oh, and thanks for the admission!
Dawgg Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 It was these facts you point out that were the reason for Coach Tues bringing up the "weighted" stats. - You claimed that stats dont tell the story because they don't take into account strength of opponent (and rightfully so on your part) - He countered with weighted stats that do in fact take that into account. - You contradict yourself by saying that weighted stats don't tell the story and the actual stats do. Everything I said in that post is an absoltue fact- what is it about facts that you find troublesome other than the fact that they don't support your flawed theory? Oh, and thanks for the admission! 200843[/snapback]
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 And here's another: "But I'm waiting patiently for the first refutation of the FACT that our D skated almost the whole season while our O played the far tougher schedule- know anyone who might make the mistake of engaging me? ;-) " 200842[/snapback] The level of competition our offense faced was 29% more difficult based upon the statistical strength of our opponents using the factual and unmanipulated measures of total offense and defense as measured by the NFL. If you don't like it maybe Coach Tuesday can find you your own manipulated stats- just be careful because based on his Eric Moulds is gone next year.
Rico Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Boy, AKC, this sure is a lot of posting in a short period of time all concerned about one player. Weren't you the chief critic of Spiked Lemonade's "6000 [posts] in 6 months"? Wouldn't this fall into your own definition of crusading? 200834[/snapback] ln his defense, he did say that he will be following the ball while watching games in 2005...maybe he will finally be qualified to comment on the QB position.
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 It was these facts you point out that were the reason for Coach Tues bringing up the "weighted" stats. - You claimed that stats dont tell the story because they don't take into account strength of opponent (and rightfully so on your part) 200845[/snapback] Actually you're completely wrong. I opened with the fact that fans were ignoring the official stats that proved our offense faced a tougher year in '04 than our defense. There's zero weighting of the stats to that position.
34-78-83 Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Your perspective from the seats is far superior to what I can get from network coverage- mostly the short WR coverages. Moulds will get attention from his rep and there are games where he definitely was smothered, giving ops to Evans that Evans took advantage of. The thing that kills me about Eric is simply his dropping easy catches, and I believe it's infinitely fair to bring that flaw to the top since we're discussing flaws on the team. And I haven't said I want to dump Moulds, I've exclusively said that if you talk objectively about dumping the QB for the reasons obssessively given you MUST also consider whether the dollars/performance ratio of Moulds make him exactly the same type of liability. 200804[/snapback] Makes sense....
Grant Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 I opened with the fact that fans were ignoring the official stats that proved our offense faced a tougher year in '04 than our defense. There's zero weighting of the stats to that position. 200853[/snapback] Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Everything you say is wrong until you can find something to prove your manipluated falsehood. [/AKC]
HOF Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Find me just one post where someone has said that Drew Bledsoe, and Drew Bledsoe alone, cost us the season. Please, find just one. I expect crap like that from some here, but now you too? There are many here who have seen enough of Drew Bledsoe to last a lifetime, and that group, myself included, have been vocal. Do we exagerate to make a point? Probably, but not to the extent that you have. 198144[/snapback] Drew wil be back next season! He's not great but he's not nearly as bad as the the folks on here imply he is! Aslo, I heard on another board that Kelly was booed at the end of his career! Is that true? I was deep in pats land at the time, therefore, iIdon't know!
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Everything you say is wrong until you can find something to prove your manipluated falsehood. [/AKC] 200856[/snapback] Here's how you do it- add the final rankings based upon the established statistical measures used by the NFL of our opponents O's and D's and match the numbers against each other. You'll probably want a little help with the math though ;-)
AKC Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 Drew wil be back next season! He's not great but he's not nearly as bad athe the folsk on here imply he is! Aslo, I heard on another board that Kelly was booed at the end of his career! Is that true? I was deep in pats land at the time, therefore, i don't know! 200860[/snapback] It is true. Elway was booed in Denver by a noisy-ass fraction of fans who complained because he was the most sacked QB in history- just before he won 2 Super Bowls.
Dawgg Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 OK. There's not much of a difference between what you say and what I said. The bottom line here is that you were saying that the strength of opponent is a factor. A valid point indeed. In statistical analysis, nonuniform sample spaces are often compared using a weighted average or some other form of weighted metric in order to make them comparable. That is precisely what these weighted stats provide -- a reasonable basis of comparison between the offense and the defense. It was you who pointed out the discrepancy in quality of opponent faced. It is also you who bristles at the notion of stats that take that into account. Actually you're completely wrong. I opened with the fact that fans were ignoring the official stats that proved our offense faced a tougher year in '04 than our defense. There's zero weighting of the stats to that position. 200853[/snapback]
Recommended Posts