Alaska Darin Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 so now I need to keep track of what others post? got it... 202318[/snapback] Uh, did you miss your own post telling AKC to limit it to one thread? Oh, there was that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Uh, did you miss your own post telling AKC to limit it to one thread? Oh, there was that. 202349[/snapback] yes, which has nothing to do with what you were talking about....you don't follow things well...I may have to start calling you BF_in_Alaska Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Iddy Bitty Hint: I don't think AKC is trying to argue that EM is a poor WR here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Iddy Bitty Hint: I don't think AKC is trying to argue that EM is a poor WR here... 202378[/snapback] No ****. And thank you for using the word "trying." AKC is trying to argue a couple of things, which might be valid points if he could get out of his own way and articulate them without coming across as an incoherent, pompous assclown: 1) he's trying to make the general point that stats are deceiving in and of themselves, and can be used to make almost any argument, and 2) he's trying to argue, more specifically, that the stats I used to refute his argument about our offense's and defense's true performance in 2004 force me to contradict myself, apparently because he's convinced I've somewhere stated that Bledsoe sucks but Moulds doesn't. Those are the two main points he's trying to get across. And they almost have merit, however: 1) stats are only deceiving/manipulable if their underlying assumptions, and by implication the purpose they're being used for, are themselves unclear/erroneous. Otherwise, a statistical analysis should be tautological in a sense - it is absolutely true so long as its assumptions are absolutely true. Unfortunately, AKC doesn't appear to understand what assumptions the fellas at www.footballoutsiders.com are using, which is why he's having such a difficult time articulating his problems with their "rankings." 2) I've never said ANYTHING about Moulds here other than that he doesn't turn the ball over at a rate that would justify his benching. I made that point two days ago - since then, he's twisted it into a hideous monster. If he would just get his head out of his a$$ he'd realize that he's actually hit upon a good argument - that quite possibly, Moulds is overpaid relative to his production. I'd even agree with him if he made that argument, but he's too busy swordfighting with windmills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 yes, which has nothing to do with what you were talking about....you don't follow things well...I may have to start calling you BF_in_Alaska 202351[/snapback] Uh genius, my initial response in THIS thread to YOU is about EXACTLY that. You feel free to call me whatever helps you get through the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Uh genius, my initial response in THIS thread to YOU is about EXACTLY that. You feel free to call me whatever helps you get through the day. 202390[/snapback] don't you have kids? Go watch em or play with em or something. Jesus, I'm on here ALOT, but I'm 24, single and do nothing if its not Friday or Saturday. You're on here about 18 hours a day, EVERY DAY. Go toss the football around. Or if its too cold, go fishing... jeez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 don't you have kids? Go watch em or play with em or something. Jesus, I'm on here ALOT, but I'm 24, single and do nothing if its not Friday or Saturday. You're on here about 18 hours a day, EVERY DAY. Go toss the football around. Or if its too cold, go fishing... jeez. 202395[/snapback] Let's not split hairs here, we're all losers if you think about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Let's not split hairs here, we're all losers if you think about it... 202396[/snapback] he, like i said, i'm 24, single and on a Bills message board at all hours. I know what I am. But then again, i don't have any kids... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Ok well that cleared things up nicely didn't it? btw. Player for player, regardless of team and QB performance and team influenced results, I don't see more than 10 players at WR in the league that I'd rather have. That's just me though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 don't you have kids? Go watch em or play with em or something. Jesus, I'm on here ALOT, but I'm 24, single and do nothing if its not Friday or Saturday. You're on here about 18 hours a day, EVERY DAY. Go toss the football around. Or if its too cold, go fishing... jeez. 202395[/snapback] No, currently there are no children living in my house. Plus, it's 7:00 at night and I'm still at work waiting for a subroutine to run but feel free to try and act like an ass whole who knows WTF you're talking about. Go back and look up the number of posts I have on Saturdays & Sundays. You'll find the number is VERY low. Go outside and toss a football or if it's too cold, go fishing? WTF do you fish? An aquarium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Uh genius, my initial response in THIS thread to YOU is about EXACTLY that. You feel free to call me whatever helps you get through the day. 202390[/snapback] I will let you believe you got me, since this board seems to be all that you have.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 No, currently there are no children living in my house. Plus, it's 7:00 at night and I'm still at work waiting for a subroutine to run but feel free to try and act like an ass whole who knows WTF you're talking about. Go back and look up the number of posts I have on Saturdays & Sundays. You'll find the number is VERY low. Go outside and toss a football or if it's too cold, go fishing? WTF do you fish? An aquarium? 202405[/snapback] Now you're defending yourself about Saturdays and Sundays... oh man, this is getting good... Im going to bed, but I'll happily carry on tommorrow... Man, I havn't seen you this flusstered in a while.. NICE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I will let you believe you got me, since this board seems to be all that you have.... 202409[/snapback] That's why you're on at 11:00 your time, right? Because your life has so much more to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 That's why you're on at 11:00 your time, right? Because your life has so much more to it? 202411[/snapback] maybe you can reach 100 posts tomorrow...good luck with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 maybe you can reach 100 posts tomorrow...good luck with that 202414[/snapback] Now you're setting goals for me? I didn't know you cared so much. Touching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Keep going guys, this is actually pretty fun to read. Now you're setting goals for me? I didn't know you cared so much. Touching. 202415[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Everyone grows old, not everyone matures. Thus is TSW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Football Outsiders' system for ranking the WRs works in the following way: each "situation" a WR is involved in is analyzed. If a pass comes his way, it's a "situation." If he makes the catch, he gets positive points. If he drops the pass, or worse still fumbles the ball, he loses points. That gives him his gross totals. But these are then adjusted for the strength of the defense and the situation. So if it's 3rd and 10, you'd get more points for an 11 yard pass than for a 9 yard pass. You're not just getting credit for an extra two yards, you're getting credit for the 3rd down conversion. If the defense is better than normal at preventing 3rd down conversions from WRs, your points are adjusted upwards. If it's worse than an average defense in that situation, your points are adjusted downward. Eric Moulds is lower than Lee Evans on that list presumably because Moulds had a lower percentage of "situations" where he was successful; meaning he probably dropped a higher percentage of passes than Evans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 With Eric never reaching higher than the 45th best player at WR over the past 4 seasons- is Moulds that bad or is the system they use to analyze statistics the bigger question? Maybe the question is how does a service with this faulty a set of formulas for statistical analysis convince anyone to espouse its results? Or has Eric Moulds been vastly overpaid for his services in Buffalo? 202233[/snapback] Maybe that's why they're referred to as Football Outsiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I thibnk the interesting thing about this ranking is that it seems to be fairly consistent i placing Moulds at a low ranking when Moulds performance has varied somewat widely over the 4 years. When he was hurt and hobbled while playing last year his ranking would seem to me have slipped to a low level consistent with his impact on the game. The year before when he took in 100 catches and was clearly the go to guy on our team and also made PP and Reed more ffective players it would seem he would get his highest ranking and it should be demonstrably better than any ranking of last year, The bookend years of the last four should fit somewhere within these two extremes but still vary a lot from the. Yet the rankings outside of the outrider of his 79 ranking are pretty consistent, This measure does not seem to fit reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts