metzelaars_lives Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) It looks as if reasonable football minds have prevailed in this thread, which so rarely happens, and people can agree that stats most certainly matter but stats, particularly QB stats, vary greatly from era to era. Would you say "look I just proved that home runs don't mean anything: Bryce Harper hit however many home runs last year and Brady Anderson once hit 51?" No of course you wouldn't. Patrick Kane's point total this year will be far more significant than when Mike Gartner and Glenn Anderson used to score 100 points in a season. You get the idea. Edited March 17, 2016 by metzelaars_lives
BarleyNY Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 I agree I was just trying to make a point CBF "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts—for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang I think the point is that statistics can be easily be manipulated if there is a preconceived endgame. People can always go mining for something that supports the stance they are already entrenched in. For instance, this sort of thing goes on with economic statistical models quite a bit - particularly around election time. The assumptions they make for their models are usually far more telling than their results. But people who are actually looking for usable information and have some skill can generally find value in statistics and statistical modeling. Someone who truly wanted to know how good a QB was would compare that player to his peers and consider all pertinent statistics. They probably would even account for the relative talent around the player. That's how QBs from different eras could be compared. But no reasonable person would consider a single stat from two players from different eras as meaningful in any way.
Steve Billieve Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 I seem to recall Kelly throwing the ball away a lot. Not sure if they keep track of stats like that anywhere.
chris heff Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 Seventy eight percent of statistics are made up.
Adam Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 Fitz has beaten one team with a .500 record in 4 years. Fraud !!!!! I'm pretty sure if Fitz quarterbacked the 1990-1993 Bills, he would have beaten plenty of good teams
BillsFan130 Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 You for sure have a good point with stats but at the same time, it's two different era's. Passing numbers now will be way better/ higher than 2 decades ago
Maury Ballstein Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 I'm pretty sure if Fitz quarterbacked the 1990-1993 Bills, he would have beaten plenty of good teams Doubt it. Just more Fitzpicksixes
Adam Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 Doubt it. Just more Fitzpicksixes Gino Smith could have quarterbacked that team to 10 wins
machine gun kelly Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 It looks as if reasonable football minds have prevailed in this thread, which so rarely happens, and people can agree that stats most certainly matter but stats, particularly QB stats, vary greatly from era to era. Would you say "look I just proved that home runs don't mean anything: Bryce Harper hit however many home runs last year and Brady Anderson once hit 51?" No of course you wouldn't. Patrick Kane's point total this year will be far more significant than when Mike Gartner and Glenn Anderson used to score 100 points in a season. You get the idea. Metz, first you are right, and much of that point is people setting the tone to agree to disagree, but be civil, and not take it south. i really get turned off when it goes there and stop reading. Nothing wrong with a little kidding, as long in good spirits. Lastly, thanks again for the reminder on my half timers brain forgetting about those picks. I guess it's true you tend over the years to remember what you want on people you love as a fan.
Recommended Posts