WoodysGirl;2417703 said:
I've never claimed to be a numbers person, that's why I'm asking for clarification. Is it really fair to base his numbers on the number of games he played and to the number of actual games played? I don't think so. If he'd played, then I think it would be a fair comparison.
Ok, so I was off one game. Same principle applies, IMO.
Because at the same time Romo went down, he was suspended. He never had to play during the really rough stretch, where the defense was put under the duress of an offensive collapse. It's all speculation to try to project his performance. I applaud your effort, tho.
This is NOT simply a pro/anti Pacman thread. This is an evaluation of the overall cornerback play for the Cowboys. Pac is ranked #1, but I find the evaluation to be a bit questionable.
Ok i must admit i was a bit harsh with my comments. Sorry for that. My point was to prove that it will be no difference in judgeing Pacmans performance with projecting his stats or those of the other CBs. I didn't want to offend you with that "one more game" thing.
But i must disagree again. To me as i said it doesn't matter if you project his stats or those of his teammates. Even if you take those last 3 games away i will promise you there wont be much of a difference. of course the total yds the players gave up will come down but those have not been taken into evaluation by myself anyway.
Average numbers are average. They show you what you can expect from a player when he plays in an average game. The law of probaility says the more events you take into consideration the better your statistics is. It can never show reality of course because that would be fortunetelling but experience shows that it is a good image of reality.
6 games for pacman are of course not enough to show you his abilities as a CB not even those 9 of the other players. But it is a good approach.
There are alot of things to consider but if you do you will always go away from your stats because with taking those things into consideration you have choosen another way of comparison then through stats. To go the way and consider to take things out of the giuven stats just to "make them more fair" is the wrong way. This way you just fake your stats and they are wortheless in the end.
After all imo you will come to the conclusion that those things are not really important to consider. Because they will even out over a given period of time. for example:
- as you said it's not fair to take into considaration those last 3 games because it were tough games for the defense because the offense "was missing"
- but then maybe because pacman is a good player in these games the other team would have avoided throwing to him and his personal stats would have climbed way up. Remeber we are talking about personal stats not team stats!
- But also maybe Pacmans sucks and he would have been exposed ? Who knows. To me the ansers lies in those average stats. if he was a bad player he would have been exposed before. Because he is what he is (stats wise - i don't say he is good or bad) he would have been the same player stats wise in those last three games.
- Pacman did not play football for 1 year. If you want a fair comparision how do you put that into equation compared to those others who did play last year ?
- Not all players play the same amount of snaps. Do you count only the plays and take those also into consideration ?
- And then they are not at the field the same time. That means they don't play with the same defesne setup and against the same offensive play/unit. How do you take this into consideration ?
You could go on and on and on with those let's call them "soft facts". As i said those things will even out over a period of time. You don't have to consider them. You just consider finding an average for a player over a given time. After that you postulate that this average will be constant over all time.
I think the way they compared the players is pretty fair. Maybe not enough games to compare them but then again a season is only 16 games.
