Dr. Z Mailbag

[SultanOfSix]

I think he should be a Hall of Famer when all the pros and cons are weighed, but its unfair to say we shouldn't even take into account the negative intangibles when we're including all of his positive intangibles.

By the way, Irvin was on Norm earlier this week, and he said he feels like his personal actions did hurt the team. He said that he and Troy talk about it all the time ... they should have won five Superbowls, and he feels responsible for the fact that they didn't. I'm assuming he's specifically talking about the 1996 season.

I think we should have won 5 SBs too. I'm still pissed that Jimmy quit. I'm still pissed that we gave up 3 turnovers in the '94 championship game in the first five minutes. I'm still upset that the 49ers got away with cheating the salary cap that same year.

I have no idea what happened in '96. Even when we came back and went 8-3 after Irvin's suspension, I found it quite coincidental that prior to the playoff game some bogus rape allegations came out which were eventually shown to be false right after the team lost to Carolina.

I never argued that Irvin's behavior didn't have a negative impact on the team. Anyone who's not an idiot knows that it did. My argument has always been Irvin never cost us a "legitimate shot" at a SB in '96 and that he's not a "borderline" HOF player.

People make mistakes all the time. If they seem to be sincerely apologetic for them, that should be enough. But some people always want to bring up the past to never let them forget as a way of holding it against them, and that's just not right.

 

[AbeBeta]

Irvin missed 33 games himself, in a career that was 2 years shorter than Stallworth's. You'd really have to be giving Stallworth all of the benefit of the doubt to say that those 18 extra missed games caused him to miss two Pro Bowls, especially since he did not make the Pro Bowl in 11 of the 14 seasons he played.

Irvin missed 33 games -- but that's 5 from suspension and 20 more in his first three years - Irvin was nothing in those first three years. So that's all but 8 missed games. All the rest of 88's missed games came in his last year.

By comparison, after Stallworth made his first probowl, he had seasons where he could only play 3, 9, 4, 11, and 12 games. You can't compare that to Stallworth missing games in the prime of his career (i.e., after he made a probowl).

Very different careers.

 

[AbeBeta]

I showed that his positives outweighed his negatives.

I never argued that his misbehavior didn't have a negative effect on the team. Geez, you still don't know what a strawman is.

You have shown diddly. You say that the positives outweight the minuses - but you don't provide evidence. You remind me of that idiot at the sports bar who keeps pounding his glass of bud light on the bar and shouting louder and louder. All bluster and no substance.

Say hi to the wizard. I hope he can help your "friend" the strawman with "his" problem.

 

[percyhoward]

Irvin missed 33 games -- but that's 5 from suspension and 20 more in his first three years - Irvin was nothing in those first three years. So that's all but 8 missed games. All the rest of 88's missed games came in his last year.

By comparison, after Stallworth made his first probowl, he had seasons where he could only play 3, 9, 4, 11, and 12 games. You can't compare that to Stallworth missing games in the prime of his career (i.e., after he made a probowl).

Very different careers.

Hey, maybe Stallworth would've gone to two more Pro Bowls, giving him as many as Irvin. But were the injuries that happened to Stallworth not going to happen to him if he'd played in the 90's? Even if the answer is yes, he still needs three more Pro Bowls (double his actual total) to pass Irvin.

And that's just one guy. John Stallworth. What about the other two WR's who only went to 3 Pro Bowls, and thus, had less impressive credentials than Irvin? Swann and Joiner both played in Stallworth's era, and didn't miss near as many games as he did. Maybe Stallworth's missed games were just a product of a guy who gets injured often, more than being an effect of his era.

Swann missed exactly as many games per season due to injury as Irvin did. (2.33) Joiner missed even fewer games than that. For medicine to have played a significant part in Irvin going to more Pro Bowls than Swann and Joiner, Irvin would have had miss almost no games at all.

 

[AbeBeta]

For medicine to have played a significant part in Irvin going to more Pro Bowls than Swann and Joiner, Irvin would have had miss almost no games at all.

As I pointed out during his prime Irvin missed no games -- aside from those he was suspended for.

 

[percyhoward]

As I pointed out during his prime Irvin missed no games -- aside from those he was suspended for.

What I'm saying is, your "modern medicine" argument doesn't seem to hold water, unless there's something about modern medicine that only makes players susceptible to injury when they're not in their prime.

 

[AbeBeta]

What I'm saying is, your "modern medicine" argument doesn't seem to hold water, unless there's something about modern medicine that only makes players susceptible to injury when they're not in their prime.

Are you trying to be thick? Players can obviously get injured at any time -- but if you miss time in your prime that's going to hurt your #s.

Better training and medical care allows guys to avoid injuries and get back on the field faster when they are injured. You take a guy like Stallworth who didn't have those advantages and he can end up missing serious time - when that happens in your prime it affects your reception totals, probowls, etc. -- a guy like Irvin was able to be healthy during the years typically associated with a WR's prime -- we'll never know if that was a fluke or attributable to better training and medical care. What we do know is that injuries that could destroy a player's career are now the types of things that today's player routinely comes back from. That makes a huge difference in terms of statistical performances -- and possibly probowls -- that makes it very difficult to compare across generations.

 

[SultanOfSix]

You have shown diddly. You say that the positives outweight the minuses - but you don't provide evidence. You remind me of that idiot at the sports bar who keeps pounding his glass of bud light on the bar and shouting louder and louder. All bluster and no substance.

Say hi to the wizard. I hope he can help your "friend" the strawman with "his" problem.

Sure thing man. Being part of 3 SB teams that were actually won and having the primary members of those teams declaring that you were one of the major factors to those victories against your possibility of hurting the team out of winning another SB is enough to show your argument is garbage - whatever it is - because you changed it about multiple times. From being a "borderline" HOF player, to hurting the team out of "legitimate shot" at the SB, to someone's behavior being a detriment to the team (which I never argued).

I don't care what you think I am. You're argument was a strawman by definition. Anyone but a simpleton who knows the decorum of debate can see it.

You're nickname should be Mr. Diversion.

 

[AbeBeta]

Sure thing man. Being part of 3 SB teams that were actually won and having the primary members of those teams declaring that you were one of the major factors to those victories against your possibility of hurting the team out of winning another SB is enough to show your argument is garbage - whatever it is - because you changed it about multiple times. From being a "borderline" HOF player, to hurting the team out of "legitimate shot" at the SB, to someone's behavior being a detriment to the team (which I never argued).

I don't care what you think I am. You're argument was a strawman by definition. Anyone but a simpleton who knows the decorum of debate can see it.

You're nickname should be Mr. Diversion.

Again, you fail to understand that discussions address many points and many possible influences -- myself and others addressed several manners that Irvin hurt that team. Again, you can't give credit for only the good influences and ignore the bad.

You are the one with a strawman -- A straw man argument is based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. And that's exactly what you've done over and over.

Once again, I implore you and your strawman to seek that brain you both so desperately need.

 

[percyhoward]

Are you trying to be thick? Players can obviously get injured at any time -- but if you miss time in your prime that's going to hurt your #s.

Let us put Bo Jackson in the Hall of Fame, then.

Better training and medical care allows guys to avoid injuries and get back on the field faster when they are injured. You take a guy like Stallworth who didn't have those advantages and he can end up missing serious time - when that happens in your prime it affects your reception totals, probowls, etc. -- a guy like Irvin was able to be healthy during the years typically associated with a WR's prime.

I never said Stallworth does not deserve to be in the hall, though. YOU said Irvin does not. This is about Irvin. In fact, the only reason Stallworth entered the conversation was because he went to fewer Pro Bowls than Irvin did. As did two other HOF receivers from the Super Bowl era. You know, the ones you keep ignoring.

We'll never know if that was a fluke or attributable to better training and medical care. What we do know is that injuries that could destroy a player's career are now the types of things that today's player routinely comes back from. That makes a huge difference in terms of statistical performances -- and possibly probowls -- that makes it very difficult to compare across generations.

Again, that may be generally true. But as it applies to whether Irvin should be in the HOF, all you have to do is look at the receivers who are in the HOF already, and how playing in an earlier era actually affected them, if at all.

There are 6 wide receivers in the HOF whose careers began and ended completely within the Super Bowl era.

Steve Largent
James Lofton
Michael Irvin
Lynn Swann
John Stallworth
Charlie Joiner

Just look at how many games each one of them missed to see how much of a difference, if any, was caused by advances in medicine in a 15-year period.

games missed per season due to injury
Steve Largent 0.86
James Lofton 2.00
Michael Irvin 2.33
Lynn Swann 2.33
John Stallworth 3.64
Charlie Joiner 1.00

Only one player missed more games due to injury than Irvin. The other four (two of whom went to fewer Pro Bowls than Irvin) missed as many or fewer games than he did.

Injuries that could destroy a player´s career 15 years before Irvin played are now the kind of things that a player routinely comes back from. That is true. But, as you can see, to suggest that Irvin went to more Pro Bowls than Swann and Joiner because he was healthier than they were is definitely NOT true.

So we can either conclude that Irvin belongs in the HOF, or that fully HALF of the SB era class of HOF wide receviers do not.

 

[AbeBeta]

I never said Stallworth does not deserve to be in the hall, though. YOU said Irvin does not.

No - I said he was somewhat borderline and gave reasons why voters might vote AGAINST him.

You see. You take someone else's argument, apply your own misinterpretation and then end up arguing against a point that was never made.

Again, that may be generally true. But as it applies to whether Irvin should be in the HOF, all you have to do is look at the receivers who are in the HOF already, and how playing in an earlier era actually affected them, if at all.

There are 6 wide receivers in the HOF whose careers began and ended completely within the Super Bowl era.

Steve Largent
James Lofton
Michael Irvin
Lynn Swann
John Stallworth
Charlie Joiner

Just look at how many games each one of them missed to see how much of a difference, if any, was caused by advances in medicine in a 15-year period.

games missed per season due to injury
Steve Largent 0.86
James Lofton 2.00
Michael Irvin 2.33
Lynn Swann 2.33
John Stallworth 3.64
Charlie Joiner 1.00

Only one player missed more games due to injury than Irvin. The other four (two of whom went to fewer Pro Bowls than Irvin) missed as many or fewer games than he did.

Injuries that could destroy a player´s career 15 years before Irvin played are now the kind of things that a player routinely comes back from. That is true. But, as you can see, to suggest that Irvin went to more Pro Bowls than Swann and Joiner because he was healthier than they were is definitely NOT true.

Again - games missed overall isn't as good an indicator as when games were missed - you have to look at when the games were missed -- Irvin missed games EARLY in his career but none during his prime. Between 79 and 82 -- when Swann was 27-30 years old he missed 16 of 64 possible games. At the same age, Irvin missed 5 games -- due to suspension. Guys get older and their bodies break down -- modern training techniques allows guys to come back whereas in the 70s and 80s that wasn't the case.

Joiner missed very few games and never went to an SB. Joiner also retired as the NFL all time leader in pass receptions - that's why he's in the hall. He's now 20th on the list - suggests a bit about how the league has changed since then.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Again, you fail to understand that discussions address many points and many possible influences -- myself and others addressed several manners that Irvin hurt that team. Again, you can't give credit for only the good influences and ignore the bad.

I can't believe that you call other people dense. That's like the pot calling the kettle black.

Where did I ignore the bad, huh? I don't think Irvin is a "borderline" HOF player. I don't think he cost the team a "legitimate shot" at a SB. Did he lessen the chances due to his suspension. Probably. But, then again, he's just a "borderline" HOF player, so he really shouldn't have had that much impact, should he? You also never gave a definition of a "legitimate" shot at a SB is, so I made a valid assumption that any team that makes the playoffs has one. Deal with it.

I said the positives far outweigh the bad. All you have is his behavior possibly cost the team a "potential" SB against 3 "actual" SBs, along with his stats not being as good as players who don't have as many SBs as him and as many probowls as he does. Whoopadeedoo!

You are the one with a strawman -- A straw man argument is based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. And that's exactly what you've done over and over.

Once again, I implore you and your strawman to seek that brain you both so desperately need.

I implore you to stop pretending that you know someone else's position when you obviously don't.

 

[percyhoward]

Again - games missed overall isn't as good an indicator as when games were missed - you have to look at when the games were missed -- Irvin missed games EARLY in his career but none during his prime. Between 79 and 82 -- when Swann was 27-30 years old he missed 16 of 64 possible games. At the same age, Irvin missed 5 games -- due to suspension. Guys get older and their bodies break down -- modern training techniques allows guys to come back whereas in the 70s and 80s that wasn't the case.

I am arguing against your assertion that Irvin is somewhat borderline. He isn't borderline at all when you consider that more than half the receivers of the Super Bowl era who were already in the HOF went to fewer Pro Bowls than he did.

Your only way around that is to say that Irvin was at an unfair advantage, because of medical advances. The point you keep missing is that it doesn't matter whether Swann missed games in his prime, but whether he missed more games than Irvin. Which he didn't. Read the following carefully:

Swann, Joiner, Lofton, and Largent did not miss any more games than Irvin did.

Taking that fact into consideration, those players were not affected by the state of medicine any more than Irvin was. If they had been, they would have missed more games. They would have been like Stallworth. According to your theory, they should have missed about as many games as Stallworth did. But that theory didn't pan out.

 

[AbeBeta]

Where did I ignore the bad, huh? I don't think Irvin is a "borderline" HOF player. I don't think he cost the team a "legitimate shot" at a SB. Did he lessen the chances due to his suspension. Probably. But, then again, he's just a "borderline" HOF player, so he really shouldn't have had that much impact, should he? You also never gave a definition of a "legitimate" shot at a SB is, so I made a valid assumption that any team that makes the playoffs has one. Deal with it.

Plain and simple -- his suspension hurt the team and greatly diminished the opportunity to win a 4th SB -- you want a definition? ask for it -- it was clear what I was talking about and I made the point over and over -- yet you stood firm on your assumption. So once you decide what you "assume" you stop listening? Clearly having to play one wild card week and having a road playoff game greatly diminishes a shot at a SB. That's a big old take away that you don't see from other WRs in the hall. Obviously the writers agree since it took a few cracks for 88's election.

 

[AbeBeta]

I am arguing against your assertion that Irvin is somewhat borderline. He isn't borderline at all when you consider that more than half the receivers of the Super Bowl era who were already in the HOF went to fewer Pro Bowls than he did.

Your only way around that is to say that Irvin was at an unfair advantage, because of medical advances. The point you keep missing is that it doesn't matter whether Swann missed games in his prime, but whether he missed more games than Irvin. Which he didn't. Read the following carefully:

Swann, Joiner, Lofton, and Largent did not miss any more games than Irvin did.

Taking that fact into consideration, those players were not affected by the state of medicine any more than Irvin was. If they had been, they would have missed more games. They would have been like Stallworth. According to your theory, they should have missed about as many games as Stallworth did. But that theory didn't pan out.

Lookit - if you want to use statistics, use them for fine-grained analysis rather than blob analysis. Irvin's missed games are packed early career and when his career ended -- Stallworth and even Swann show a different pattern. You can say "missed fewer games" all you want but that ignores WHEN games were missed and what kind of player each was at the time they missed the games.

Medicine also doesn't just affect missing games - it impacts game to game performance of players and how long a guy can play at a high level. Another issue that makes comparison between generations impossible.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Plain and simple -- his suspension hurt the team and greatly diminished the opportunity to win a 4th SB -- you want a definition? ask for it -- it was clear what I was talking about and I made the point over and over -- yet you stood firm on your assumption. So once you decide what you "assume" you stop listening? Clearly having to play one wild card week and having a road playoff game greatly diminishes a shot at a SB. That's a big old take away that you don't see from other WRs in the hall. Obviously the writers agree since it took a few cracks for 88's election.

OMG. You're argument is still stupid. Costing a team a "legitimate shot" (which you still haven't defined and which is still so vacuous because it's based on a possibility and the assumption that being a wildcard team costs you a "legitimate shot" which was obviously disproven by the Pats in 2001) at a 4th SB does not keep you out of the HOF, nor does it make you a "borderline" HOF player, especially when that same player is a tremendous part of 3 SB victories. Anyone who used this argument is asinine and if any of the "HOF" selection committee used this as their reason, they need to get their head examined.

 

[AbeBeta]

OMG. You're argument is still stupid. Costing a team a "legitimate shot" (which you still haven't defined and which is still so vacuous because it's based on a possibility and the assumption that being a wildcard team costs you a "legitimate shot" which was obviously disproven by the Pats in 2001) at a 4th SB does not keep you out of the HOF, nor does it make you a "borderline" HOF player, especially when that same player is a tremendous part of 3 SB victories. Anyone who used this argument is asinine and if any of the "HOF" selection committee used this as their reason, they need to get their head examined.

Stupid? How many times do I have to detail that I meant he seriously freaking hurt the team's chance to win the SB? Again, if you want to play the intangibles game you have to play both sides. Not just the one that supports what you want to say.

Your insistence on globbing on to some lame semantic bs is what is truly asinine.

You might take that head examine idea to heart - of course, the doctor will tell you what I've been saying all along -- you and your strawman need a visit to the wizard.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Stupid? How many times do I have to detail that I meant he seriously freaking hurt the team's chance to win the SB? Again, if you want to play the intangibles game you have to play both sides. Not just the one that supports what you want to say.

Your insistence on globbing on to some lame semantic bs is what is truly asinine.

You might take that head examine idea to heart - of course, the doctor will tell you what I've been saying all along -- you and your strawman need a visit to the wizard.

Let's consider the legitimacy of your stupid argument. Even if he hurt some team's chances to win a 4th SB, when did that become a qualification for keeping someone out of the HOF and making him "borderline" eligible, huh?

How does that in anyway diminish the fact that he was a significant contributing factor to 3 SB champtionships, huh?

How many players have 3 SB rings at the wide receiver position, huh?

There is no semantic bs.

That's the argument. I'm tired of your diversions.

 

[AbeBeta]

Let's consider the legitimacy of your stupid argument. Even if he hurt some team's chances to win a 4th SB, when did that become a qualification for keeping someone out of the HOF and making him "borderline" eligible, huh?

My argument, since your reading comprehension appears as low as ever, was that Irvin's stats did not place him in elite company -- he's top 20 in yards and receptions but 37th in TDs. Those are great #s but not the sort of mind blowing stuff that makes a slam dunk argument. He was of course a member of 3 SB teams. But again, many believe there could have been more SBs if it were not for his indiscretions. You seem to forget that he made this team the punchline of every late night show in the country for a long while. Those are negatives that take away from plus column. Other players didn't bring those negatives.
[/QUOTE]

How does that in anyway diminish the fact that he was a significant contributing factor to 3 SB champtionships, huh?

Again, you cite pluses -- minuses cancel out pluses. Please go back to your basic math course to review that.

How many players have 3 SB rings at the wide receiver position, huh?

A bordeline stupid question since as you know few teams have won 3 in a short period of time.

4 - Lynn Swann, John Stallworth
3 - let's see Troy Brown, Cliff Branch, Jerry Rice, Art Monk come to mind. How many of them are in the SB?

There is no semantic bs.

That's the argument. I'm tired of your diversions.

The argument is what we have been discussing -- not what you WANT the argument to be so that you can scream diversion.

 

[SultanOfSix]

My argument, since your reading comprehension appears as low as ever, was that Irvin's stats did not place him in elite company -- he's top 20 in yards and receptions but 37th in TDs. Those are great #s but not the sort of mind blowing stuff that makes a slam dunk argument.

We're talking about him being "borderline" HOF eligible, not him not being "slam-dunk" eligible or "shoe-in" eligible. Stop diverting the argument with different terms. You've done this multiple times already.

The TD stats is the strongest part of your argument, but even that is countered by the fact that he played every year with the NFL's leading rusher in yardage and rushing TDs.

You seem to forget that he made this team the punchline of every late night show in the country for a long while. Those are negatives that take away from plus column. Other players didn't bring those negatives.

He wasn't alone in making the team the punchline. Many of the Cowboys players on the team did. So what? Those issues are only brought up by people like you and those who have biases against Irvin on the HOF committe, and should have had nothing to do with making him borderline "HOF" eligible. They were irrelevant when LT got in, and should have been irrelevant for Irvin. You can't say LT is so great so it really doesn't matter that he did such and such a bad thing, while at the same time consider it for someone else who you think is "borderline" because you want to supplement your agurment with these false negatives so that you can keep him out.

Again, you cite pluses -- minuses cancel out pluses. Please go back to your basic math course to review that.

Whopadeedoo! Minuses cancel out the pluses only if they are of equal value. Costing a team a "possible" SB (which wasn't even your argument - it was costing the team a "legitmate shot" at the SB which you have yet to define) even if we consider this stupid argument, isn't even remotely comparable to winning three of them. In addition to this fact, you can't even subtract a "possibility".

That is why this portion of your argument is and always will be so stupid.