Dr. Z Mailbag

[AbeBeta]

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.

If you aren't a slam dunk then you are borderline. Again, he was obviously viewed as borderline by far more people than myself -- otherwise his election would have happened sooner.

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.

Irvin wasn't alone -- but he was admittedly a team leader - and if your leader is doing awful stuff, the example is a tough one to shake.

LT is a dumb comparison because LT was FAR more dominant at his position.

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.

Legitimate shot? Since the advent of the wildcard week and the bye for the top teams, no repeat champion has played wildcard week -- they ALL had a week off before the divisional playoff week.

Legitimate (def.) Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards.

Never has the pattern of going to the wildcard game and repeating as champion been established. Therefore it is not a legitimate chance.

 

[SultanOfSix]

If you aren't a slam dunk then you are borderline.

This is a joke right? So what are players considered who take six, seven, eight, twelve years to get in compared to Irvin's third year?

You are marvelous at changing your standards as you go along, just like your arguments.

Again, he was obviously viewed as borderline by far more people than myself -- otherwise his election would have happened sooner.

Yeah, if we go by you're gawd awful definition of the "third time's a charm" of eligibility makes him "borderline".

Irvin wasn't alone -- but he was admittedly a team leader - and if your leader is doing awful stuff, the example is a tough one to shake

And so?

LT is a dumb comparison because LT was FAR more dominant at his position.

Yeah, I guess the point went whoosh over your head. You either accept negative behavior as a detriment to qualification, or you don't. It wasn't even considered in LT's case. It was considered in Irvin's case by people like yourself and those on the "HOF" committee only because it supported their already biased views to disallow him entrance into the HOF. In other words, it was used as an "excuse".

Legitimate shot? Since the advent of the wildcard week and the bye for the top teams, no repeat champion has played wildcard week -- they ALL had a week off before the divisional playoff week.

ROFL. So, now we're talking about "repeat" champions. You're diversionary tactics are legendary.

Legitimate (def.) Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards.

How about we use the first and second definitions from Merriam Webster online instead of the 4th: "lawfully begotten" or "neither spurious nor false".

Never has the pattern of going to the wildcard game and repeating as champion been established. Therefore it is not a legitimate chance

ROFL. And you accused me of "semantic" bs?

I love how having a "legitimate shot" at a SB now includes a necessary or increased advantage of probability of allowing a "repeat" championship? Your arguments really are pathetic.

 

[AbeBeta]

ROFL. And you accused me of "semantic" bs?

I love how having a "legitimate shot" at a SB now includes a necessary or increased advantage of probability of allowing a "repeat" championship? Your arguments really are pathetic.

You want to play semantics then accept that your lame argument got trumped by the dictionary. I just went lexicon on your butt and now you are crying foul.

You continue to get confused/angry anytime any context is brought into an argument. I wish I lived in the simple world where your arguments hold water.

 

[SultanOfSix]

You want to play semantics then accept that your lame argument got trumped by the dictionary. I just went lexicon on your butt and now you are crying foul.

You continue to get confused/angry anytime any context is brought into an argument. I wish I lived in the simple world where your arguments hold water.

LOL. You went "lexicon on my butt" and actually exemplified the incorrect application of the definition in support of your argument.

You saw the keywords "accepted patterns and standards" or "recognized principles" and somehow tried to show that a previous SB winner only has a "legitimate shot" at a SB if its seeding is greater than a wildcard because of "past history" (which has nothing to do with either of those phrases), and you're claiming that you used a dicitonary?

It was quite laughable.

 

[AbeBeta]

It was quite laughable.

Laughable?

You mean like your complete understanding of any argument?

Your need to have that argument presented to you 4-5 times because you fail to comprehend what was posted in the thread?

Your insistence that any issue you do not label as central to some sliver of the discussion that you have latched on to as "diversion?"

That is what is laughable in this thread.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Laughable?

You mean like your complete understanding of any argument?

Don't you mean my complete "misunderstanding" of any argument?

LOL.

You went from at least attempting to rebut my responses to quoting my statement that pronounced my belief that your semantic garbage application of the word "legitimate" was laughable.

Good job.

 

[AbeBeta]

Don't you mean my complete "misunderstanding" of any argument?

LOL.

You went from at least attempting to rebut my responses to quoting my statement that pronounced my belief that your semantic garbage application of the word "legitimate" was laughable.

Good job.

You are amazing -- you bring issues into an argument and then scream "diversion" when I address them.

Your arguments consistent of screaming "LOL" - rather than showing any evidence of thought or analysis.

 

[SultanOfSix]

You are amazing -- you bring issues into an argument and then scream "diversion" when I address them.

Your arguments consistent of screaming "LOL" - rather than showing any evidence of thought or analysis.

Yeah, man. I just went back and read all my responses to your quotes, and all I saw was LOL, ROFL, LMAO, and all the other humor related acronyms that are so prominent on the internet.

All the other text was just filler information to increase my word count.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

WHEN the game were missed has nothing to do with medicine. It only suggests that Swann and Stallworth might have gone to more Pro Bowls if they hadn't been hurt when they were. Since Irvin missed as many or more games than 4 of the other 5 receivers, I ask you how does that add up to an unfair advantage for Michael Irvin?

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.

Then show how this general statement applies to the Hall of Fame receivers of the Super Bowl era. Most of them played longer than Irvin did, so where is this impact?

Focus on the issue.

 

[AbeBeta]

Then show how this general statement applies to the Hall of Fame receivers of the Super Bowl era. Most of them played longer than Irvin did, so where is this impact?

Focus on the issue.

You focus on the issue -- I've shown you how both Stallworth and Swann were affected -- they are a reasonable comparison group b/c they are other HoF receivers with multiple superbowls.

 

[percyhoward]

You focus on the issue -- I've shown you how both Stallworth and Swann were affected -- they are a reasonable comparison group b/c they are other HoF receivers with multiple superbowls.

That's two out of the five WR's in question, and all you've shown is that they were affected by injuries, just as Irvin was. What you have not shown is how they (or the other three) suffered by playing in another era. You have not shown that they missed more games or had shorter careers. You can't leave out Largent, Lofton, and Joiner because winning fewer Super Bowls doesn't make a player any more or less susceptible to injuries.

 

[AbeBeta]

That's two out of the five WR's in question, and all you've shown is that they were affected by injuries, just as Irvin was. What you have not shown is how they (or the other three) suffered by playing in another era. You have not shown that they missed more games or had shorter careers. You can't leave out Largent, Lofton, and Joiner because winning fewer Super Bowls doesn't make a player any more or less susceptible to injuries.

What exactly are you arguing here? That I haven't shown that ALL of those guys were affected in the same manner. How are the Largent, Lofton, and Joiners comparisons relevant again? I never claimed that EVERY HoF receiver was affected by injuries. Largent and Lofton both made it to 7 or 8 of your precious pro bowls. Joiner retired the league's reception leader. They were fortunate enough to be mostly healthy throughout the primes of their career.

I have shown very clearly that Stallworth and Swann both missed games during the periods where most receivers have peak productivity. You want to ignore that in favor of some overall measure of games missed. That's fine. Idiotic and completely ignorant of context, but fine.

 

[percyhoward]

What exactly are you arguing here? That I haven't shown that ALL of those guys were affected in the same manner. How are the Largent, Lofton, and Joiners comparisons relevant again? I never claimed that EVERY HoF receiver was affected by injuries. Largent and Lofton both made it to 7 or 8 of your precious pro bowls. Joiner retired the league's reception leader. They were fortunate enough to be mostly healthy throughout the primes of their career.

I have shown very clearly that Stallworth and Swann both missed games during the periods where most receivers have peak productivity. You want to ignore that in favor of some overall measure of games missed. That's fine. Idiotic and completely ignorant of context, but fine.

All you're saying now is that Swann and Stallworth might have gone to more Pro Bowls if they hadn't been hurt in their primes, I understand that, and make no beef there. That has nothing to do with Irvin, though.

What you were saying before was that Irvin was somewhat borderline because he benefitted from the unfair advantage of having played in an era when players were healthier, played longer, missed fewer games, and thus had more opportunities to pile up Pro Bowls. Well, until you show how the other five actually suffered by playing in another era, that argument doesn't work.

All five players are indeed relevant, because they were all playing during this time when, according to you, players were less healthy, played shorter careers, missed more games, and thus had fewer opportunities to pile up Pro Bowls.

Just show how Irvin unfairly benefitted compared to this group.

Edit: Of the 45 Pro Bowl wide receivers who played most of their careers between 1974-88, only 13 missed more games per season in their careers than Irvin did in his. That means 32 of the 45 had careers as healthy or healthier than Irvin's. The advantage you talk about just isn't there. Stallworth is not the norm. Largent, Swann, Lofton, and Joiner are.

 

[AbeBeta]

Just show how Irvin unfairly benefitted compared to this group.

Over and over I've shown that Irvin was more healthy in his peak years.

Edit: Of the 45 Pro Bowl wide receivers who played most of their careers between 1974-88, only 13 missed more games per season in their careers than Irvin did in his. That means 32 of the 45 had careers as healthy or healthier than Irvin's. The advantage you talk about just isn't there. Stallworth is not the norm. Largent, Swann, Lofton, and Joiner are.

You ignore what I've shown over and over on Swann - and that applies to every player - it is when they suffered injuries and what it did to their ability to have a probowl year and how fast they could return to a peak level. 2 of 5 guys in the hall were limited b/c of injuries -- yet you call the other 3 the "norm." Fascinating. Even if I take your lame blob analysis, it shows that nearly 30% of the guys you cite missed more game than Irvin. You can claim the others were "healthier" but again, when they were healthy and how long they could perform at a high level is a huge part of the medical issue. You know that but over and over again choose to ignore it.

 

[percyhoward]

Over and over I've shown that Irvin was more healthy in his peak years.

The WHEN of it doesn't apply to your original argument. It has nothing to do with modern medicine, improved training techniques, etc. His two serious injuries were early in his career, and then again late in his career. Show the connection with medicine, and you have a case. Just saying he was lucky enough to be healthy in his prime (while Stallworth was not) is no case. And if you don't attribute it to luck, but to improvements in medicine, then why did Irvin miss so many games in his era?

You ignore what I've shown over and over on Swann - and that applies to every player - it is when they suffered injuries and what it did to their ability to have a probowl year and how fast they could return to a peak level. 2 of 5 guys in the hall were limited b/c of injuries -- yet you call the other 3 the "norm." Fascinating. Even if I take your lame blob analysis, it shows that nearly 30% of the guys you cite missed more game than Irvin.

I'm not ignoring the fact that injuries cost Stallworth what would have been maybe two of his best seasons. I'm acknowledging that fact, and reminding you that Stallworth's missed playing time was atypical of his era, so it can't possibly an example of any unfair disadvantage regarding Irvin.

And the other three were the "norm," because they are in that 70% who missed fewer games than Irvin. What fascinates you about 70% being normal and 30% being the unlucky ones? Would you describe it the other way around?

You can claim the others were "healthier" but again, when they were healthy and how long they could perform at a high level is a huge part of the medical issue.

I'll be honest. I don't understand how WHEN they were healthy is affected by the medical issue. What is it about the state of medicine that determines whether a player will miss games in his prime, or miss games when he's already past his prime? You'll have to make a connection there which would seem to defy logic.

If Irvin missed more games than 70% of the Pro Bowl WR's of Stallworth's era, it shows that he was not playing with an unfair health advantage over those players. I'm NOT trying to say that Irvin would have gone to more Pro Bowls (as Stallworth clearly might have), but that isn't the point. Irvin already had more than enough Pro Bowls and rings to justify his induction. I hope this clears up the WHEN issue for you.

Read the two sentences below if you don't mind. I want to know if you see the difference.

1 Swann and Joiner might have gone to more Pro Bowls if they hadn't missed so many games.

2 Swann and Joiner might have gone to more Pro Bowls if they hadn't missed more games than Irvin.

I actually agree with #1. But that doesn't affect Irvin in any way. Problem with #2 is that neither Swann nor Joiner (nor Largent, nor Lofton) missed more games than Irvin.

I don't doubt that these other receivers' Pro Bowl chances would have gone up if they'd missed fewer games, what I question is why (if the state of medicine in the 70's and 80's was really the cause of these missed games) only one of the five missed more games than Irvin.

Got an answer for that one?

Because if not, then the variation in the number of missed games has more to do with the individual player's training habits, general health, durability, and even dumb luck, than with the state of medicine. And that doesn't leave you with much of an argument. It's basically Emmitt Smith vs. Terrell Davis.

 

[AbeBeta]

I don't doubt that these other receivers' Pro Bowl chances would have gone up if they'd missed fewer games, what I question is why (if the state of medicine in the 70's and 80's was really the cause of these missed games) only one of the five missed more games than Irvin.

Got an answer for that one?

Because if not, then the variation in the number of missed games has more to do with the individual player's training habits, general health, durability, and even dumb luck, than with the state of medicine. And that doesn't leave you with much of an argument. It's basically Emmitt Smith vs. Terrell Davis.

Again, medicine and training affect games played AND your ability to stay healthy as you get more miles on you AND your weekly performance and rebound from injury. There are certainly other factors but you can't debate that players have far more advantages now -- to ignore that those advantages help guys play at a high level for longer is just plain dumb.

I've said about 100 times -- you have to look at when guys miss games -- guys tend to break down as they get OLDER. Guys like Swann and Stallworth clearly show that pattern of break down from a series of injuries whereas Irvin showed a pattern of good health until a freak injury ended his career.

 

[percyhoward]

I've said about 100 times -- you have to look at when guys miss games -- guys tend to break down as they get OLDER. Guys like Swann and Stallworth clearly show that pattern of break down from a series of injuries whereas Irvin showed a pattern of good health until a freak injury ended his career.

Swann himself says he did not retire because of injuries.

Stallworth missed a total of 5 games during his last four years, and 25 games the four years before that.

Who are the "guys like them" in the Hall of Fame?

Where's the breakdown pattern?

 

[AbeBeta]

Swann himself says he did not retire because of injuries.

Stallworth missed a total of 5 games during his last four years, and 25 games the four years before that.

Who are the "guys like them" in the Hall of Fame?

Where's the breakdown pattern?

I guess I just imagined those 18 games Swann missed in his last 4 years. Just totally imagined it.

 

[percyhoward]

I guess I just imagined those 18 games Swann missed in his last 4 years. Just totally imagined it.

Don't tell me, tell Swann. Hey, maybe he's lying.

And again, that's just one guy. What happened to your Stallworth argument?

Besides, all of Irvin's major accomplishments came during the first two-thirds of his career. His first 8 years match up pretty well against others', and he added no extra Pro Bowls in the final one-third of his career. He wasn't inducted into the Hall of Fame for anything he did during the time when he supposedly had an unfair health advantage anyway.

 

[AbeBeta]

And again, that's just one guy. What happened to your Stallworth argument?

You mean Stallworth who missed more games than any other player by your own data? You can say "last 4 years" -- but if you look at last 5 years you will see that he missed 21 games total of 80 possible. Yeah, you really blew that argument up.

Whether Swann says he retired due to injuries or not is irrelevant to the fact that he was injured constantly during his last few years and those injuries are pretty clearly the reason why a guy who was a probowler for 3 of his 1st 5 years didn't sniff one after that.