Ray Rice

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have to be honest Bob. i was a bit surpirised at CJ's stats. I kept on hearing about how he feasted on inferior competition but in reality he did better against winning teams.

And youre right, Count saying that its bad that he did better against better teams is just him hating.

 

[TheCount]

I have to be honest Bob. i was a bit surpirised at CJ's stats. I kept on hearing about how he feasted on inferior competition but in reality he did better against winning teams.

And youre right, Count saying that its bad that he did better against better teams is just him hating.

What? When did I say that?

And the idea of me as a CJ hater is comical. The fact that I look at both the bad and good of players, especially the ones I like, is apparently too much for some to handle.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nice to see your attention to detail is in tact.

What I meant was that Chris Johnson played poorly against non-winning teams, but that wasn't even the point. The point was that picking and choosing numbers is pointless, and here you are going back over old posts to find mistakes in the numbers.

I'd be happy with either CJ or RR in the draft. In the second round. Neither player is flawless.

......

And what single negative thing have you said about Rice?

 

[TheCount]

......

And what single negative thing have you said about Rice?

You did see me post his scouting report right? Both the positives and negatives?

Did you also bother to read the entire quote you just posted? Right after I said that wasn't the point, I was saying that to prove how ridiculous it was to take just a particular number and use it to judge the player. How hard is this to understand, I mean seriously.

Hell, right after even that sentence, I say I'd be happy to have both.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You did see me post his scouting report right? Both the positives and negatives?

Did you also bother to read the entire quote you just posted? Right after I said that wasn't the point, I was saying that to prove how ridiculous it was to take just a particular number and use it to judge the player. How hard is this to understand, I mean seriously.

Hell, right after even that sentence, I say I'd be happy to have both.

And its just as ridiculous that you cannot look at splits like this and discern truths or raise questions.

Its not like we are using small sample sizes and its not as if its not important to look at how a player performs in different situations and conditions.

 

[TheCount]

And its just as ridiculous that you cannot look at splits like this and discern truths or raise questions.

Its not like we are using small sample sizes and its not as if its not important to look at how a player performs in different situations and conditions.

You wouldn't call two games against ranked opponents (for both of them) as a small sample size?

Over their college careers, Rice has the higher average against ranked opponents anyway, so there goes that argument. And both averages are far from stellar at under 4 YPC.

I'm perfectly capable of raising questions, that is exactly what I'm doing when I say numbers mean nothing without context. The context is where the questions come from. Numbers are just numbers.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You wouldn't call two games against ranked opponents (for both of them) as a small sample size?

Over their college careers, Rice has the higher average against ranked opponents anyway, so there goes that argument. And both averages are far from stellar at under 4 YPC.

I'm perfectly capable of raising questions, that is exactly what I'm doing when I say numbers mean nothing without context. The context is where the questions come from. Numbers are just numbers.

The context is inherent within the split. This is what they did against teams with winning records. here is what they did on turf vs grass etc.

I will agree that the 50 carries in 2 games for ranked opponents is pointless but against winning teams is half their carries and is definitely worthwhile looking at.

 

[TheCount]

The context is inherent within the split. This is what they did against teams with winning records. here is what they did on turf vs grass etc.

I will agree that the 50 carries in 2 games for ranked opponents is pointless but against winning teams is half their carries and is definitely worthwhile looking at.

Oh I certainly agree it's worth looking at, I just don't feel it's enough to make any conclusions on a player.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

What? When did I say that?

And the idea of me as a CJ hater is comical. The fact that I look at both the bad and good of players, especially the ones I like, is apparently too much for some to handle.

what you fail to understand is that you're choosing to look at the meaningless negatives, like how he did against non-winning teams, or that he didn't rush too well at home, who cares? the more important stat to look at is how he does against better comp

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Oh I certainly agree it's worth looking at, I just don't feel it's enough to make any conclusions on a player.

we're not making any conclusions here, just pointing out that it's a good bet that CJ can make the leap to the NFL, because he produced against winning teams his final season

it's draft time, this is what you do, look at how a player projects to the NFL, and CJ projects quite well due to his production his final season as a RB, and his pro-potential

 

[TheCount]

what you fail to understand is that you're choosing to look at the meaningless negatives, like how he did against non-winning teams, or that he didn't rush too well at home, who cares? the more important stat to look at is how he does against better comp

I honestly don't know how to be any more clear about the fact that I was saying that stuff was stupid, it was meant as an example as to how numbers can be MISLEADING or simply worthless.

The fact that he supposedly didn't run well at home is as worthless as the fact that he ran well away from home.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I honestly don't know how to be any more clear about the fact that I was saying that stuff was stupid, it was meant as an example as to how numbers can be MISLEADING or simply worthless.

The fact that he supposedly didn't run well at home is as worthless as the fact that he ran well away from home.

They are only misleading if you have a predetermined conclusion. You take them for what they are worth. If he did not run at home then that raises the question why didn't he run well at home. Its nothing more and nothing less.

However playing well against winning teams bodes well.