Who can we least afford to lose?

[superpunk]

come on now. theogt and I constantly argue on this board.

you likely see us as similar b/c we are both intelligent professionals who make strong points and can spell.

 

[AbeBeta]

Booyakasha!

that was so totally my halloween costume two years ago

 

[theogt]

that was so totally my halloween costume two years ago

Have you seen Flight of the Conchords on HBO? It's a new comedy. Pretty good.

 

[AbeBeta]

Have you seen Flight of the Conchords on HBO? It's a new comedy. Pretty good.

Loved it. That one dude looks like some sort of hipster caveman.

 

[theogt]

Loved it. That one dude looks like some sort of hipster caveman.

I'm curious to see if they'll keep up the quality of the songs in a weekly series.

 

[Vintage]

I'm curious to see if they'll keep up the quality of the songs in a weekly series.

Youtube has a bunch of their stuff on it...

 

[PBJTime]

That's an odd approach. Your best measure or "speed" (or anything for that matter) is an average taken over multiple measurements. If you are really a 4.8 guy you make break off the occassional 4.69 or even 4.91. That's what is called "variability" - The true time is reflected by the average of multiple runs -- not just the best time out of the bunch.

Tell me, if you were a doctor and you had a patient who showed high blood pressure on 5 visits but normal BP on 1 visit, would you take the BEST that the patient did in that category?

I realize that an average will give you a more comprehensive look at how a player measures up. The problem is, many list their best times as opposed to their average so it wouldn't be fair to compare an average to a best. Also, if you look at their best time, you can see what their "potential" is. If looking for their potential, then it is not wise to simply discount their best time.

If you want to include things in the health field, there are plenty of times when one would look at the best measurable. I work in physical therapy; when measuring the range of motion for a patient's extremity, for example, you measure the angle of movement and take note of the most amount of movement you can obtain from the patient.

Obviously, blood pressure is something that needs to be averaged because of the variables involved that can elevate or decrease it. In the case of a football player, I want to know how fast he can run, not what his average speed is compared to the best times of others.

 

[AbeBeta]

I realize that an average will give you a more comprehensive look at how a player measures up. The problem is, many list their best times as opposed to their average so it wouldn't be fair to compare an average to a best. Also, if you look at their best time, you can see what their "potential" is. If looking for their potential, then it is not wise to simply discount their best time.

No, your potential is best expressed as your average.

Your best scores will always regress toward the average -- the best result is far more likely an anomaly than your "potential"

That's a statistical fact my friend.

For more on this issue, look up "regression to the mean" on wikipedia

 

[PBJTime]

No, your potential is best expressed as your average.

Your best scores will always regress toward the average -- the best result is far more likely an anomaly than your "potential"

That's a statistical fact my friend.

For more on this issue, look up "regression to the mean" on wikipedia

A statistical fact is that he can indeed run a 4.69 or 4.7...whatever you guys decided on. He ran it, it's possible, nothing to argue about. Just look at Olympic sports. We don't give medals to the best averages, we give medals to the best times. Let's look at an example of someone who sets a track record for 400m or something like that. Setting a track record is an "extreme score" and is undoubtedly higher than the runner's average. To set a track record, many variables come into play, including luck, and how well that runner ran that day. Just because this runner is likely to regress towards the mean does not mean this track record is not valid. So, he/she gets a medal for it.

To discount someone's best 40 time (the ultimate goal being to actually see how fast he can run a 40) is absurd.

In any case, I'm well aware of how to analyze statistics, but the fact remains that players are measured by their best 40 times so it's unfair to judge one with his average with other's best times.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Outside of Romo, I'd say Newman. I would say Ware, but we've got 2 competent (*fingers crossed*) pass-rushers other than Ware in Ellis and Spencer. We also have 4 different potential options behind Flozell (McQ, Free, Marten, and Davis), so that's not as big a problem as has been in the past.

But behind Newman we got squat.

 

[AbeBeta]

To discount someone's best 40 time (the ultimate goal being to actually see how fast he can run a 40) is absurd.

In any case, I'm well aware of how to analyze statistics, but the fact remains that players are measured by their best 40 times so it's unfair to judge one with his average with other's best times.

Actually, to call the most extreme score someone has a good indication of his "potential" is what is absurd.

That's someone on his very best day. That best day may never occur on gameday. Of course, his average day will happen over and over on gameday.

 

[PBJTime]

Actually, to call the most extreme score someone has a good indication of his "potential" is what is absurd.

That's someone on his very best day. That best day may never occur on gameday. Of course, his average day will happen over and over on gameday.

Whether or not it happens everyday is not the point I'm trying to make. I am aware that an average is just that...something that will happen more often than not. Do I think that his best time means he'll do that every down of every game? Of course not. But I do know that the potential is there. You may call it an anomaly. I call it the max potential he's shown so far, in regards to his 40 time. Tell Carl Lewis that his records on the track were anomalies.

In any case, I've made my point abundantly clear. Surely you can see that, even if you will never admit it. I'm just going to agree to disagree.

Cheers.:beer1:

 

[theogt]

Whether or not it happens everyday is not the point I'm trying to make. I am aware that an average is just that...something that will happen more often than not. Do I think that his best time means he'll do that every down of every game? Of course not. But I do know that the potential is there. You may call it an anomaly. I call it the max potential he's shown so far, in regards to his 40 time. Tell Carl Lewis that his records on the track were anomalies.

In any case, I've made my point abundantly clear. Surely you can see that, even if you will never admit it. I'm just going to agree to disagree.

Cheers.:beer1:

This is all moot. You don't use the Pro Day numbers, period. They absolutely cannot be trusted. They're on different turfs with different weather conditions. You use the Combine number and that's it. His best Combine number was a 4.70. So, at best, he's a 4.7 guy. Not remarkable.

 

[Stautner]

This is all moot. You don't use the Pro Day numbers, period. They absolutely cannot be trusted. They're on different turfs with different weather conditions. You use the Combine number and that's it. His best Combine number was a 4.70. So, at best, he's a 4.7 guy. Not remarkable.

WOW - Ranting on and on and on and on and on to convince people he is a 4.7 guy rather than a 4.69 guy.

I'll give you an A for persistence, but it has to be an F for content - 1/100 of a second just isn't a justifiable difference to wage war over.

But lets call it a day (or 2 or 3) on the topic of Spencer's "measurables". This just isn't contorversial enough to merit a 3 day discussion - especially since my original comment about "measurables" was only a sideline to the real point of my post.

 

[Vintage]

WOW - Ranting on and on and on and on and on to convince people he is a 4.7 guy rather than a 4.69 guy.

I'll give you an A for persistence, but it has to be an F for content - 1/100 of a second just isn't a justifiable difference to wage war over.

But lets call it a day (or 2 or 3) on the topic of Spencer's "measurables". This just isn't contorversial enough to merit a 3 day discussion - especially since my original comment about "measurables" was only a sideline to the real point of my post.

He was saying Spencer isn't a 4.6 guy in the beginning.

4.69 is not 4.6

Then, he was saying he was a 4.7 guy because that's what he ran at the combine (the big thingy where the 40 times actually matter)

 

[Stautner]

He was saying Spencer isn't a 4.6 guy in the beginning.

4.69 is not 4.6

Then, he was saying he was a 4.7 guy because that's what he ran at the combine (the big thingy where the 40 times actually matter)

The post he was responding to discussed Spencer's best time as 4.69, not 4.6 ....... (look at the full post he was responding to, not just the fragment he quoted).

And 4.69 is not 4.7 ....... and 4.7 is not 4.7000000002 ........ at what point does the discussion get ridiculous?

 

[AbeBeta]

Whether or not it happens everyday is not the point I'm trying to make. I am aware that an average is just that...something that will happen more often than not. Do I think that his best time means he'll do that every down of every game? Of course not. But I do know that the potential is there. You may call it an anomaly. I call it the max potential he's shown so far, in regards to his 40 time. Tell Carl Lewis that his records on the track were anomalies.

In any case, I've made my point abundantly clear. Surely you can see that, even if you will never admit it. I'm just going to agree to disagree.

Your point is abundantly clear.

It is also abundantly incorrect.

You can call it "max potential" but statistically that will never be what he shows day in and day out.

 

[Stautner]

Your point is abundantly clear.

It is also abundantly incorrect.

You can call it "max potential" but statistically that will never be what he shows day in and day out.

You are proving over and over and over again that you and ogt are one and the same.

Of course the primary proof was yesterday when you screwed up and took credit for a statement that was actually made under the ogt monikker.

Nevertheless, you are still fighting tooth and nail over 1/100 of a second - GET OVER IT - that's minute, inconsequential, it's not controversial, its a difference that is so tiny that a scout wouldn't even bat an eye about it.

And it's STILL a fight you initially insisted on starting over a comment that was only a sideline to the point of my post.

 

[AbeBeta]

You are proving over and over and over again that you and ogt are one and the same.

Of course the primary proof was yesterday when you screwed up and took credit for a statement that was actually made under the ogt monikker.

Nevertheless, you are still fighting tooth and nail over 1/100 of a second - GET OVER IT - that's minute, inconsequential, it's not controversial, its a difference that is so tiny that a scout wouldn't even bat an eye about it.

I'm discussing a completely different point -- whether you look at a guy's "best ever" or his average. I never once brought up the other issue.

I think that you might need to start taking notes on what transpires here b/c you have such a hard time following.

 

[bobtheflob]

But lets call it a day (or 2 or 3) on the topic of Spencer's "measurables". This just isn't contorversial enough to merit a 3 day discussion - especially since my original comment about "measurables" was only a sideline to the real point of my post.

I agree. Believe it or not, this discussion was not what I envisioned when I started this thread.