WR In the First Round Is a Horrible Idea

[superpunk]

ray2:

foiled.

http://i32.***BLOCKED***/albums/d2/superpunk2884/62df31ff0888f250afb15d348e59.gif

 

[theogt]

I took engineering statistics. I even went so far as to go look at my notes on the subject and really all I have to say is just shut up Theo. If you could put me in my place and actually explain it you would have. You cant so just shut up.

Ok. I'll explain it as if I were explaining it to a 3 year old, because, honestly, it is that simple.

You took every single wide receiver drafted in the first round. You then labeled each WR as a "boom" or "bust." You then calculated the percentage of all WRs that were "busts" (and "booms"), which was about 50%. To make your analysis more useful, you would have to look at the value that all of the "boom" receivers contributed to those teams over the years. This average value of the "boom" receivers would be your potential return if the receiver you picked happened to be a "boom" rather than a "bust." The expected value of drafting a WR would then be whatever value you assigned to those "boom" receivers by the likelihood of drafting a "boom" receiver (i.e., 50%). Only at that point could you begin to compare the value of drafting a wide receiver to the value of drafting some other position.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually, no you haven't. You've simply stated, "expected value isn't necessary" or some such line and expected me or anyone else to take your word at face value.

Yes, I did.

Didn't catch it. What was that again?

What's your point? I responded to the more elaborate post on the same subject. Do I honestly have to reply to every single post, even if they say the same thing?

Sure, I did.

How bout you spend some time actually coming up with some useful analysis, rather than wasting everyone's time trying to explain to you how yours is inadequate and useless.

Theo anyone who has actually read this thread as well as you and I know this to be simple posturing on your part. We can sit here and go back and forth but there have been at least two times that i have summed up your arguments and my responses and with the most recent you have gone to your latest strawman, expected return.

Like I said expected return is sef evident in this case and that is why it doesnt matter. If you have some better system and would like to share it with us but otherwise just shut up.

And im still waiting for your explanation as to why you cannot find the mean of a set of 1 nonzero value cause you sure as hades didnt respond to that.

 

[theogt]

Theo anyone who has actually read this thread as well as you and I know this to be simple posturing on your part. We can sit here and go back and forth but there have been at least two times that i have summed up your arguments and my responses and with the most recent you have gone to your latest strawman, expected return.

Actually, no. You may think you have summed my arguments, but my point was always that you didn't fully understand my argument; thus, your summation and whatever response you gave was worthless.

Like I said expected return is sef evident in this case and that is why it doesnt matter. If you have some better system and would like to share it with us but otherwise just shut up.

Self-evident? How? How could it possibly be self-evident? A "boom" OT does not have the same value to a team as a "boom" WR. I wouldn't consider Flozell Adams a "bust" and I wouldn't consider Marvin Harrison a "bust" (which means they are both "booms"), but they clearly do not have the same value to their teams. Expected return is not self-evident. If that is your refutation of my argument, I'm sorry, but it's hollow.

And im still waiting for your explanation as to why you cannot find the mean of a set of 1 nonzero value cause you sure as hades didnt respond to that.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[jackrussell]

= we need young wr

 

[superpunk]

I've spent 5 minutes trying to figure out the hieroglyphics. What I've determined is that the expected return on the nachos and slurpee I just had is about 6 hours away and will last approximately 10 minutes.

I just got "When the Tuna came down to Dallas" (because I'm topical) so that should give me something to do.

Oh....and we need a young WR. That too.

 

[theogt]

Now seemed like a good time to post some of my high school work.

http://img50.*************/img50/7969/curvekg0.jpg

http://img79.*************/img79/2294/heattj1.jpg

http://img79.*************/img79/672/protonxm5.jpg

http://img79.*************/img79/7163/rampdr5.jpg

 

[superpunk]

GREAT THREAD!

I nearly did the identity of Batman thing on a rate of change problem. Then I was like, "no, I will describe how much the volume of a cylinder is expanding at any one instant, because that is more pointless than knowing Batman's true identity."

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ok. I'll explain it as if I were explaining it to a 3 year old, because, honestly, it is that simple.

You took every single wide receiver drafted in the first round. You then labeled each WR as a "boom" or "bust." You then calculated the percentage of all WRs that were "busts" (and "booms"), which was about 50%. To make your analysis more useful, you would have to look at the value that all of the "boom" receivers contributed to those teams over the years. This average value of the "boom" receivers would be your potential return if the receiver you picked happened to be a "boom" rather than a "bust." The expected value of drafting a WR would then be whatever value you assigned to those "boom" receivers by the likelihood of drafting a "boom" receiver (i.e., 50%). Only at that point could you begin to compare the value of drafting a wide receiver to the value of drafting some other position.

Okay so now youre waffling back to your original position. Now youre not saying its mathematical despite all of your posts saying it was but now youre back to what I was initially arguing and I will restate what those arguments were. Now im sure you will once again switch your stance and say i dont know what im talking about thus the red herring comments but here we go for the 4th time now:

1) The expected contribution of a player to the team is so arbitrary as to be meaningless. It is one thing to say player x is either a bust or a quality starter versus saying player x was expected to contribute x amount to his team or player x actually contributed this much to his team. If you were to poll 10 different people you would get 10 radically different answeres on one player much less on 200 or more. As such a concensus would be impossible and it would be pointless for the purposes of discussion.

Remember that? Remember how you said nothing other than i dont know what Im talking about?

2) Because of the ambiguous nature of 'contributions' it is an unduly onerous task to chart the players. It would be one thing to chart WRs but the 'contributions' of OT and DE esp in the run game are intangible. Essentially you set an unachievable task and then cry foul when its not achieved.

Remember that? Remember when you said nothing other than I dont know what im talking about?

3) Setting the standard low subsumes all of this. By setting the standard low, you automatically trap all of the quality players that actually would 'contribute' to a team and put significance to it. As such including 'contributions' is unecessary.

Remember that? Remember when you said nothing other than I dont know what im talking about?

4) Even if you could do what you say there is no guarantee that your system would be truly representative. The people looking at my system do not necessarily disagree with my data that WRs are the highest risk but rather how apply it to decision making. In order to truly prove your point you would need to actually do it and demonstrate is effectiveness. SOMETHING >>>> NOTHING.

Remember that? Remember when you said nothing other than I dont know what im talking about?

5) Even if there is a 'better' system out there. That does not mean my system has no value. There is no pecking order if you will. If i grant that your system is better that doesnt lessen the value of my system it just means your system is better. Seeing that your system doesnt exist and mine does then its a moot point to even discuss it.

Remember that? Remember when you said nothing other than I dont know what im talking about?

So we going to go back to math now? Im just going to copy and paste this to all your posts that repeat the same drivel from now on.

 

[Clove]

A nerds thread. Arguing about things none of us can change, and none of us will get paid 1 cent for winning the argument. I can understand having a debate, but to measure organ sizes in a forum because we can't look bad is pretty much laughable.
Now how many days to the draft, and how can we fast forward our lives through the torture of threads with no other purpose but attempting to be forum royalty?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually, no. You may think you have summed my arguments, but my point was always that you didn't fully understand my argument; thus, your summation and whatever response you gave was worthless.

Self-evident? How? How could it possibly be self-evident? A "boom" OT does not have the same value to a team as a "boom" WR. I wouldn't consider Flozell Adams a "bust" and I wouldn't consider Marvin Harrison a "bust" (which means they are both "booms"), but they clearly do not have the same value to their teams. Expected return is not self-evident. If that is your refutation of my argument, I'm sorry, but it's hollow.

What does this have to do with anything?

Because mean = average and you were stating that an expected return doesnt have to be a weighted average. Im sorry if thatr is difficult for you to grasp.

And i already did the math. Remember (.49*0+.51*1) = .51 which someone can get the inferrence from just looking at 49% bust rate. And your arbitrary BS is just that, BS.

And if they are so worthless and dont apply why have you been able to elaborate as to why? Oh yeah because you cant. ive given intelligble responses when your tripe doesnt apply but for some reason poor old theo just cannot.

 

[superpunk]

Now how many days to the draft, and how can we fast forward our lives through the torture of threads with no other purpose but attempting to be forum royalty?

Appoint me as lord and savior. That's really the only option. I'm thinking I'm going to need cheetos as appeasement, as well as a steady stream of supple-handed bears, who will rub my shoulders and tell me humorous anecdotes about their childhood growing up in the forest.

Also, I'm going to need your wives, and in some cases, daughters.

Your sacrifices are appreciated, and will appease the supreme being.

<<<<this is a picture of captain crunch.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A nerds thread. Arguing about things none of us can change, and none of us will get paid 1 cent for winning the argument. I can understand having a debate, but to measure organ sizes in a forum because we can't look bad is pretty much laughable.
Now how many days to the draft, and how can we fast forward our lives through the torture of threads with no other purpose but attempting to be forum royalty?

Oh okay.

Forum royalty? hypocrite anyone?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh and I forgot

6) If one were to assign arbitrary value to the positions WR would be clearly the lesser value. In the passing game all three are integral as the primary pass rusher pass protector and pass receiver however a WRs role in the run game as limited. As such adding an arbitrary value to WR, OT or DE would simply agnify the risk factor of WR and give the same conclusion already presented.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And just like before when I presented these arguments im sure theo will disappear until he fills someone makes a decent argument so he can chime in on their coattails.

 

[theogt]

Fuzz, I'll respond in more depth later, but at this point it suffices to say that your response in paragraph "1)" is just silly. Your argument is that it would be too difficult to determine whether certain positions contribute more to success than others. This is pure and simple laziness.

Yes, it would be difficult, but it doesn't make your analysis any more useful. Intuitively we can all agree that a pro-bowl QB contributes more than a pro-bowl center. Your argument boils down to this: since it would be too difficult to accurately determine wether a pro-bowl QB contributes more than a pro-bowl Center, we shouldn't make such a distinction and therefore it is just as valuable to draft a Center as it is to draft a QB. That's just dumb. Really, it's just a horrible argument.

I don't have more time, but I will post a response to the rest later.

 

[superpunk]

And just like before when I presented these arguments im sure theo will disappear until he fills someone makes a decent argument so he can chime in on their coattails.

Maybe he had nachos and slurpees, too.

Only his expected return on them was alot sooner than mine.

 

[5Stars]

And just like before when I presented these arguments im sure theo will disappear until he fills someone makes a decent argument so he can chime in on their coattails.

Are you done yet? Or, do you have something else to remember?

Just asking, as you have posted to yourself two time now! What is the expected return of that?

 

[theogt]

And just like before when I presented these arguments im sure theo will disappear until he fills someone makes a decent argument so he can chime in on their coattails.

Holy Christ, some of us do have other things to do in life rather than sit here and respond to every single reply.

You've done this several times in this thread. Where someone doesn't completely respond to every single post or point you make you declare that their entire argument is wrong and thus you are right. Holy cripes, dude, you seriously come off as bat**** crazy in this thread.

 

[5Stars]

Fuzz, I'll respond in more depth later, but at this point it suffices to say that your response in paragraph "1)" is just silly. Your argument is that it would be too difficult to determine whether certain positions contribute more to success than others. This is pure and simple laziness.

Yes, it would be difficult, but it doesn't make your analysis any more useful. Intuitively we can all agree that a pro-bowl QB contributes more than a pro-bowl center. Your argument boils down to this: since it would be too difficult to accurately determine wether a pro-bowl QB contributes more than a pro-bowl Center, we shouldn't make such a distinction and therefore it is just as valuable to draft a Center as it is to draft a QB. That's just dumb. Really, it's just a horrible argument.

I don't have more time, but I will post a response to the rest later.

Just tell him he's right...that's all he wants, and the world can get back to normal...

He's not going to give in...but, you have to admire his efforts, although somewhat flawed when it comes to choosing a draft choice because, and I say this again, there are just to many variables to take into consideration when trying to apply them to some math formula. Fuzzy used only three (and he determined those himself) to come to his conclusion, that's why his conclusion is, well, fuzzy, to say the least..