FuzzyLumpkins;1436924 said:
How would you get that?
Economists have dollar signs to work with as well as market values to insert for values. Even issues that at first glance would seem ambiguous like consumer confidence use figures such as consumer spending and savings rates to help determine values.
Apparently you have no idea what economists do. They don't just work with "dollar signs." Economists study a wide range of behavior outside of micro and macro economics.
you cannot say the same for an OT or a CB or a safety. I mean do you set the standard as yardage, points, point differential or do you go reductionist and look at runs to a particualar side or completion percentage against. Or do you look at value compared to a replacement player like they do in baseball.
I'm not quite certain at this point how it would all work out. It would take some trial and error. Like I've said several times, it would be a great deal of work.
I mean the whole reductionist versus wholistic side would be an issue and that is even before you look at specifics. Even if you were to come up with a system i guarantee you more than half of everyone would disagree with it and that is the point.
You state that it negates but in fact it does not. The busts rates do indeed correlate that WR in the first is bad you just say that its not conclusive. There are 'other factors.'
Let me explain this very simply:
Your argument:
Premise: Recievers bust at a higher rate than other positions.
Conclusion: It is a horrible idea to draft receivers in the first round.
My refutation using similar logic:
Premise: Quarterbacks bust at a higher rate than Guards.
Premise: Quarterbacks are much more valuable than Guards.
Conclusion: It is a better idea to draft Quarterbacks than Guards, despite their higher bust rate.
In very simple terms...
Your argument: A, therefore B.
My refutation: A and C, therefore not B.
See how that completely refutes the argument? It doesn't merely mitigate, it completely undermines.
And that is not an appeal to popularity either. Im referring to other arguments without actually restating them. Im not saying that x and y believe this so its true. What i am sying is there is argumnt x stating that WR is more difficult to evaluate than other positions and there is argument YU showing that playoff teams have a relatively low number of first round draft picks as well as my argument but why are there no arguments stating that it is a good idea. That is quite a difference.
No, it's not quite different. Until these other arguments are proven to be true, they're useless. I've disputed every one. At their core, they're just meaningless "analysis" with a hackneyed conclusions, which are simply someone's opinion. You're appealling to
opinions, not some irrefutable fact.
