WR In the First Round Is a Horrible Idea

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nothing wrong with being drunk.

Well it is when you send me insulting PMs and then resort to banal grammar smack. I mean really whose parents should be proud in all of this splendor youve brought home with you. I hope you didnt drive.

 

[theogt]

Well it is when you send me insulting PMs and then resort to banal grammar smack. I mean really whose parents should be proud in all of this splendor youve brought home with you. I hope you didnt drive.

My wife drove. Thank goodness, too.

 

[masomenos]

Nothing wrong with being drunk.

:toast:

cheers to that

 

[masomenos]

What are you guys arguing about anyways?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What are you guys arguing about anyways?

hes mad because he cant give examples from this book hes touting as the be all end all of economics and i call him on it. And hes drunk.

really what i comes down to is he says that a value needs to be placed on each position on the team and that needs to be correlated with their bust rates. I said it couldnt be done and be worth a flip citing Bill James work with defensive stats in baseball but he says economists do it all the time.

I just keep asking for a specific example and he cant do it. Its been 72 hours and he still cant do it.

 

[masomenos]

hes mad because he cant give examples from this book hes touting as the be all end all of economics and i call him on it. And hes drunk.

really what i comes down to is he says that a value needs to be placed on each position on the team and that needs to be correlated with their bust rates. I said it couldnt be done and be worth a flip citing Bill James work with defensive stats in baseball but he says economists do it all the time.

I just keep asking for a specific example and he cant do it. Its been 72 hours and he still cant do it.

Hmmm, interesting argument. I've read through Freakenomics before and it's a pretty interesting book, finding correlations with things that otherwise seem unrelated.

From his point I guess the argument is that if you have more of a need at a position then you can justify going after a that position in an earlier round even if it has a higher bust rate? So say the Cowboys have a need value of 5/10 at WR and the Chiefs have a need value of 8/10 then the Chiefs are more justified in going after a WR in round one despite the high bust rate. Am I understanding that correctly?

And I know pretty much nothing in regards to Bill Jame's work with defensive baseball stats, can you explain that a little?

 

[theogt]

hes mad because he cant give examples from this book hes touting as the be all end all of economics and i call him on it. And hes drunk.

really what i comes down to is he says that a value needs to be placed on each position on the team and that needs to be correlated with their bust rates. I said it couldnt be done and be worth a flip citing Bill James work with defensive stats in baseball but he says economists do it all the time.

I just keep asking for a specific example and he cant do it. Its been 72 hours and he still cant do it.

Here's an example of a study by an economist:

Adult Children's Propensity to Care for an Elderly Parent: Does the Marital Status of the Parent Matter? by Jodi Messer Pelkowski

You're too ignorant to realize that economists study incredibly subjective subjects. They don't just deal in dollars and cents. That's a very common misconception among the uneducated public. You've adequately shown that you belong within that group.

 

[masomenos]

They don't just deal in dollars and cents. That's a very common misconception among the uneducated public.

That is a really common misconception. I'm glad you're still on though, can you explain what your argument is to me?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Here's an example of a study by an economist:

Adult Children's Propensity to Care for an Elderly Parent: Does the Marital Status of the Parent Matter? by Jodi Messer Pelkowski

You're too ignorant to realize that economists study incredibly subjective subjects. They don't just deal in dollars and cents. That's a very common misconception among the uneducated public. You've adequately shown that you belong within that group.

And agin you show me what amounts to a book or an article. Right off the top of my head I can tell you that the stats for the primary caregiver and their marital status would be included and easily extrapolated.

Fine economists study things other than markets etc but that really has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Show me a case where they create statistics from nothing. There is data there already that is very straightforward.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hmmm, interesting argument. I've read through Freakenomics before and it's a pretty interesting book, finding correlations with things that otherwise seem unrelated.

From his point I guess the argument is that if you have more of a need at a position then you can justify going after a that position in an earlier round even if it has a higher bust rate? So say the Cowboys have a need value of 5/10 at WR and the Chiefs have a need value of 8/10 then the Chiefs are more justified in going after a WR in round one despite the high bust rate. Am I understanding that correctly?

And I know pretty much nothing in regards to Bill Jame's work with defensive baseball stats, can you explain that a little?

need is another variable but what were talking about is value to a team.

Does a WR do more for a team that a DE in general terms not a specific team need due to the roster. QB is probably the most importand and FB would probably be the least important and how they would fall out in between. then after that give a number value to each of them.

 

[masomenos]

need is another variable but what were talking about is value to a team.

Does a WR do more for a team that a DE in general terms not a specific team need due to the roster. QB is probably the most importand and FB would probably be the least important and how they would fall out in between. then after that give a number value to each of them.

Ohh, gotcha. I think I'm with you on this one, the values you assigned to positions would be arbitrary and wouldn't really mean anything. I believe you can assign meaningful values to some subjective things (such as need) but I don't think you can do it in this case.

 

[masomenos]

Actually, even if you did have a "value to team" rating it would still have to be done on an individual team basis, and it would have to be correlated with need. For instance you couldn't say that a QB in the draft had the same "value to team" score for the Colts as it did for the Raiders because even if they're grading the same player one is being valued as a starter and one is being valued as a back up.

Unless of course you put more value ratings to things like QB AND Backup QB, and I have no idea how you could say if a Backup QB was more important than a #3 WR.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hmmm, interesting argument. I've read through Freakenomics before and it's a pretty interesting book, finding correlations with things that otherwise seem unrelated.

From his point I guess the argument is that if you have more of a need at a position then you can justify going after a that position in an earlier round even if it has a higher bust rate? So say the Cowboys have a need value of 5/10 at WR and the Chiefs have a need value of 8/10 then the Chiefs are more justified in going after a WR in round one despite the high bust rate. Am I understanding that correctly?

And I know pretty much nothing in regards to Bill Jame's work with defensive baseball stats, can you explain that a little?

As for Bill James work on baseball essentially he projects how players and temas will perform based on their previous performances. When it comes to the offensive side of the ball his forecasting is very solid but there is a tremendous amount of data that he has to work with. Every plate appearance every count is documented and from that foundation he can look for trends. Its great great stuff especially if you like baseball.

OTOH there is the defensive side of the ball and there is very little statistical data. Its basiaclly errors, DP, outfield assist and thats about it. However if a guy can range 10 feet on a line drive but another guy can only range 7 feet that doesnt show up in the stats. they have to make up arbitrary standards and then force stats into them. Stuff like plays that the player should have made in his 'zone' and other things of that nature are used for stats like range factor and zone rating.

The defensive projections are next to pointless. Consistently gold gloves are awarded to players that did not perform well to the defensive stats while silver sluggers correlate to good performance on the offensive stats regularly.

How that applies to football in situations like offensive lineman and defensive players in the run game. they play a huge role however there is little to no data statistically. Its basically the same type of situation. We would have to come up with arbitrary standards and try to apply them.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually, even if you did have a "value to team" rating it would still have to be done on an individual team basis, and it would have to be correlated with need. For instance you couldn't say that a QB in the draft had the same "value to team" score for the Colts as it did for the Raiders because even if they're grading the same player one is being valued as a starter and one is being valued as a back up.

Unless of course you put more value ratings to things like QB AND Backup QB, and I have no idea how you could say if a Backup QB was more important than a #3 WR.

i dont disagree at all. and as an individual GM i could come up with a system that worked for me. however if i were to take that system to a random fan more than likely they would disagree with it. Every person is going to find a different position to be more important.

 

[masomenos]

As for Bill James work on baseball essentially he projects how players and temas will perform based on their previous performances. When it comes to the offensive side of the ball his forecasting is very solid but there is a tremendous amount of data that he has to work with. Every plate appearance every count is documented and from that foundation he can look for trends. Its great great stuff especially if you like baseball.

OTOH there is the defensive side of the ball and there is very little statistical data. Its basiaclly errors, DP, outfield assist and thats about it. However if a guy can range 10 feet on a line drive but another guy can only range 7 feet that doesnt show up in the stats. they have to make up arbitrary standards and then force stats into them. Stuff like plays that the player should have made in his 'zone' and other things of that nature are used for stats like range factor and zone rating.

The defensive projections are next to pointless. Consistently gold gloves are awarded to players that did not perform well to the defensive stats while silver sluggers correlate to good performance on the offensive stats regularly.

How that applies to football in situations like offensive lineman and defensive players in the run game. they play a huge role however there is little to no data statistically. Its basically the same type of situation. We would have to come up with arbitrary standards and try to apply them.

Cool, makes perfect sense. Is Bill James the sabermetrics guy?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Cool, makes perfect sense. Is Bill James the sabermetrics guy?

yeah he comes out with a hanbook every year that is a must have for baseball afficiandos.

 

[BigDFan5]

No its a list of people that troll my posts. Believe me BigD I very much so am not seeking your approval but you make the list.

See how easy that was? I made a post knowing you would add me to your list afterwords. You are way to easy to get to. Quick hint anytime bbgun and me are both against you on anything you are wrong no doubt, because we dont agree on the color of the sky that often.

Anyway I am off to bed now thanks for adding me to your list "son"



BTW BUMP!

 

[bbgun]

Which lasts longer: nuclear waste ... or this thread?

 

[CF74]

Which lasts longer: nuclear waste ... or this thread?

this thread is for padding

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

See how easy that was? I made a post knowing you would add me to your list afterwords. You are way to easy to get to. Quick hint anytime bbgun and me are both against you on anything you are wrong no doubt, because we dont agree on the color of the sky that often.

Anyway I am off to bed now thanks for adding me to your list "son"



BTW BUMP!

You can pat yourself on the back all day long, but who has who under their thumb when you dredge up this thread that has been dead for two days just to talk about me?

I mean wow that was real clever. You figured out that if you troll my posts and fixated on me that you get added to my list. Im in clear awe of your sly ability there.

Now you wish that you could be my father. Heres an idea: quit obsessing over me. Its all so very touching but unless you want to talk about WR and not ole me can we put this thread to bed?