Originally posted by Phil Jackson
And the quote, I think it was Height DOESN'T matter for a WR. I was fucking cracking up. Once again your example highlighted the unique good WRs. Care to measure the success of short WR's against taller ones? I'm pretty sure sub 6'0 WR's IN GENERAL do not have the same success.You would be wrong. I already posted that 6 of the top 10 in receiving yards this season were 6'0" or under, and that's even with notable guys like Steve Smith (CAR) having a down year.
Originally posted by jktooley
So... I had to revisit JD's last post... I'm pretty much over the whole QB thing... It's pointless, and I've pretty much said everything that I need to say on the topic without adding another thing that JD will try to spin in his favorYou sound like a twelve year old child when you post things like this. If you were "over the whole QB thing" then you would shut your mouth and stop embarrassing yourself, but you can't let it go. Then you say that I'll spin things in my favor
while trying to spin things in yours. It's mildly comical.
Originally posted by
(still trying to find where I said that OLineman block standing straight up... Pretty sure I just noted that when an Olineman and Dlineman push against each other when pass blocking, either one of them gets blown up, or they DO typically force up out of their drop...)Please stop posting about this. Regardless of the QB height debate, anyone who knows anything at all about football thinks you look stunningly ignorant when you describe some weird shit that doesn't happen in any NFL that anyone else has ever seen. Offensive linemen don't spring up to full height when pass blocking. Just stop embarrassing yourself and learn to shut up.
Originally posted by
This post is awesome. First off, if you were in your early 20's while working under the guys that initially challenged the concept of clutch in baseball, you're old as dirt... Bill James published that shit in Baseball Abstract back in 1984.Bill James was the godfather of the statistical revolution in baseball, but most of this stuff didn't get "proven" until around the millenium. Clutch, BABIP, VORP, all those things crystalized around that time, and I was fortunate enough to work under some of the people who were responsible. But by all means, continue making posts that show just how ignorant you are about everything, not just football.
Originally posted by
Especially if they found that you referenced Troy Smith in your argument of short successful qb's?Winning the Heisman doesn't mean you were successful? Moreover, you obviously know nothing whatsoever about football, but let me tell you that Smith wasn't simply an undeserving winner who only got the award because he was the most visible player on that year's most celebrated team. He was an excellent college quarterback, and if not for the bias against short passers, I think he'd be a fine starter at the NFL level as well. Still, at least he is in the league. There's no excuse whatsoever for teams excluding Charlie Ward.
Originally posted by
Now, let's bring up a term that you like to toss around... Correlation does not equal causation... So, how exactly is it that one set of statistics "disproves" clutch while another set of statistics doesn't prove that height impacts QB's? Did you really just contradict yourself that blatantly in the same thread?
I don't accuse you of being stupid just to "win" an argument, I do it because of posts like this one where you conclusively show a deep deficiency of cognitive function. Only someone genuinely stupid would post the above sentences and mean them. Did you really not encounter statistics at all in whatever grotesquely pointless education you had? The reason that your height-stats link did not prove anything is because those variables were not controlled. Just as I pointed out with the examples of black quarterbacks and quarterbacks from California, it's very easy to create data sets that correlate yet clearly aren't causally related. The quarterbacks from California didn't have better stats
because they were from California. The sample size was small and the variables were not controlled, so California ended up with better statistics by coincidence. Other variables were responsible. Meanwhile the analysis of clutch, batting average on balls in play, and any number of other statistical revelations resulted from voluminous amounts of data, from which other variables could be controlled and eliminated.
Originally posted by
Also, didn't you accept implicitly that baseball players can't be clutch because of the works of somebody else?No, I looked at the data. I doubted the results of those studies, and I flat-out rejected Voros McCracken's early assertions about the absence of pitcher influence on balls in play, but those guys shared their numbers and the results were conclusive. On this note, I would strongly suggest taking a course in statistics. I don't know what age you are, but even an introductory class would help you tremendously since right now you have absolutely no clue about how to discuss such things.
Originally posted by
I'll look forward to your comment about throwing around the term correlation does not equal causation and then arguing in the opposite direction later... You have one move left. The sad thing is that you actually believe this. You are so completely clueless about the degree of your ignorance that you don't even know enough to avoid posting something that makes you look hilariously incompetent. Please, stop and ask someone you trust if you just made a complete fool of yourself with this post.
