Warrior General Games

In the blue corner we have the Radicals... Standing at a combined score of 152 against and 18 for in their last 2 playoff games... Masters of inefficiency it took them two games combined to run up a DDL-esque point differential... Secret weapons include blue pm's, irrelevant occupation, an overabundance of statistics references, and a massively inflated sense of self worth...



In the red corner we have a few random WL posters, one guy that just enjoys arguing and making youtube videos, and somebody into classy movies. Record impossible to calculate. Secret weapons include relentlessness, trollabilities, and google.

THERE ARE NO FUCKING WINNERS HERE.

Originally posted by intoxxx
Well Mr. I'm So Relevant, at least I was a part of an actual successful WL team, too bad you can't say the same =[


If you call a 5-11 second season in the WL successful.

If this doesn't end this argument, I don't know what will:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9K4BKkLaCI

Originally posted by jktooley
In the blue corner we have the Radicals... Standing at a combined score of 152 against and 18 for in their last 2 playoff games... Masters of inefficiency it took them two games combined to run up a DDL-esque point differential... Secret weapons include blue pm's, irrelevant occupation, an overabundance of statistics references, and a massively inflated sense of self worth...



In the red corner we have a few random WL posters, one guy that just enjoys arguing and making youtube videos, and somebody into classy movies. Record impossible to calculate. Secret weapons include relentlessness, trollabilities, and google.



Hmmmmmm...

Providence in the WL

OTR not in the WL

And if we need more clarification on who the winner is, lets set up a friendly and see.

Originally posted by Pariah
Hmmmmmm...

Providence in the WL

OTR not in the WL

And if we need more clarification on who the winner is, lets set up a friendly and see.



OTR could've been in the WL... You guys barely hung on... See how you do after this season... As for friendlies, hit me after the tourney's are over,

Originally posted by jktooley
OTR could've been in the WL... You guys barely hung on... See how you do after this season... As for friendlies, hit me after the tourney's are over,

You got it...And hopefully we can meet when the stakes are legit in S15.

Originally posted by Phil Jackson
It seems your argument really only holds for this season?
No, it fluctuates from season to season precisely because receiving success is not caused by height. For instance, there were five in the top 10 for 2006, and six in the top 10 for 2005.

What is it with some of the dumbest people on all of GLB trying to argue with me this off-season? Did someone put a curse on me? Am I an idiot magnet? I guess opposites do attract.


Originally posted by jktooley
My favorite part of the article is where Bill James discusses how the discussion began back then, and how it should have gone instead... If you were actually a part of this, I find it humorous that the way you were trained to analyze and diagnose are still evident in your works today... Specifically, this part:
Honestly, you lost me. You will never know the difficulty an intelligent person has trying to follow the twists and turns of your addled brain. I did not work under Bill James and I do not know Bill James. He was a great influence on those of us who went on to statistically analyze various elements of baseball, but he's not really the type to work well with others anyway. Moreover, it's amusing to see you refer to "a study." Every time you post in this thread you show just how stunningly ignorant you are about both statistics and research. You don't prove anything with one study, genius. You need an accumulation of research that all points to the same conclusion.

Originally posted by
Correlation does not equal causation.
I think you were being sarcastic, which is amusing since for once you actually said something correct. Did you notice the significance of short receivers dominating in 2009, but tall receivers being more effective in 2008 & 2007? How about short receivers again being supreme in 2006 & 2005? If you took any of these seasons individually, the apparent correlation between being short and having success or being tall and having success would all fail the test of causation, and that's because neither being tall or being short was actually responsible for the success that followed.

Unfortunately you simply lack the basic level of intelligence to grasp these points without someone beating them over and over again until they finally sink in to that thick skull of yours. I can only imagine what it was like for your parents to raise you and just get you to avoid pissing all over the carpet. The fact that you're even able to type out words is a tribute to their patience and perseverance.

Now please just stop posting before you embarrass yourself with any more gems like how offensive linemen supposedly spring up to full height when pass blocking, or that Drew Brees is great because he throws the ball with an upward trajectory to tall receivers.


Edit:
And great googly moogly, did you really bring the teams into this? Everyone knows that OTR is the joke of USAPL, like the Fluties in Canada. For Christ's sake, you almost lost to Czech Yourself.

lol @ everyone being an idiot. Bet I am I idiot in your mind as well, along with nearly everyone else. I could care less who is right or wrong, but nearly your whole post is just bashing his intelligence, guess what, it doesn't make your point more valid.

Originally posted by blln4lyf
lol @ everyone being an idiot. Bet I am I idiot in your mind as well, along with nearly everyone else. I could care less who is right or wrong, but nearly your whole post is just bashing his intelligence, guess what, it doesn't make your point more valid.
You're not an idiot, you're just bitter towards me over past disagreements and letting those feelings affect your behavior. Moreover, I already made the point that I don't insult people in support of my argument, but rather in frustration when people spout irrational nonsense just to avoid either acknowledging a point or shutting up. I'm not calling Tooley stupid because of our argument, as I already thought he was stupid before we even said one word to each other. Does anyone even dispute that? Does anyone really want to stand up and say that they think Tooley is smart? No, because no one does. The guy is obviously below average in intelligence, and it leads him to say remarkably ridiculous things such as those listed above. The sooner he recognizes his limitations and comes to terms with them, the better off he'll be.

Edit:
Or you may have been offended by me implying that uscwhateverhisnamewas is an idiot since you're affiliated with him, but that's an inexplicable choice that you made. Dpride isn't stupid, but his sycophants definitely are. You chose to be in the company of such people, and you knew what they were when you did. You can't exactly be upset at me for just pointing out what they are.

the fact that you 2 are still arguing over something neither will ever concede makes you BOTH look stupid

Originally posted by MC_Hammer
the fact that you 2 are still arguing over something neither will ever concede makes you BOTH look stupid
Probably true. I believe I noted much earlier in the thread that I am pathologically incapable of walking away from an argument, and when Tooley actually taunts me repeatedly in the thread to keep posting despite him being repeatedly destroyed, well my response is going to be fairly predictable.

No, its more that you constantly call people stupid when a lot of the time they aren't. I'm well over our past disagreements, but I find it funny you call Phil dumb when he isn't at all, and Tooley is not an idiot either.

Just take me for my word and accept it is what I think.

Originally posted by blln4lyf
No, its more that you constantly call people stupid when a lot of the time they aren't. I'm well over our past disagreements, but I find it funny you call Phil dumb when he isn't at all, and Tooley is not an idiot either.
uscwhateverhisnameis really is quite dumb. I'm surprised that you would even question that since it's such a widely shared opinion. And Tooley has more than proved his mental deficiencies in this thread. Offensive linemen spring up to full height and Drew Brees throws with an upward trajectory to tall receivers? The guy is not smart. I guess that's hard for you to swallow since you chose to affiliate with them, but that's really your problem and not mine. Both of those guys had shown their limitations long before this thread, so it's not like their suspect intelligence was any sort of revelation. They're just not smart, and the sooner they come to accept that fact, the less they will embarrass themselves by posting as if they actually know something.

Originally posted by
Just take me for my word and accept it is what I think.
No, you're clearly influenced by past disagreements, as evidenced by your whiny "Bet I am I idiot in your mind as well, along with nearly everyone else" comment. I don't call everyone an idiot. Hell, I can't stand dpride and yet in our last argument I made a point to acknowledge that the guy is obviously bright. I despise him for other reasons, but he's not stupid. And frankly, I wouldn't have a problem with you at all if you weren't constantly siding with people who say dumb things. Maybe the fact that you have to defend the statements of people in your network so often should make you start to question why they're in your network, although you've already stated that you don't care what kind of people you associate with as long as it helps you win.

Originally posted by jdbolick

No, it fluctuates from season to season precisely because receiving success is not caused by height. For instance, there were five in the top 10 for 2006, and six in the top 10 for 2005.


1 Andre Johnson
2 Mike Furrey
3 Marvin Harrison
4 Torry Holt
5 Donald Driver
6 Laveranues Coles
7 T.J. Houshmandzadeh
7 Steven Jackson
9 Kellen Winslow
10 Reggie Bush


May you should stop making shit up to try and sound like you are correct. 2006 List, # of receivers sub 6'0? 1 Laveranues Coles.

2005

1 Larry Fitzgerald
1 Steve Smith
3 Anquan Boldin
3 Torry Holt
5 Chad Ochocinco
7 Donald Driver
7 Derrick Mason
9 Rod Smith
10 Santana Moss

Oh shit there are only 3 sub 6'0 receivers.

Youre a complete joke bolick, keep making up statistics and trying to pass them as fact.

Ugh, I added that last part because I knew you'd try to analyze me, incorrectly at that, and draw me into this...fml.

Also who the fuck is uscwhateverhisnameis?