Warrior General Games

General reminder that polls to vote for the MVP awards at http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=524934 will be closing at 9pm EST Monday night.

(this post edited for being dumb and inflammatory)

To try to keep some discussion to the discussion thread: I think Mister Moose and Flesh Gordon are super awesome at DE and DT. Would any of the people who voted against them like to discuss it?

edited: Orignaly I was pretty annoyed to be called out on my vote. I have since calmed down.

To say there is no one else qualified then why are we even voting? Why don't we just do what you want? I voted for Mister Moose and DT Luffe, do you think it's possible out of all the profiles I looked at, I could have missed someone who is more deserving? I spent around an hour looking through profiles, I didn't want to send my vote to someone who had the best glamor stats i.e. sacks with out looking at other players who may have more tackles or what ever. I would have been more willing to change my vote if you were campaigning for him in a better way. Maybe if you laid out his stats for the year vs. Luffe.

Suggestion for next year to go along with alpha/zeta all-pro teams. PM votes to the organizer. Owners can campaign for there players in a seperate thread. Another suggestion would be to have owners pick 5-8 of their players to be voted for. This way we can avoid (what I am perceived to be) "homers".

Originally posted by Mornacale
To try to keep some discussion to the discussion thread: can anybody make an attempt to justify even the idea of a vote for best DE or DT that isn't for Mister Moose or Flesh Gordon? They are so far and away better than the other players at their positions this year that it's absurd.

Note to Papeete: just because you're in Alpha doesn't mean you have to vote for Alpha players over better Zeta players. Hell, if you really want to snub the Gangsters, vote for the other Zeta players that are more deserving than who you're voting for now. (To wit: Jason Hatcher is the 2nd-best DE, Mike Patterson the 2nd-best DT. For that matter, the Super Bears have the 2nd-best defense in the league, and they're not getting any love at DC.)

(note: I say Papeete only because the three votes I'm arguing against were from people on Papeete. I am not trying to allege that the team as a whole is doing anything.)

I didn't realize that our votes had to be qualified. Thanks for clearing that up for everyone. So do we send them to you first so that you can tell us if they look OK?

Originally posted by jjo13
I didn't realize that our votes had to be qualified. Thanks for clearing that up for everyone. So do we send them to you first so that you can tell us if they look OK?

That would be correct, please queue up to the left so your votes can be inspected

Originally posted by NavyGiant
I would have been more willing to change my vote if you were campaigning for him in a better way. Maybe if you laid out his stats for the year vs. Luffe.

I don't think Morn was trying to campaign for anyone, to be honest. I just think he was honestly curious as to what was seen in Mon (in your case) and Boomer (in jjo's case) as to why they were picked. I'll admit, I'm kind of curious too, but then again, they're your votes and I figured you had some reason for them.

jjo, is it your belief that people ought not ask for justification of votes? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I did not say that your votes should not count, nor anything of that vein. I simply asked if someone would be willing to back up their vote, because I cannot figure out what would cause a vote for any player over Flesh Gordon or Mister Moose. At NavyGiant's request, I will lay out the stats.

(What I will do is compare the players overall totals, and also their totals if you discount the two worst teams (Eastern, Left Winged, Melbourne, Pocatello) they played, to correct for that skewing the totals. Bolded stats show who's best in that category.)

Defensive Tackle
Totals
Flesh Gordon: 61 tkl, 2 missed tkl, 46 hurries, 21 sacks, 32 TFL, 1 PD, 0 INT, 6 FFum, 1 fumble recovered, 0 TD, 2 safeties, 49.9 plays/game
Mon Luffe: 62 tkl, 1 missed tkl, 25 hurries, 11 sacks, 34 TFL, 1 PD, 2 INT, 1 FFum, 0 fumbles recovered, 1 TD, 0 safeties, 55 plays/game
Charles E Greene: 41 tkl, 3 missed tkl, 21 hurries, 4 sacks, 21 TFL, 1 PD, 0 INT, 0 FFum, 0 fumbles recovered, 0 TD, 0 safeties, 47.1 plays/game

So, we can see that Flesh Gordon has a huge lead in hurries, sacks, and forced fumbles, while Mon Luffe basically has one of Flesh's missed tackles converted into a made tackle, and also has 2 picks. Flesh and Luffe trade off in the meaningless-but-impressive TDs and safeties category. Note that Flesh has done all this in about 75 fewer plays than Luffe. Charles E Greene is in last place in every category.

Totals - 2 worst opponents
Flesh Gordon: 48 tkl, 2 missed tkl, 27 hurries, 11 sacks, 30 TFL, 1 PD, 0 INT, 5 FFum, 1 fumble recovered, 0 TD, 1 safety
Mon Luffe: 39 tkl, 1 missed tkl, 11 hurries, 2 sacks, 23 TFL, 1 PD, 2 INT, 1 FFum, 0 fumbles recovered, 1 TD, 0 safeties
Charles E Greene: 29 tkl, 3 missed tkl, 5 hurries, 2 sacks, 12 TFL, 0 PD, 0 INT, 0 FFum, 0 fumbles recovered, 0 TD, 0 safeties

Removing the 2 ridiculous games makes it even more stacked. Flesh now leads by a landslide in basically every major category. Luffe has his INTs still, but INTs are not exactly the mission of a DT. An extra 9 tackles, 16 hurries, 9 sacks, 7 TFL, and 4 FFum makes up for it and more.


Defensive End
Totals
Mister Moose: 56 tkl, 0 missed tkl, 72 hurries, 34 sacks, 13 TFL, 6 PD, 2 INT, 6 FFum, 2 fumbles recovered, 1 TD, 0 safeties, 52.4 plays/game
Boomer McDude: 67 tkl, 1 missed tkl, 44 hurries, 11 sacks, 14 TFL, 8 PD, 0 INT, 0 FFum, 0 fumbles recovered, 0 TD, 0 safeties, 51.9 plays/game

Boomer beats Moose by 11 tackles, 1 tackle for loss (so Moose actualy has a higher percentage of his tackles for loss than Boomer, and 2 passes defensed. Moose beats Boomer by 1 missed tackle, 28 hurries, 23 sacks(!!!), 2 INTs, 6 FFum(!), 2 fumbles recovered, and a TD. (Full disclosure: Moose has 7 more total plays than Boomer.

Totals - 2 worst opponents
Mister Moose: 49 tkl, 0 missed tkl, 59 hurries, 29 sacks, 11 TFL, 6 PD, 1 INT, 6 FFum, 2 fumbles recovered, 1 TD, 0 safeties
Boomer McDude: 56 tkl, 1 missed tkl, 36 hurries, 7 sacks, 13 TFL, 6 PD, 0 INT, 0 FFum, 0 fumbles recovered, 0 TD, 0 safeties

Boomer now leads by 2 TFL, but he's down to only 7 extra tackles and has lost his advantage in passed defensed. Mister Moose maintains his missed tackle advantage, comes down to a mere 23 extra hurries and 22 extra sacks, and has only 1 INT.


CLARIFICATION: Vote for whoever you damn well please. Hell, vote a Punter for best DT if you feel like it. I am not in charge of your votes, and I don't think you should have to vote how I want you to. However, I don't think there is anything wrong with attempting to justify votes, and debating the relative merits of them. If you don't want to discuss it, please feel free not to; I'm not going to hunt you down and yell at you for it. However, this is a discussion thread, and I think it's valid to use it to discuss.

Originally posted by Mornacale
jjo, is it your belief that people ought not ask for justification of votes? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I did not say that your votes should not count, nor anything of that vein. I simply asked if someone would be willing to back up their vote, because I cannot figure out what would cause a vote for any player over Flesh Gordon or Mister Moose. At NavyGiant's request, I will lay out the stats.

(What I will do is compare the players overall totals, and also their totals if you discount the two worst teams (Eastern, Left Winged, Melbourne, Pocatello) they played, to correct for that skewing the totals. Bolded stats show who's best in that category.)

Defensive Tackle
Totals
Flesh Gordon: 61 tkl, 2 missed tkl, 46 hurries, 21 sacks, 32 TFL, 1 PD, 0 INT, 6 FFum, 1 fumble recovered, 0 TD, 2 safeties, 49.9 plays/game
Mon Luffe: 62 tkl, 1 missed tkl, 25 hurries, 11 sacks, 34 TFL, 1 PD, 2 INT, 1 FFum, 0 fumbles recovered, 1 TD, 0 safeties, 55 plays/game
Charles E Greene: 41 tkl, 3 missed tkl, 21 hurries, 4 sacks, 21 TFL, 1 PD, 0 INT, 0 FFum, 0 fumbles recovered, 0 TD, 0 safeties, 47.1 plays/game

So, we can see that Flesh Gordon has a huge lead in hurries, sacks, and forced fumbles, while Mon Luffe basically has one of Flesh's missed tackles converted into a made tackle, and also has 2 picks. Flesh and Luffe trade off in the meaningless-but-impressive TDs and safeties category. Note that Flesh has done all this in about 75 fewer plays than Luffe. Charles E Greene is in last place in every category.

Totals - 2 worst opponents
Flesh Gordon: 48 tkl, 2 missed tkl, 27 hurries, 11 sacks, 30 TFL, 1 PD, 0 INT, 5 FFum, 1 fumble recovered, 0 TD, 1 safety
Mon Luffe: 39 tkl, 1 missed tkl, 11 hurries, 2 sacks, 23 TFL, 1 PD, 2 INT, 1 FFum, 0 fumbles recovered, 1 TD, 0 safeties
Charles E Greene: 29 tkl, 3 missed tkl, 5 hurries, 2 sacks, 12 TFL, 0 PD, 0 INT, 0 FFum, 0 fumbles recovered, 0 TD, 0 safeties

Removing the 2 ridiculous games makes it even more stacked. Flesh now leads by a landslide in basically every major category. Luffe has his INTs still, but INTs are not exactly the mission of a DT. An extra 9 tackles, 16 hurries, 9 sacks, 7 TFL, and 4 FFum makes up for it and more.


Defensive End
Totals
Mister Moose: 56 tkl, 0 missed tkl, 72 hurries, 34 sacks, 13 TFL, 6 PD, 2 INT, 6 FFum, 2 fumbles recovered, 1 TD, 0 safeties, 52.4 plays/game
Boomer McDude: 67 tkl, 1 missed tkl, 44 hurries, 11 sacks, 14 TFL, 8 PD, 0 INT, 0 FFum, 0 fumbles recovered, 0 TD, 0 safeties, 51.9 plays/game

Boomer beats Moose by 11 tackles, 1 tackle for loss (so Moose actualy has a higher percentage of his tackles for loss than Boomer, and 2 passes defensed. Moose beats Boomer by 1 missed tackle, 28 hurries, 23 sacks(!!!), 2 INTs, 6 FFum(!), 2 fumbles recovered, and a TD. (Full disclosure: Moose has 7 more total plays than Boomer.

Totals - 2 worst opponents
Mister Moose: 49 tkl, 0 missed tkl, 59 hurries, 29 sacks, 11 TFL, 6 PD, 1 INT, 6 FFum, 2 fumbles recovered, 1 TD, 0 safeties
Boomer McDude: 56 tkl, 1 missed tkl, 36 hurries, 7 sacks, 13 TFL, 6 PD, 0 INT, 0 FFum, 0 fumbles recovered, 0 TD, 0 safeties

Boomer now leads by 2 TFL, but he's down to only 7 extra tackles and has lost his advantage in passed defensed. Mister Moose maintains his missed tackle advantage, comes down to a mere 23 extra hurries and 22 extra sacks, and has only 1 INT.


CLARIFICATION: Vote for whoever you damn well please. Hell, vote a Punter for best DT if you feel like it. I am not in charge of your votes, and I don't think you should have to vote how I want you to. However, I don't think there is anything wrong with attempting to justify votes, and debating the relative merits of them. If you don't want to discuss it, please feel free not to; I'm not going to hunt you down and yell at you for it. However, this is a discussion thread, and I think it's valid to use it to discuss.

For clarification:
A. I voted for Flesh Gordon
B. I weighed whether to vote for McDude or Moose, and chose McDude, simply because I played against him and saw first hand how well he did, even when we game planned to stop him. In reality, we won't know until today how Alpha and Zeta stack up against each other, and all of our votes may change considerably after tonight's game. Not to change the topic, but in reality, voting shouldn't start until after game 16.

Another thought, from what I understand of any all-star game, the best players get in, not the best stats. If you think your guy is better, fine, get someone to agree with you and vote for him, but don't knock a guy who votes for who he thinks is the best player, even if his stats aren't as high as your boy.

If it were stats, you wouldn't vote. The entire concept of voting dictates that it is, and here is the key word, SUBJECTIVE. End of story. If it were clear-cut, why vote on it.

And by the way, all these guys are studs, and anyone would be glad to have them on their team. I truly feel that we are in a league with amazing players.

Originally posted by jjo13
Another thought, from what I understand of any all-star game, the best players get in, not the best stats. If you think your guy is better, fine, get someone to agree with you and vote for him, but don't knock a guy who votes for who he thinks is the best player, even if his stats aren't as high as your boy.

If it were stats, you wouldn't vote. The entire concept of voting dictates that it is, and here is the key word, SUBJECTIVE. End of story. If it were clear-cut, why vote on it.

True, if it were just purely stats, you wouldn't vote. However, completely ignoring stats when determining the best player is also not valid. This isn't all-star game voting, though, but MVP and/or best player voting. Morn wasn't trying to knock anyone, he was just wanting to know why people voted as they did. He really was curious as to why you picked Boomer over Moose (note that I don't much care either way about awards). But to go off of the "game planned against him" angle -- teams have game planned against Moose and he still produced too. I'd be wiling to bet teams gameplan against many of the top players at any given position.

But you can't totally ignore stats when determining the best player. In your case, you seem to be basing the majority of your vote off of a single game where the guy played you (which I'm NOT saying is an invalid reason, mind you). Morn feels stats should have a bigger part of the equation, but not be 100% of it.

Like he said, he's just trying to get some discussion going on the picks. Being that we aren't too knowledgeable about Alpha guys and we don't get to play them, there could well be something we don't notice about why you pick who you pick

Actually, I do feel that ideally stats should be 100% of the equation. They're the only objective way of determining who did what, objectivity being--in my opinion--the most important part of the process. In some real-world sports, you can develop a stat to cover anything necessary. This is why sabermetrics are so important in baseball, for instance. Football is a more difficult case, as plays are less discrete (how do you measure, for instance, a lineman's ability to stay in his hole and not overpursue?). Even more troublesome, GLB denies us the ability to fully analyze every action, since it's necessarily imprecise. Unfortunately, this also means that we are unable to make good judgements on non-statistical bases as well--a DE getting pancaked and grabbing the HB's foot may look about the same as that DE going toe-to-toe with a tackle, shedding the block, and ruining the back's whole day.

Furthermore, it's almost impossible for non-statistical methods to be objective. First, the only way to use such methods are to watch every play of the whole season, for at least some significant subset of award contenders. This task is immense, and thus we are more likely to watch the players we want to win, searching for reasons to vote for them. Confirmation bias suggests that we will find those reasons, valid or not. Furthermore, if the player you want to vote for is on your own team, then their good plays have an emotional component to you, which causes you to over-emphasize their importance.

Does this mean that I think all these players should be determined by some equation, and eliminate voting? No, that's not the case at all. First of all, the awards would have no meaning at all if they weren't chosen by a player's peers. More importantly, though, is the fact that subjectivity is required to interpret the statistics. For reference, see last year's argument about cornerbacks: at least one person stated that they believe tackles correlate inversely with the skills of a CB, while I believe they offer a small but positive effect. On the other hand, I value passes defensed nearly as high as INTs, which others could certainly argue against. Another great example is my top 2 TEs this year: one has a lot of catches and yardage, one has a ton of extra pancakes, and it's entirely up to the voter which stat is more important (or if another TE is even better).

So, in summary, I believe that the best statistical player should always win, but that there is sometimes a great deal of debate available to determine what makes a player's stats the best.

Addendum:
Originally posted by jjo13
B. I weighed whether to vote for McDude or Moose, and chose McDude, simply because I played against him and saw first hand how well he did, even when we game planned to stop him.
A good way to measure the ability of a DE to produce, despite opponent's gameplans, would be to measure how many games they failed to record a sack. If it's very few, then they must be able to defeat almost any opposing line. Right?

Well, then...
Games Without a Sack
Boomer McDude: 9
Mister Moose: 2

Originally posted by Mornacale
Addendum:
Originally posted by jjo13

B. I weighed whether to vote for McDude or Moose, and chose McDude, simply because I played against him and saw first hand how well he did, even when we game planned to stop him.
A good way to measure the ability of a DE to produce, despite opponent's gameplans, would be to measure how many games they failed to record a sack. If it's very few, then they must be able to defeat almost any opposing line. Right?

Well, then...
Games Without a Sack
Boomer McDude: 9
Mister Moose: 2

Whatever dude, vote for who you want for, and I'll do the same. Just like in real life, the guy with the best stats isn't always the one voted in. If you think your boy is better, great, get more votes for him.

Man, this is still going....

Originally posted by jjo13
Whatever dude, vote for who you want for, and I'll do the same. Just like in real life, the guy with the best stats isn't always the one voted in. If you think your boy is better, great, get more votes for him.
Okay, man. If you want to vote on the basis of "people I saw play against my team" then go for it. Obviously you're not going to be convinced by facts.