Of course I'm kidding. My daughter who is a top notch environmental engineer with tremendous computer skills crunched the numbers for me. She came up with Brady being responsible for 12.22% of the teams success.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
dallasactuary
And lucky for Tampa Bay to realize that Tom Brady means more than 5% of winning. That is an absolute joke. If Brady is only 5% of winning, then sabermetrics and BIll James are ALL completely wrong, and Babe Ruth would only be 1% of winning for his sport. You are not understanding ...
I'm sorry, I have to stop here because I wet my pants.
OK, I'm dry again. Please pick any season in which Ruth played and allocate credit among he and his teammates so that it all adds up to 100%. One of us clearly is not understanding how this works, and I think if you'll do this it will become clear to you which one of us it is.
Thats the point, if Tom Brady is only 5%, then that puts Ruth at 1% at most. The wetting the pants part is that you don't quite understand the complexities of what goes into the quarterback position, its importance, and that it is a commodity that is much more difficult to find compared to other positions that are more easily interchangable with spare parts. In fact, you understand it so little that you give Fournette 6% toward winning, and Brady 5%....considering that replacing a player like Fournette is as as easy as going to the scrap heap(in fact a scrap heap pickup he was), it goes to show how those positions are easy to replace, while one can't even find an average QB from the scrap heap, because that commodity is rare.
And that your 5% is grossly wrong.
I wouldn't put Ruth at 1%, he is only that low because YOUR THEORY of Brady at 5% puts Ruth that low, because a Rightfielders impact toward winning is nowhere near as high as that of a QB in the NFL. Of course, I don't expect you to believe that, because you believe Fournette is of higher importance than Brady, because you do not understand football. NFL football that is, because your quarterback valuations may be true in Pee Wee football where the fastest running back on the field can dominate the game and the QB can be an ornament. That is not the case in the NFL. You are flat out wrong.
So now that you are dry, grab some coffee and go back to the drawing board. When you are there, go ahead and tackle that Mazeroski's replacements fielded at a percentage rate as good as him, and then you can take him off your sig line.
Then go ahead and cast your vote for Gene Tenace into the part time player HOF. Cliff Johnson will go in with him, followed by Phelps and Lowenstein. You give Tenace more credit toward winning than Brady. A part time player, a guy sitting on his couch, gets more credit toward winning than the greatest QB in history, the Mantle/Aaron//Howe of QB's all rolled into one.
@Brick said:
Bucs started 7-5 with Brady. It took a while for the chemistry to develop, to understand who is capable of what. After that they took off. Assuming they had a different QB who was capable of starting 7-5. Can some of you mathematical geniuses tell me the odds they would still have won the Super Bowl. ( I'm giving you 7-5 please don't tell me they could have been 11-1 with Joe Smoe at QB.)
SMH. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
Brady replaced a terrible QB on a very good team and made it a great team. The player on a great team that happens to be the last one to join does not get 100% of the credit. Put Brady on a bad team and they become a better team but still lose a lot of games and don't make the playoffs. If they then upgrade at another position or two and become great, by your logic Brady gets none of the credit because he was already there; all the credit goes to the guys who came later. That Brady was the last piece of the TB puzzle does not make him the only piece that matters. (Either that or you're just vomiting out the because, you know, quarterbacks argument with new lipstick.)
The answer to your question is that TB doesn't win the SB without Brady. It is also the answer to the same question if you asked it about Jason Pierre-Paul, Donovan Smith, and several others, depending on who plays instead of them. Your question is meaningless unless you specify who plays instead of Brady, but if you do specify who plays instead of Brady your question will all but answer itself.
everything you type in here is meaningless . When you say "thats not how this works" How it works is the game is played and the team with the most points at the end wins. There is no need for all your math after the fact , handing out slivers of credit to different people is mental masturbation.
You thinking you can say how it works is the problem , its not up to you.
The entire season is decided on the field and there is no actual need for any of what you do.
The game is over , you are just replaying a game with a spreadsheet . There is no demand for predicting the past.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
dallasactuary
And lucky for Tampa Bay to realize that Tom Brady means more than 5% of winning. That is an absolute joke. If Brady is only 5% of winning, then sabermetrics and BIll James are ALL completely wrong, and Babe Ruth would only be 1% of winning for his sport. You are not understanding ...
I'm sorry, I have to stop here because I wet my pants.
OK, I'm dry again. Please pick any season in which Ruth played and allocate credit among he and his teammates so that it all adds up to 100%. One of us clearly is not understanding how this works, and I think if you'll do this it will become clear to you which one of us it is.
Thats the point, if Tom Brady is only 5%, then that puts Ruth at 1% at most. The wetting the pants part is that you don't quite understand the complexities of what goes into the quarterback position, its importance, and that it is a commodity that is much more difficult to find compared to other positions that are more easily interchangable with spare parts. In fact, you understand it so little that you give Fournette 6% toward winning, and Brady 5%....considering that replacing a player like Fournette is as as easy as going to the scrap heap(in fact a scrap heap pickup he was), it goes to show how those positions are easy to replace, while one can't even find an average QB from the scrap heap, because that commodity is rare.
And that your 5% is grossly wrong.
I wouldn't put Ruth at 1%, he is only that low because YOUR THEORY of Brady at 5% puts Ruth that low, because a Rightfielders impact toward winning is nowhere near as high as that of a QB in the NFL. Of course, I don't expect you to believe that, because you believe Fournette is of higher importance than Brady, because you do not understand football.
So now that you are dry, grab some coffee and go back to the drawing board. When you are there, go ahead and tackle that Mazeroski's replacements fielded at a percentage rate as good as him, and then you can take him off your sig line.
Then go ahead and cast your vote for Gene Tenace into the part time player HOF. Cliff Johnson will go in with him, followed by Phelps and Lowenstein. You give Tenace more credit toward winning than Brady. A part time player, a guy sitting on his couch, gets more credit toward winning than the greatest QB in history, the Mantle/Aaron//Howe of QB's all rolled into one.
You do realize there's 30ish people playing in a FB game between offense/defense/special teams, no? In baseball, it's the same 9 people playing offense/defense. Individual baseball players are therefore going to get a higher % credit on average than individual football players since, you know, math. Just like individual BkB players would get a higher % credit than both, because, you know, math. Such a difficult concept for a CBFer, I know.
Ahhh, and there is where you go wrong! It is not a simple as dividing it by how many players there are playing. That shows that you simply don't know how much more goes into the QB position....and why you are wrong, especially when people say a scrap heap guy is 6% and Brady 5%. That person does not know how it works.
That is why teams pick up guys like Fournette off the scrap heap and just plug them in. You can't do that with QB's. QB's that can manage and execute an NFL team to an average level are simply too hard to find. That is the commodity. That is the more difficult skill set to possess and by a WIDE MARGIN than any other position in football, and probably in all of sports.
And to be frank, that is the kind of analysis that gives baseball sabermatricians a bad name, and in this case, rightfully so. You just took all the valid work that sabermatricians have done, and thrown them into the garbage by trying to apply that to NFL QB's.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
dallasactuary
And lucky for Tampa Bay to realize that Tom Brady means more than 5% of winning. That is an absolute joke. If Brady is only 5% of winning, then sabermetrics and BIll James are ALL completely wrong, and Babe Ruth would only be 1% of winning for his sport. You are not understanding ...
I'm sorry, I have to stop here because I wet my pants.
OK, I'm dry again. Please pick any season in which Ruth played and allocate credit among he and his teammates so that it all adds up to 100%. One of us clearly is not understanding how this works, and I think if you'll do this it will become clear to you which one of us it is.
Thats the point, if Tom Brady is only 5%, then that puts Ruth at 1% at most. The wetting the pants part is that you don't quite understand the complexities of what goes into the quarterback position, its importance, and that it is a commodity that is much more difficult to find compared to other positions that are more easily interchangable with spare parts. In fact, you understand it so little that you give Fournette 6% toward winning, and Brady 5%....considering that replacing a player like Fournette is as as easy as going to the scrap heap(in fact a scrap heap pickup he was), it goes to show how those positions are easy to replace, while one can't even find an average QB from the scrap heap, because that commodity is rare.
And that your 5% is grossly wrong.
I wouldn't put Ruth at 1%, he is only that low because YOUR THEORY of Brady at 5% puts Ruth that low, because a Rightfielders impact toward winning is nowhere near as high as that of a QB in the NFL. Of course, I don't expect you to believe that, because you believe Fournette is of higher importance than Brady, because you do not understand football.
So now that you are dry, grab some coffee and go back to the drawing board. When you are there, go ahead and tackle that Mazeroski's replacements fielded at a percentage rate as good as him, and then you can take him off your sig line.
Then go ahead and cast your vote for Gene Tenace into the part time player HOF. Cliff Johnson will go in with him, followed by Phelps and Lowenstein. You give Tenace more credit toward winning than Brady. A part time player, a guy sitting on his couch, gets more credit toward winning than the greatest QB in history, the Mantle/Aaron//Howe of QB's all rolled into one.
You do realize there's 30ish people playing in a FB game between offense/defense/special teams, no? In baseball, it's the same 9 people playing offense/defense. Individual baseball players are therefore going to get a higher % credit on average than individual football players since, you know, math. Just like individual BkB players would get a higher % credit than both, because, you know, math. Such a difficult concept for a CBFer, I know.
Ahhh, and there is where you go wrong! It is not a simple as dividing it by how many players there are playing. That shows that you simply don't know how much more goes into the QB position....and why you are wrong, especially when people say a scrap heap guy is 6% and Brady 5%. That person does not know how it works.
That is why teams pick up guys like Fournette off the scrap heap and just plug them in. You can't do that with QB's. QB's that can manage and execute an NFL team to an average level are simply too hard to find. That is the commodity. That is the more difficult skill set to possess and by a WIDE MARGIN than any other position in football, and probably in all of sports.
And to be frank, that is the kind of analysis that gives baseball sabermatricians a bad name, and in this case, rightfully so. You just took all the valid work that sabermatricians have done, and thrown them into the garbage by trying to apply that to NFL QB's.
Yes, that's why a perpetual jouneyman backup QB won the SB in the past 5 years. They are indispensable and deserve all of the credit.
And, oh wait, who was the losing QB that year? I guess if Tom can't even beat Nick Foles, it's 100% his fault.
Nope. Never gave Brady 100% credit or Foles 100%. So you are wrong again sir. Simply pointing out that your "math" is wrong. You are ruining sabermetrics with your lack of understanding of QB position.
Ahhh, and there is where you go wrong! It is not a simple as dividing it by how many players there are playing. That shows that you simply don't know how much more goes into the QB position....and why you are wrong, especially when people say a scrap heap guy is 6% and Brady 5%. That person does not know how it works.
That is why teams pick up guys like Fournette off the scrap heap and just plug them in. You can't do that with QB's. QB's that can manage and execute an NFL team to an average level are simply too hard to find. That is the commodity. That is the more difficult skill set to possess and by a WIDE MARGIN than any other position in football, and probably in all of sports.
And to be frank, that is the kind of analysis that gives baseball sabermatricians a bad name, and in this case, rightfully so. You just took all the valid work that sabermatricians have done, and thrown them into the garbage by trying to apply that to NFL QB's.
@LarkinCollector said:
Someone left "Friday" by Rebecca Black on repeat.
Yeah, you need to go back to the drawing board. You are giving baseball statisticians a bad name because you do not understand NFL QB position and the commodity that it is. Your "math" doens't apply here.
Your theories of Brady being 5% to winning, relegate Babe Ruth to 1% of teams winning. Barry Larkin to .0003%.
Why do you think teams trade all that draft capital for QB's and spend that much money on them? Even average ones. Not even talking about the elite ones. Just decent ones.
@LarkinCollector said:
Someone left "Friday" by Rebecca Black on repeat.
Yeah, you need to go back to the drawing board. You are giving baseball statisticians a bad name because you do not understand NFL QB position and the commodity that it is. Your "math" doens't apply here.
Your theories of Brady being 5% to winning, relegate Babe Ruth to 1% of teams winning. Barry Larkin to .0003%.
Someone left "Friday" by Rebecca Black on repeat, again. Once you understand how math works, get back to me.
@LarkinCollector said:
Someone left "Friday" by Rebecca Black on repeat.
Yeah, you need to go back to the drawing board. You are giving baseball statisticians a bad name because you do not understand NFL QB position and the commodity that it is. Your "math" doens't apply here.
Your theories of Brady being 5% to winning, relegate Babe Ruth to 1% of teams winning. Barry Larkin to .0003%.
Someone left "Friday" by Rebecca Black on repeat, again. Once you understand how math works, get back to me.
Perfect. You should make that part of your sig line. Your lack of understanding the QB position and applying baseball "math" to it is killing the true work that the sabermetric community has done.
@LarkinCollector said:
Someone left "Friday" by Rebecca Black on repeat.
Yeah, you need to go back to the drawing board. You are giving baseball statisticians a bad name because you do not understand NFL QB position and the commodity that it is. Your "math" doens't apply here.
Your theories of Brady being 5% to winning, relegate Babe Ruth to 1% of teams winning. Barry Larkin to .0003%.
Someone left "Friday" by Rebecca Black on repeat, again. Once you understand how math works, get back to me.
Make sure you add the rest to your sig line.
Ahhh, and there is where you go wrong! It is not a simple as dividing it by how many players there are playing. That shows that you simply don't know how much more goes into the QB position....and why you are wrong, especially when people say a scrap heap guy is 6% and Brady 5%. That person does not know how it works.
That is why teams pick up guys like Fournette off the scrap heap and just plug them in. You can't do that with QB's. QB's that can manage and execute an NFL team to an average level are simply too hard to find. That is the commodity. That is the more difficult skill set to possess and by a WIDE MARGIN than any other position in football, and probably in all of sports.
And to be frank, that is the kind of analysis that gives baseball sabermatricians a bad name, and in this case, rightfully so. You just took all the valid work that sabermatricians have done, and thrown them into the garbage by trying to apply that to NFL QB's.
PS, There are some NFL teams that have/had TWO QB's to fit the bill. That isn't the norm though.
Also, the baseball math is wrong often too. We can sit down and I will point plenty of that out as well.
You see, math doesn't always apply well to sports. It certainly does not apply in the way you are valuing Tom Brady at 5% by simply dividing how many players are playing in the game. All that shows when someone does that is they do not understand the complexities and value of a human being able to execute the NFL QB position to an average level. The ones that do it to an elite level are simply off the charts and ZERO baseball players can come close to match that value as it pertains to winning.
The closest math comes in sports to being valid is baseball hitting. That is a very linear item where math works well. It fails miserably in other aspects of measuring baseball, and as you have proven with your 5% to Tom Brady, it simply doesn't work in football.
PS you keep applying things that are not true. I don't think anyone on here has given Tom Brady 100% credit. Even when they say "Brady has 7 rings," they are not giving him 100% credit. It is just simply easier to say than going into all the other stuff that ALSO makes him the greatest.
No worries Larkin, sometimes you get eaten up in a debate and you do stuff like that. Get up, rub some dirt on it, and come back another day and give it another shot. Kind of like how Brady eats up defenses and outshines his opposing QB. The defenses don't quit. They come back and sometimes even get the best of him. I don't think you will get the best of me on this topic, its been over. You've lost a while ago. I'm just having some fun with it now.
Without Brady they don't play in the Super Bowl. With Brady they win the Super Bowl. That cannot be ignored. 10 Super Bowls in 20 years. 7-3 in Super Bowls. In NE much credit for his success went to the coach. They parted ways. NE sucks (sorry for the blunt description) Brady is still winning Championships. He is approaching his mid 40s and still winning. Unheard of. I imagine if he plays until he is 47 and loses the Super Bowl some will say "I told you he is not that good." I am no Brady fan. He played for that team up North. Tom Brady has set records and brought Championships to his teams that gets my admiration.
@Brick said:
Without Brady they don't play in the Super Bowl. With Brady they win the Super Bowl. That cannot be ignored. 10 Super Bowls in 20 years. 7-3 in Super Bowls. In NE much credit for his success went to the coach. They parted ways. NE sucks (sorry for the blunt description) Brady is still winning Championships. He is approaching his mid 40s and still winning. Unheard of. I imagine if he plays until he is 47 and loses the Super Bowl some will say "I told you he is not that good." I am no Brady fan. He played for that team up North. Tom Brady has set records and brought Championships to his teams that gets my admiration.
It really is remarkable what he has done. Even if those guys give Gene Tenace more win shares to winning than Brady, it is still unmatched.
Thats the point, if Tom Brady is only 5%, then that puts Ruth at 1% at most.
Damn it, I'm running out of dry pants.
Seriously, if you've got Ruth at 1% of the success of his team - pick a year, any year - then I have to see who got the other 99%. You really, really, really don't understand anything that's being said in this thread and if you'll just start the process of assigning credit to the various Yankees in, say, 1923, I think you'll see your major error in about 2 seconds.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Thats the point, if Tom Brady is only 5%, then that puts Ruth at 1% at most.
Damn it, I'm running out of dry pants.
Seriously, if you've got Ruth at 1% of the success of his team - pick a year, any year - then I have to see who got the other 99%. You really, really, really don't understand anything that's being said in this thread and if you'll just start the process of assigning credit to the various Yankees in, say, 1923, I think you'll see your major error in about 2 seconds.
Dallas, YOU have Ruth at 1%. When you assign Brady at 5%, that automatically reduces ANY baseball player down to 1%, unless you do not understand the complexities that is required to play QB and the difficulty filling that position. Which is pretty clear you don't. Which is also why it is silly to have Ruth at 1%(which he truly isn't, but only your faulty process putting him there),
You actually have GENE Tenace at a higher percent toward winning than Brady.
You see, a bus boy and head chef both comprise an equal percentage of the total of employees at a restaurant, each fulfilling a needed job...but there is a reason the head chef gets paid a whole lot more...is because they are harder to replace than bus boys and fulfill the most important aspect of the establishment. The head chef is the QB. Your 'math' treats them the same, just like your 'math' gives baseball players a higher percent toward winning than Tom Brady.
You giving Fournette 6% and Brady 5% shows a complete lack of undestanding of that aspect.
So when your theories have Gene Tenace higher percent of winshares than Brady, you should know something is wrong with your Brady valuation. Say hi to Gene on the part time players bus.
Probably the most ridiculous thing in all time sports debate is YOU giving Gene Tenace more credit toward winning than Tom Brady. Put that into the sports talk hall of fame.
Your baseball math does not apply to football. In fact, your baseball math doesn't even apply to most of what you attempt to measure in baseball.
@craig44 said:
this is quite the battle royale we have going here.
at this point, I don't think either side is going to budge, no matter how cogent the argument. to each his own.
Well, it may be over. I just got a call from Martin Lawrence Def Comedy Jam, and they want Dallas to go on stage and tell the crowd that Gene Tenace was more responsible toward winning than Tom Brady was.
I'll give you guys credit, you certainly know how to wring every last ounce of conversation out of a subject. We've got about a dozen different Tom Brady threads going and this one keeps cranking along at 200+ posts.
Todd Tobias - Grateful Collector - I focus on autographed American Football League sets, Fleer & Topps, 1960-1969, and lacrosse cards.
@AFLfan said:
I'll give you guys credit, you certainly know how to wring every last ounce of conversation out of a subject. We've got about a dozen different Tom Brady threads going and this one keeps cranking along at 200+ posts.
If I unclick 'Ignore', I'm sure I could keep this rolling for another 200, but I'd need a "get out of jail free" card.
Your baseball math does not apply to football. In fact, your baseball math doesn't even apply to most of what you attempt to measure in baseball.
You keep using the word "math" and, Brady help me, it makes me laugh. And if I were a better person I'd have stopped addressing you already. I know you're not embarrassed but I am embarrassed for you enough for the both of us, so it's time to walk away. You be well.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Being a die hard Oil fan, including watching the traitorous Gretzky beat us in the playoffs as an LA King at the Northlands one year, I pretty much agree with their assessment eh......
Being a die hard Oil fan, including watching the traitorous Gretzky beat us in the playoffs as an LA King at the Northlands one year, I pretty much agree with their assessment eh......
Best, SH
Eh, I got problems with anyone saying Gretzky was the “Greatest Goat”
im not a big hockey guy, but looking at the numbers it seems Gretzky fell off the ledge when it came to goal scoring once he left edmonton. not sure if it was a teammate change, rule change, play change. maybe someone can add some clarity. other players were still putting up 60 and 70 goal seasons but not wayne. just wondering why.
@craig44 said:
im not a big hockey guy, but looking at the numbers it seems Gretzky fell off the ledge when it came to goal scoring once he left edmonton. not sure if it was a teammate change, rule change, play change. maybe someone can add some clarity. other players were still putting up 60 and 70 goal seasons but not wayne. just wondering why.
Part of it was the things you mention, when Gretzky was in his prime he was scoring 200 points a year, by as early as 1989-1990 the top scorers were scoring about 130 points a year.
He also had a pretty bad back injury in 1990 or 1991.
From 1981 through 1986 scoring was at it's peak at about 4 goals scored per game, scoring gradually reduced every year until by 1994 scoring had dropped to a full goal a game less and it has stayed there since.
Save % has increased from ,875 to .910 from then (1980-81) until now.
Lemieux was coming into his prime and he scored more goals when healthy. Brett Hull came along at that time as well.
Wayne was still leading the league in points (also when healthy) up until he was 33. He was generally an "assist first" player.
You are certainly correct that Wayne did drop off in the goal scoring department.
Mostly because hockey is so much harder to play than football!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@craig44 said:
im not a big hockey guy, but looking at the numbers it seems Gretzky fell off the ledge when it came to goal scoring once he left edmonton. not sure if it was a teammate change, rule change, play change. maybe someone can add some clarity. other players were still putting up 60 and 70 goal seasons but not wayne. just wondering why.
Part of it was the things you mention, when Gretzky was in his prime he was scoring 200 points a year, by as early as 1989-1990 the top scorers were scoring about 130 points a year.
He also had a pretty bad back injury in 1990 or 1991.
From 1981 through 1986 scoring was at it's peak at about 4 goals scored per game, scoring gradually reduced every year until by 1994 scoring had dropped to a full goal a game less and it has stayed there since.
Save % has increased from ,875 to .910 from then (1980-81) until now.
Lemieux was coming into his prime and he scored more goals when healthy. Brett Hull came along at that time as well.
Wayne was still leading the league in points (also when healthy) up until he was 33. He was generally an "assist first" player.
You are certainly correct that Wayne did drop off in the goal scoring department.
Mostly because hockey is so much harder to play than football!
thank you for the clarity. I didn't realize he had a back injury around that time. that would be a valid reason right there.
@craig44 said:
im not a big hockey guy, but looking at the numbers it seems Gretzky fell off the ledge when it came to goal scoring once he left edmonton. not sure if it was a teammate change, rule change, play change. maybe someone can add some clarity. other players were still putting up 60 and 70 goal seasons but not wayne. just wondering why.
Part of it was the things you mention, when Gretzky was in his prime he was scoring 200 points a year, by as early as 1989-1990 the top scorers were scoring about 130 points a year.
He also had a pretty bad back injury in 1990 or 1991.
From 1981 through 1986 scoring was at it's peak at about 4 goals scored per game, scoring gradually reduced every year until by 1994 scoring had dropped to a full goal a game less and it has stayed there since.
Save % has increased from ,875 to .910 from then (1980-81) until now.
Lemieux was coming into his prime and he scored more goals when healthy. Brett Hull came along at that time as well.
Wayne was still leading the league in points (also when healthy) up until he was 33. He was generally an "assist first" player.
You are certainly correct that Wayne did drop off in the goal scoring department.
Mostly because hockey is so much harder to play than football!
thank you for the clarity. I didn't realize he had a back injury around that time. that would be a valid reason right there.
you also mentioned goal tending has improved.
Several factors all happened around the same time. If I remember correctly, there was talk about his back injury being so bad it might end his career.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
Of course I'm kidding. My daughter who is a top notch environmental engineer with tremendous computer skills crunched the numbers for me. She came up with Brady being responsible for 12.22% of the teams success.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Thats the point, if Tom Brady is only 5%, then that puts Ruth at 1% at most. The wetting the pants part is that you don't quite understand the complexities of what goes into the quarterback position, its importance, and that it is a commodity that is much more difficult to find compared to other positions that are more easily interchangable with spare parts. In fact, you understand it so little that you give Fournette 6% toward winning, and Brady 5%....considering that replacing a player like Fournette is as as easy as going to the scrap heap(in fact a scrap heap pickup he was), it goes to show how those positions are easy to replace, while one can't even find an average QB from the scrap heap, because that commodity is rare.
And that your 5% is grossly wrong.
I wouldn't put Ruth at 1%, he is only that low because YOUR THEORY of Brady at 5% puts Ruth that low, because a Rightfielders impact toward winning is nowhere near as high as that of a QB in the NFL. Of course, I don't expect you to believe that, because you believe Fournette is of higher importance than Brady, because you do not understand football. NFL football that is, because your quarterback valuations may be true in Pee Wee football where the fastest running back on the field can dominate the game and the QB can be an ornament. That is not the case in the NFL. You are flat out wrong.
So now that you are dry, grab some coffee and go back to the drawing board. When you are there, go ahead and tackle that Mazeroski's replacements fielded at a percentage rate as good as him, and then you can take him off your sig line.
Then go ahead and cast your vote for Gene Tenace into the part time player HOF. Cliff Johnson will go in with him, followed by Phelps and Lowenstein. You give Tenace more credit toward winning than Brady. A part time player, a guy sitting on his couch, gets more credit toward winning than the greatest QB in history, the Mantle/Aaron//Howe of QB's all rolled into one.
everything you type in here is meaningless . When you say "thats not how this works" How it works is the game is played and the team with the most points at the end wins. There is no need for all your math after the fact , handing out slivers of credit to different people is mental masturbation.
You thinking you can say how it works is the problem , its not up to you.
The entire season is decided on the field and there is no actual need for any of what you do.
The game is over , you are just replaying a game with a spreadsheet . There is no demand for predicting the past.
You do realize there's 30ish people playing in a FB game between offense/defense/special teams, no? In baseball, it's the same 9 people playing offense/defense. Individual baseball players are therefore going to get a higher % credit on average than individual football players since, you know, math. Just like individual BkB players would get a higher % credit than both, because, you know, math. Such a difficult concept for a CBFer, I know.
Ahhh, and there is where you go wrong! It is not a simple as dividing it by how many players there are playing. That shows that you simply don't know how much more goes into the QB position....and why you are wrong, especially when people say a scrap heap guy is 6% and Brady 5%. That person does not know how it works.
That is why teams pick up guys like Fournette off the scrap heap and just plug them in. You can't do that with QB's. QB's that can manage and execute an NFL team to an average level are simply too hard to find. That is the commodity. That is the more difficult skill set to possess and by a WIDE MARGIN than any other position in football, and probably in all of sports.
And to be frank, that is the kind of analysis that gives baseball sabermatricians a bad name, and in this case, rightfully so. You just took all the valid work that sabermatricians have done, and thrown them into the garbage by trying to apply that to NFL QB's.
Yes, that's why a perpetual jouneyman backup QB won the SB in the past 5 years. They are indispensable and deserve all of the credit.
And, oh wait, who was the losing QB that year? I guess if Tom can't even beat Nick Foles, it's 100% his fault.
Nope. Never gave Brady 100% credit or Foles 100%. So you are wrong again sir. Simply pointing out that your "math" is wrong. You are ruining sabermetrics with your lack of understanding of QB position.
Ahhh, and there is where you go wrong! It is not a simple as dividing it by how many players there are playing. That shows that you simply don't know how much more goes into the QB position....and why you are wrong, especially when people say a scrap heap guy is 6% and Brady 5%. That person does not know how it works.
That is why teams pick up guys like Fournette off the scrap heap and just plug them in. You can't do that with QB's. QB's that can manage and execute an NFL team to an average level are simply too hard to find. That is the commodity. That is the more difficult skill set to possess and by a WIDE MARGIN than any other position in football, and probably in all of sports.
And to be frank, that is the kind of analysis that gives baseball sabermatricians a bad name, and in this case, rightfully so. You just took all the valid work that sabermatricians have done, and thrown them into the garbage by trying to apply that to NFL QB's.
Someone left "Friday" by Rebecca Black on repeat.
Yeah, you need to go back to the drawing board. You are giving baseball statisticians a bad name because you do not understand NFL QB position and the commodity that it is. Your "math" doens't apply here.
Your theories of Brady being 5% to winning, relegate Babe Ruth to 1% of teams winning. Barry Larkin to .0003%.
Why do you think teams trade all that draft capital for QB's and spend that much money on them? Even average ones. Not even talking about the elite ones. Just decent ones.
Someone left "Friday" by Rebecca Black on repeat, again. Once you understand how math works, get back to me.
Perfect. You should make that part of your sig line. Your lack of understanding the QB position and applying baseball "math" to it is killing the true work that the sabermetric community has done.
Make sure you add the rest to your sig line.
Ahhh, and there is where you go wrong! It is not a simple as dividing it by how many players there are playing. That shows that you simply don't know how much more goes into the QB position....and why you are wrong, especially when people say a scrap heap guy is 6% and Brady 5%. That person does not know how it works.
That is why teams pick up guys like Fournette off the scrap heap and just plug them in. You can't do that with QB's. QB's that can manage and execute an NFL team to an average level are simply too hard to find. That is the commodity. That is the more difficult skill set to possess and by a WIDE MARGIN than any other position in football, and probably in all of sports.
And to be frank, that is the kind of analysis that gives baseball sabermatricians a bad name, and in this case, rightfully so. You just took all the valid work that sabermatricians have done, and thrown them into the garbage by trying to apply that to NFL QB's.
PS, There are some NFL teams that have/had TWO QB's to fit the bill. That isn't the norm though.
Also, the baseball math is wrong often too. We can sit down and I will point plenty of that out as well.
You see, math doesn't always apply well to sports. It certainly does not apply in the way you are valuing Tom Brady at 5% by simply dividing how many players are playing in the game. All that shows when someone does that is they do not understand the complexities and value of a human being able to execute the NFL QB position to an average level. The ones that do it to an elite level are simply off the charts and ZERO baseball players can come close to match that value as it pertains to winning.
The closest math comes in sports to being valid is baseball hitting. That is a very linear item where math works well. It fails miserably in other aspects of measuring baseball, and as you have proven with your 5% to Tom Brady, it simply doesn't work in football.
PS you keep applying things that are not true. I don't think anyone on here has given Tom Brady 100% credit. Even when they say "Brady has 7 rings," they are not giving him 100% credit. It is just simply easier to say than going into all the other stuff that ALSO makes him the greatest.
That insipid song was driving me crazy, I don't think she'd even passed 8th grade math when she wrote it. Glad I finally found the "Mute" button.
No worries Larkin, sometimes you get eaten up in a debate and you do stuff like that. Get up, rub some dirt on it, and come back another day and give it another shot. Kind of like how Brady eats up defenses and outshines his opposing QB. The defenses don't quit. They come back and sometimes even get the best of him. I don't think you will get the best of me on this topic, its been over. You've lost a while ago. I'm just having some fun with it now.
Without Brady they don't play in the Super Bowl. With Brady they win the Super Bowl. That cannot be ignored. 10 Super Bowls in 20 years. 7-3 in Super Bowls. In NE much credit for his success went to the coach. They parted ways. NE sucks (sorry for the blunt description) Brady is still winning Championships. He is approaching his mid 40s and still winning. Unheard of. I imagine if he plays until he is 47 and loses the Super Bowl some will say "I told you he is not that good." I am no Brady fan. He played for that team up North. Tom Brady has set records and brought Championships to his teams that gets my admiration.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
It really is remarkable what he has done. Even if those guys give Gene Tenace more win shares to winning than Brady, it is still unmatched.
Damn it, I'm running out of dry pants.
Seriously, if you've got Ruth at 1% of the success of his team - pick a year, any year - then I have to see who got the other 99%. You really, really, really don't understand anything that's being said in this thread and if you'll just start the process of assigning credit to the various Yankees in, say, 1923, I think you'll see your major error in about 2 seconds.
Dallas, YOU have Ruth at 1%. When you assign Brady at 5%, that automatically reduces ANY baseball player down to 1%, unless you do not understand the complexities that is required to play QB and the difficulty filling that position. Which is pretty clear you don't. Which is also why it is silly to have Ruth at 1%(which he truly isn't, but only your faulty process putting him there),
You actually have GENE Tenace at a higher percent toward winning than Brady.
You see, a bus boy and head chef both comprise an equal percentage of the total of employees at a restaurant, each fulfilling a needed job...but there is a reason the head chef gets paid a whole lot more...is because they are harder to replace than bus boys and fulfill the most important aspect of the establishment. The head chef is the QB. Your 'math' treats them the same, just like your 'math' gives baseball players a higher percent toward winning than Tom Brady.
You giving Fournette 6% and Brady 5% shows a complete lack of undestanding of that aspect.
So when your theories have Gene Tenace higher percent of winshares than Brady, you should know something is wrong with your Brady valuation. Say hi to Gene on the part time players bus.
Probably the most ridiculous thing in all time sports debate is YOU giving Gene Tenace more credit toward winning than Tom Brady. Put that into the sports talk hall of fame.
Your baseball math does not apply to football. In fact, your baseball math doesn't even apply to most of what you attempt to measure in baseball.
Tom Brady letting Bill Belichick know he made the NFL playoffs
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo-7oElroD8
Eric
Erikthredd’s MJ Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/publishedset/395035
Erikthredd’s Nike Air Jordan Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/basketball/key-card-sets/nike-poster-cards-michael-jordan-1985-1992/alltimeset/408486
this is quite the battle royale we have going here.
at this point, I don't think either side is going to budge, no matter how cogent the argument. to each his own.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Well, it may be over. I just got a call from Martin Lawrence Def Comedy Jam, and they want Dallas to go on stage and tell the crowd that Gene Tenace was more responsible toward winning than Tom Brady was.
I'll give you guys credit, you certainly know how to wring every last ounce of conversation out of a subject. We've got about a dozen different Tom Brady threads going and this one keeps cranking along at 200+ posts.
If I unclick 'Ignore', I'm sure I could keep this rolling for another 200, but I'd need a "get out of jail free" card.
You keep using the word "math" and, Brady help me, it makes me laugh. And if I were a better person I'd have stopped addressing you already. I know you're not embarrassed but I am embarrassed for you enough for the both of us, so it's time to walk away. You be well.
Is Brady the greatest GOAT? They think not:
https://www.espn.com/nhl/insider/story/_/id/30879143/clash-goats-why-wayne-gretzky-greatest-team-sports-player-ever-not-tom-brady
Being a die hard Oil fan, including watching the traitorous Gretzky beat us in the playoffs as an LA King at the Northlands one year, I pretty much agree with their assessment eh......
Best, SH
Eh, I got problems with anyone saying Gretzky was the “Greatest Goat”
the oilers of the gretzky era were a wagon !
I liked the islanders better , but i had no real way to watch edmonton games then , i had no cable tv , i could only watch bruins away games
im not a big hockey guy, but looking at the numbers it seems Gretzky fell off the ledge when it came to goal scoring once he left edmonton. not sure if it was a teammate change, rule change, play change. maybe someone can add some clarity. other players were still putting up 60 and 70 goal seasons but not wayne. just wondering why.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Part of it was the things you mention, when Gretzky was in his prime he was scoring 200 points a year, by as early as 1989-1990 the top scorers were scoring about 130 points a year.
He also had a pretty bad back injury in 1990 or 1991.
From 1981 through 1986 scoring was at it's peak at about 4 goals scored per game, scoring gradually reduced every year until by 1994 scoring had dropped to a full goal a game less and it has stayed there since.
Save % has increased from ,875 to .910 from then (1980-81) until now.
Lemieux was coming into his prime and he scored more goals when healthy. Brett Hull came along at that time as well.
Wayne was still leading the league in points (also when healthy) up until he was 33. He was generally an "assist first" player.
You are certainly correct that Wayne did drop off in the goal scoring department.
Mostly because hockey is so much harder to play than football!
thank you for the clarity. I didn't realize he had a back injury around that time. that would be a valid reason right there.
you also mentioned goal tending has improved.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Several factors all happened around the same time. If I remember correctly, there was talk about his back injury being so bad it might end his career.