<< <i>My head hurts after reading Boopott's dissertation..I have a Master's Degree and I had to look up the meaning to half of the words.
I agree that there is no way to decide who the best is..but it is more fun to debate than to just throw in the towel and say we can't choose one. >>
Agree with both statements Ryan
Boo we can just agree to disagree I guess- you can call that "weak" if you chose- I dont mind at all- I got one coming from you in return. Fair is Fair.
<< <i>My head hurts after reading Boopott's dissertation..I have a Master's Degree and I had to look up the meaning to half of the words.
I agree that there is no way to decide who the best is..but it is more fun to debate than to just throw in the towel and say we can't choose one. >>
Agree with both statements Ryan
Boo we can just agree to disagree I guess- you can call that "weak" if you chose- I dont mind at all- I got one coming from you in return. Fair is Fair. >>
I wouldn't call you weak, Paul, because there isn't a substantial point of disagreement. Hershel Walker is certainly a reasonable choice here-- I couldn't tell someone 'no, you're wrong', if they went with Walker. He-- and many others-- is certainly a candidate.
Another interesting point. While the question of 'dominance' could never likely be answered, I think the question of 'valuable' actually might be. Not yet- we don't know enough at this point-- but some day down the road I think a model might be constructed to determine the most valuable athlete in a particular sport, so long as the definition of 'valuable' was restricted to mean 'the player who most improved his team's chances of winning'.
<< <i>boopotts, this is downright silly. Your damn well intelligent enough to know EXACTLY what perkdog meant when he wrote the post. Your parsing of words is just dwelling on meaningless semantics. >>
What? Don't tell me I knew 'EXACTLY' what he meant. I said there is a guy whose the best player ever, and he said there wasn't. There's no parsing of words there.
But I digress. Look- I'm not going to start some kind of tangential debate on what 'I think he thought I said', or anything of the sort. I'm happy-- and in fact enjoy-- discussing this kind of stuff, and if you want to discuss if further then I'm all ears. But if you're looking for someone to join you in a tepid flame war you're going to have to look somewhere else. Sorry to disappoint.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I never look for flame wars unless it's with Axtell or someone starts one with me. Let me just note that for the record. But I do think your continual inquisitive probing of the theoretical issue is not in the spirit of this thread and why it was asked. However, I'm all for anyone posting whatever they want so feel free.
We all get the fact that no real answer exists that most or even a remote majority of us are going to agree on. I'm sure the OP asked in the spirit that we always ask these kinds of questions. I think you make a good point in that there is an answer. Point made. But did you really want to go off on all of the infinite possible methods on finding this answer that we both know will never be found? >>
Not to escalate this issue, but have you read any of my above posts? This is why I find the Internet so maddening. Where in any of my posts have I discussed 'on all of the infinite possible methods on finding this answer'? Haven't I said exactly the opposite, which is that such a method does not exist, and probably never will? I haven't even hinted at how one might construct this kind of model, much less launched in to a talk about what some of its particular specifications may be.
Here's another interesting question. Could the most dominant player ever have been a kicker? I don't think so, although--again-- I can't really justify why.
Also, what position is the most dominant player most likely to have played? In other words, is there a position (or positions) in football that lend themselves more naturally to 'dominance' than other positions? There certainly are in baseball (you'd rather have a hard hitting, slick fielding shortstop than a hard hitting, slick fielding right fielder) but what about in football?
<< <i>boopotts, I've read all of them. And perhaps I'm assuming too much with the following, but here is indeed what I assume:
1) The OP understands that no definitive answer exists.
2) That perkdog's post is trying to articulate pretty much that no definitive answer exists.
3) That you understand that no definitive answer exists.
4) That every other poster responding to this thread understands that no definitive answer exists.
5) That this thread is just your standard bar room sports conversation to kick around some names.
The ultimate point is, that I'm under the impression this thread is not about whether a correct answer exists or not because none of us will be blessed with such enlightened knowledge in our lifetime, or ever.
Also, I was not being literal about you trying to explore every method. >>
Fair enough. And I completely agree that the original intent of this thread was to discuss the Tim Tebow issue- who, BTW, I do think it another worth candidate--and not to invite an epistemological discussion on the meaning of knowledge.
<< <i>Even though I have no idea what "epistemological" means, I'm going to assume you're not insulting me.
>>
Ha! No, nothing of the sort. He's some background on epistemology if you ever get bored. I think it's pretty interesting stuff-- particularly the contributions made to the subject by Karl Popper (although I don't know if he makes an apearance in the Wiki page).
If you have a taste for this kind of stuff let me strongly recommend reading 'Fooled by Randomness' by Nasim Teleb: It's a great book that really changes your outlook (or at least it did mine), and it's not at all hard to read.
Edit to add: Sorry, I had no idea how long-winded the Wiki page was. I wouldn't read through that for all the tea in China.
<< <i>boopotts, I've read all of them. And perhaps I'm assuming too much with the following, but here is indeed what I assume:
1) The OP understands that no definitive answer exists.
2) That perkdog's post is trying to articulate pretty much that no definitive answer exists.
3) That you understand that no definitive answer exists.
4) That every other poster responding to this thread understands that no definitive answer exists.
5) That this thread is just your standard bar room sports conversation to kick around some names.
The ultimate point is, that I'm under the impression this thread is not about whether a correct answer exists or not because none of us will be blessed with such enlightened knowledge in our lifetime, or ever.
Also, I was not being literal about you trying to explore every method. >>
Wow. That's really well said. And to think that it came from a Yankee fan. Perhaps I'm wrong that they're not an educated group.
To find the correct answer my assumption is you would first have to find out how to rate each position on the field and how much it contributes to winning. Then you would have to create stats or use current stats at each position that enables one to tell how much each player at each position compared with each other and how much they contributed to winning. You would then have to create a whole bunch of correction factors for competition, field type, strength of ones own teammates etc.
At the end it would take someone maybe a lifetime to do something of this nature and it would still be viewed like a BCS Champion when there is still someone undefeated (Utah). It will be hard to get everyone to "buy" into a purely statistical approach when they have seen players play with their own eyes.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
<< <i>Nice to see a super college football player, and most likely, a #1 draft pick;
... "sending out the right message" to America's youth!
Finish your education! Good for you Tim Tebow! >>
Most draft experts had Tebow nowhere near #1, let alone round 1. He was projected to go in the middle rounds, and more likely to be drafted as a tight end or fullback than as a QB. I suspect this is part of the reason he is returning. He can only increase his draft status and not really do that much to hurt it IMO.
Comments
<< <i>My head hurts after reading Boopott's dissertation..I have a Master's Degree and I had to look up the meaning to half of the words.
I agree that there is no way to decide who the best is..but it is more fun to debate than to just throw in the towel and say we can't choose one. >>
Agree with both statements Ryan
Boo we can just agree to disagree I guess- you can call that "weak" if you chose- I dont mind at all- I got one coming from you in return. Fair is Fair.
<< <i>
<< <i>My head hurts after reading Boopott's dissertation..I have a Master's Degree and I had to look up the meaning to half of the words.
I agree that there is no way to decide who the best is..but it is more fun to debate than to just throw in the towel and say we can't choose one. >>
Agree with both statements Ryan
Boo we can just agree to disagree I guess- you can call that "weak" if you chose- I dont mind at all- I got one coming from you in return. Fair is Fair.
I wouldn't call you weak, Paul, because there isn't a substantial point of disagreement. Hershel Walker is certainly a reasonable choice here-- I couldn't tell someone 'no, you're wrong', if they went with Walker. He-- and many others-- is certainly a candidate.
Another interesting point. While the question of 'dominance' could never likely be answered, I think the question of 'valuable' actually might be. Not yet- we don't know enough at this point-- but some day down the road I think a model might be constructed to determine the most valuable athlete in a particular sport, so long as the definition of 'valuable' was restricted to mean 'the player who most improved his team's chances of winning'.
<< <i>boopotts, this is downright silly. Your damn well intelligent enough to know EXACTLY what perkdog meant when he wrote the post. Your parsing of words is just dwelling on meaningless semantics. >>
What? Don't tell me I knew 'EXACTLY' what he meant. I said there is a guy whose the best player ever, and he said there wasn't. There's no parsing of words there.
But I digress. Look- I'm not going to start some kind of tangential debate on what 'I think he thought I said', or anything of the sort. I'm happy-- and in fact enjoy-- discussing this kind of stuff, and if you want to discuss if further then I'm all ears. But if you're looking for someone to join you in a tepid flame war you're going to have to look somewhere else. Sorry to disappoint.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I never look for flame wars unless it's with Axtell or someone starts one with me. Let me just note that for the record. But I do think your continual inquisitive probing of the theoretical issue is not in the spirit of this thread and why it was asked. However, I'm all for anyone posting whatever they want so feel free.
We all get the fact that no real answer exists that most or even a remote majority of us are going to agree on. I'm sure the OP asked in the spirit that we always ask these kinds of questions. I think you make a good point in that there is an answer. Point made. But did you really want to go off on all of the infinite possible methods on finding this answer that we both know will never be found? >>
Not to escalate this issue, but have you read any of my above posts? This is why I find the Internet so maddening. Where in any of my posts have I discussed 'on all of the infinite possible methods on finding this answer'? Haven't I said exactly the opposite, which is that such a method does not exist, and probably never will? I haven't even hinted at how one might construct this kind of model, much less launched in to a talk about what some of its particular specifications may be.
Also, what position is the most dominant player most likely to have played? In other words, is there a position (or positions) in football that lend themselves more naturally to 'dominance' than other positions? There certainly are in baseball (you'd rather have a hard hitting, slick fielding shortstop than a hard hitting, slick fielding right fielder) but what about in football?
<< <i>boopotts, I've read all of them. And perhaps I'm assuming too much with the following, but here is indeed what I assume:
1) The OP understands that no definitive answer exists.
2) That perkdog's post is trying to articulate pretty much that no definitive answer exists.
3) That you understand that no definitive answer exists.
4) That every other poster responding to this thread understands that no definitive answer exists.
5) That this thread is just your standard bar room sports conversation to kick around some names.
The ultimate point is, that I'm under the impression this thread is not about whether a correct answer exists or not because none of us will be blessed with such enlightened knowledge in our lifetime, or ever.
Also, I was not being literal about you trying to explore every method. >>
Fair enough. And I completely agree that the original intent of this thread was to discuss the Tim Tebow issue- who, BTW, I do think it another worth candidate--and not to invite an epistemological discussion on the meaning of knowledge.
<< <i>Even though I have no idea what "epistemological" means, I'm going to assume you're not insulting me.
Ha! No, nothing of the sort. He's some background on epistemology if you ever get bored. I think it's pretty interesting stuff-- particularly the contributions made to the subject by Karl Popper (although I don't know if he makes an apearance in the Wiki page).
If you have a taste for this kind of stuff let me strongly recommend reading 'Fooled by Randomness' by Nasim Teleb: It's a great book that really changes your outlook (or at least it did mine), and it's not at all hard to read.
Edit to add: Sorry, I had no idea how long-winded the Wiki page was. I wouldn't read through that for all the tea in China.
<< <i>boopotts, I've read all of them. And perhaps I'm assuming too much with the following, but here is indeed what I assume:
1) The OP understands that no definitive answer exists.
2) That perkdog's post is trying to articulate pretty much that no definitive answer exists.
3) That you understand that no definitive answer exists.
4) That every other poster responding to this thread understands that no definitive answer exists.
5) That this thread is just your standard bar room sports conversation to kick around some names.
The ultimate point is, that I'm under the impression this thread is not about whether a correct answer exists or not because none of us will be blessed with such enlightened knowledge in our lifetime, or ever.
Also, I was not being literal about you trying to explore every method. >>
Wow. That's really well said. And to think that it came from a Yankee fan.
Perhaps I'm wrong that they're not an educated group.
<< <i>"Let's do it again, I'm comin' back!" >>
Nice to see a super college football player, and most likely, a #1 draft pick;
... "sending out the right message" to America's youth!
Finish your education! Good for you Tim Tebow!
rd
edit: I wish him well in 2009!
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
At the end it would take someone maybe a lifetime to do something of this nature and it would still be viewed like a BCS Champion when there is still someone undefeated (Utah). It will be hard to get everyone to "buy" into a purely statistical approach when they have seen players play with their own eyes.
<< <i>Nice to see a super college football player, and most likely, a #1 draft pick;
... "sending out the right message" to America's youth!
Finish your education! Good for you Tim Tebow!
Most draft experts had Tebow nowhere near #1, let alone round 1. He was projected to go in the middle rounds, and more likely to be drafted as a tight end or fullback than as a QB. I suspect this is part of the reason he is returning. He can only increase his draft status and not really do that much to hurt it IMO.