Steve Smith: Bridgewater is QB for "right now"

[LinvilleGorge]

Stats don't prove anything, but stats can suggest a lot of things and it's not common in football to get an opportunity to judge a QB using a direct comparison in the same system. That's what I'm doing. The numbers are what they are. For you to say that is useless that suggests nothing is hilarious. For you to completely dismiss all data because it doesn't suggest what you'd like it to... well, it's terrifying that you're teaching our future generations.

[Vagrant]

10 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Stats don't prove anything, but stats can suggest a lot of things and it's not common in football to get an opportunity to judge a QB using a direct comparison in the same system. That's what I'm doing. The numbers are what they are. For you to say that is useless that suggests nothing is hilarious. For you to completely dismiss all data because it doesn't suggest what you'd like it to... well, it's terrifying that you're teaching our future generations.

but even inside the same system, there's no accounting for the same circumstances. they faced different teams that schemed differently against them. there were injuries to both the Saints as well as the teams they faced during those times. there's just so many variables to measure before you can draw any meaningful conclusion on a 5 game sample size, especially using those 5 game averages to compare against other quarterbacks that played 16. i could make 9 of 10 free throws by chance, it doesn't mean i am a 90% free throw shooter. it just means in the subsection of data you're evaluating, that's what happened. it's just an attempt to show you that to prop up your opinion (key, key word) with a single statistic and then subsequently dismiss any exceptions as to why that stat could be misconstrued or otherwise not entirely representing what you believe it to mean is headstrong and naive. if you looked at that example from me and said "okay, you made 9 of 10 free throws. what happens if you take 100?" and me getting violently offended that "you're not respecting MUH STATS," would be.... stupid? is that fair to say? 

[LinvilleGorge]

I wouldn't lean on the stats if there wasn't such a large disparity. Like I said, one of us is looking at data and the other is completely refuting data because there's no data to lean on. Just but, but, but what it this? What if that?

You keep saying single stat. I'm looking at multiple statistical categories here. As for the small sample size, please feel free to look at the stats from the rest of Teddy's career to build your argument. Let me know how that goes for you.

Like I said, these stats definitively proof nothing, but they definitely make some strong suggestions and they're definitely not completely irrelevant as you claim.

[Vagrant]

10 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I wouldn't lean on the stats if there wasn't such a large disparity. Like I said, one of us is looking at data and the other is completely refuting data because there's no data to lean on. Just but, but, but what it this? What if that?

You keep saying single stat. I'm looking at multiple statistical categories here. As for the small sample size, please feel free to look at the stats from the rest of Teddy's career to build your argument. Let me know how that goes for you.

Like I said, these stats definitively proof nothing, but they definitely make some strong suggestions and they're definitely not completely irrelevant as you claim.

we're finally making some ground here. this is encouraging so stay with me. what i am doing to your single statistic of time from snap to pass is exhibiting qualifiers that COULD make it a compromised number in an effort to illuminate that you need more to make the supposition you claim it supports. it's insufficient because in order to build a case out of analytics, there needs to be a bread crumb trail from one stat to the next. 

stat 1: QB is sacked a lot  reason: QB is not good at sensing pressure

stat 2: QB plays behind the 32nd ranked offensive line in football

do you see how these two stats could lead someone to make a faulty leap in logic? perhaps the line is not as bad as the numerical indicators suggest because the QB is terrible at getting the ball out. perhaps it's the inverse and the line is so bad that he can't get enough time to make a pass. these are polar opposite opinions that you could use in either direction to prove your point. so the stats alone regarding the QB being the most sacked in football and the line being ranked 32nd are both conditional upon each other and to decipher what that means, we have to dig deeper. now you can offer these stats

stat 3: QB was ranked 32nd in the league from the time of the snap to the time of the throw

now the picture is starting to clarify, because we're adding more stats to develop a clearer picture of what we're trying to illuminate. 

where you're making your mistake is you're taking stat 1 (time from snap to pass) and you're offering your conclusion based on that one piece of data. what i am trying to tell you is that you need more than that 1 stat, same as the example above, to draw anything resembling a valid supposition. you then argue that i am arguing against data. i am not. i am arguing against using a single surface layer stat to reach an inadequate conclusion that doesn't consider ANY of the other thousand data points that exist that could either support or hinder your case. 

[LinvilleGorge]

No, we're really not getting anywhere. You still think I'm talking about a single statistic.

You're also talking about pure anecdotal information and ignoring the fact that I'm talking about two QBs playing in the same system with the same supporting cast. You're so caught up in hypothetical anecdotal circumstances that you can't see the forest for the trees.

[Vagrant]

10 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

No, we're really not getting anywhere. You still think I'm talking about a single statistic.

You're also talking about pure anecdotal information and ignoring the fact that I'm talking about two QBs playing in the same system with the same supporting cast. You're so caught up in hypothetical anecdotal circumstances that you can't see the forest for the trees.

if you're not basing your argrument on a single statistic, what are the other statistics that you're citing here? i only saw one set of data points and those were times from snap to pass. those alone don't make a case. we need more than that. we need data that runs into other data to even begin to understand the reason for the disparity. you are also assuming that a moderately slower time of release from snap to pass is automatically bad, which i have attempted to show you is not the case. it's a credit to quarterbacks to be able to extend plays by either having pocket awareness or escapability to give themselves and their targets more time to get open. do you see how your stat fails to account for that? 

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, Vagrant said:

if you're not basing your argrument on a single statistic, what are the other statistics that you're citing here? i only saw one set of data points and those were times from snap to pass. those alone don't make a case. we need more than that. we need data that runs into other data to even begin to understand the reason for the disparity. you are also assuming that a moderately slower time of release from snap to pass is automatically bad, which i have attempted to show you is not the case. it's a credit to quarterbacks to be able to extend plays by either having pocket awareness or escapability to give themselves and their targets more time to get open. do you see how your stat fails to account for that? 

Jesus Christ, can you possibly be more blind? Stop typing and start reading.

[Paa Langfart]

On 4/21/2020 at 11:26 AM, saX man said:

The great Tony Pike

And Jimmy and that other qb from appy state.  The Marty Hurney trifecta in one draft.

[Vagrant]

10 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Jesus Christ, can you possibly be more blind? Stop typing and start reading.

that isn't a valid response. that is resorting to ad hominem attacks in lieu of the viability of your points. 

[Paa Langfart]

Just now, Paa Langfart said:

And Jimmy and that other qb from appy state.  The Marty Hurney trifecta in one draft.

or for you hockey dudes his hat trick

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, Vagrant said:

that isn't a valid response. that is resorting to ad hominem attacks in lieu of the viability of your points. 

No, it's very valid. Seriously, go back and read.

[Vagrant]

12 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

No, it's very valid. Seriously, go back and read.

you did at some point mention something about TD% or some such, but only in reference to drew brees (the arguable best quarterback of all-time. unfortunately) if the goal we're attempting is to determine bridgewater's viability as compared to other quarterbacks, we can't consider that data point reliable. i didn't think that was the other "stat" to which you were referencing. it's just another comparison to brees. who is saying he's better than brees? there's a great number of quarterbacks that would suffer extensively at the hands of a direct comparison to brees. 

[LinvilleGorge]

Sigh...

[Vagrant]

10 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Sigh...

i know it's frustrating to be unable to argue against logical interpretations of data when you're attempting to make a point that the data doesn't support. the "other stats" you referenced are not even peripherally connected to the issue we were debating which is why I didn't assume those were the supposed supporting stats for the deduction you made regarding pocket presence. they're ancillary at best.