Does Fantasy Football dictate how we judge players?

[Dude]

Excellent summary ATL96

 

[PatsFan2003]

I can agree with this, but that wasn't the argument or the statement that was originally made. We're going to judge players on a number of criteria that aren't solely restricted to the stats.



I think you missed a lot of my points. People's inability to correctly or accurately interpret the numbers as well as misuse them doesn't make them any less valid. That's a failure on the part of the individual, not the numbers. "They are really just numbers that are trying to quantify something that's happening on the field" - that's exactly what they are. And like with anything else that is represented mathematically, it's factual and objective. In a post somewhere below the one you quoted, I acknowledged that the only thing the stats don't do is capture the details of the play (ie, how pretty the pass, the catch, the run, etc was) so while it's a true statement that there's a difference between a routine reception for 50 yards and Odell Beckham's spectacular grab, they both still go down in the record books as 50 yard receptions credited to that player.

And that's my point. Correct, factual, objective and missing an important part of what actually happened in the game...

Again. Not saying stats are not important and valuable, just not sufficient.

It's not a game, not a human endeavor without that. If all you see are two pass plays with similar results, you'll never be able to really appreciate the difference between the players and thats' missing a lot. It's not sufficient.

So again, and all in all, trust the stats. They won't give you the full descriptive details of each and every play, but they are an accurate summary of a player's game, season, or career and certainly tell you which players are performing well, which ones are playing poorly, and can be used to help you identify which player is better than another. Remember, too, that one spectacular grab by Odell Beckham doesn't make him better than the WRs who have consistently outperformed him. That's where a little bit of understanding of the stats helps to balance out perspectives and opinions that are skewed by perception.

But consistency is a different measure, right? Again. There's a LOT of stats to look at. Which ones you chose to focus on is just as subjective even if the numbers themselves are not. Some sports try to incorporate degree of difficulty but it's hard and prone to error.

 

[Dude]

Another factor that must be considered is "garbage time" stats, when teams way in the lead loosen the D. That information does not show up in FF, it just count for points.

 

[PatsFan2003]

Stats do create something to measure, but because football is such a team, system oriented game that you can't always use stats as the be all, cure all. We've seen cases where a player is performing great on one team and goes to another team as a FA and doesn't have the same success...or vice versa...same player...his stats should follow, right? Note Sanders...WR that left PIT for DEN...he's way better than I expected based on what he did in PIT...even his last yr when he got a chance to start.

Stats are the best measurement in sports, but I think it's a little dangerous to put too much weight into them without seeing the games. If you say player A is better than player B because his stats are better and you didn't see the games, or how he fits what you do...you could end up like JAX...signing players based on stats...see Julius Thomas...he looked damn good in DEN...not so good in JAX.

Yep.. That's my feeling too. There are too many times what you see is so different from the numbers.

Which is why Fantasy Football as fun as it is, kind of screws things up.

 

[Thruthefog]

I disagree again. Barry Sanders wasn't a "championship RB" because he wasn't on a championship caliber team. You're committing another one of the logical fallacies I addressed in my novel from several pages back. Wins/playoff wins/championships are not a stat and are certainly not an individual accomplishment. Your statement is basically implying that if Barry was on the Cowboys back then, he would've single handedly screwed them out of some of their Super Bowl wins, and that's not a logical statement or conclusion.

I watched Barry every single week back then as I'm sure you did too, and for the reasons you gave. He was electrifying. In my opinion, he was the best pure runner I've ever seen (Walter Payton was the most complete and all around best I've ever seen). So while we both know that Barry had more runs resulting in a loss of yardage than any other RB in NFL history, the stats and the reality of his play (which are the same identical thing) show that he also averaged 5 yards per carry for his career. Guys like Bettis, Riggins, and Csonka didn't always run for positive yardage either and going for 3 yards and a cloud of dust on three consecutive runs < a run for -1 followed by a run for 11. Barry beat plenty of good defenses, and you know that. He didn't just go "2nd and 11" all the time against them or he never would've averaged 5 yards per carry for his career. He's one of only a handful of players in the history of the league to do that, so once again, the stats do capture ability. He's not the reason the Lions never won the Super Bowl though and it could be argued that he was the only reason they even made the playoffs.

Except that I never said anything about him being a 'championship RB'. Only that he wasn't the kind of RB that will win you a championship. You couldn't put the offense on his back against playoff caliber teams. They tried and failed. Look at Barry's stat line in the NFL championship game against the Redskins. Biggest game of his career. He just wasn't that kind of back. Doesn't mean he wasn't great at what he was capable of. The ring counters need to look at the coaches. They are the ring producers. You think everyone would be swinging from Brady's nutsack if he played for the Lions? Do you think DeMarco Murray's talent suddenly left him? Or are a player's stats highly influenced by his surroundings? As far as Jordan, Gretzky, and Barry. Sure, the cream will always rise to the top. It's all those in-between guys that are the problem. Hard to make heads or tails of them.

And that Dallas team could have won the Superbowl with Forrest Gump as their RB (exaggeration, I know).

Best back I ever seen was Gayle Sayers even though his career stats won't put him in the conversation. And I watched Jim Brown. My apologies to Red Grange if he was actually the best. I never saw him play.

 

[Thruthefog]

The major luck variable in fantasy football...and real football is injuries.

Not to mention the head-to-head matchups. Who you're playing and when you're playing them. Something you can't get away from in fantasy football. Unless you play some kind of ghey rotiserrie shit.

 

[Thruthefog]

I'm sure many teams would immediately take either QB, they are among the really solid players in the league right now. As a team, Steelers are obviously much more inspired, they came back to beat Oakland, which is nothing to scoff about this season, ... without Ben. Rivers is just putting up big numbers and not leading/willing the team to victory.

Philip Rivers is just another John Elway. Unless they surround him with so much talent that even he can't fuck it up, he won't win shit.

 

[SteelerKing]

Stats do create something to measure, but because football is such a team, system oriented game that you can't always use stats as the be all, cure all. We've seen cases where a player is performing great on one team and goes to another team as a FA and doesn't have the same success...or vice versa...same player...his stats should follow, right? Note Sanders...WR that left PIT for DEN...he's way better than I expected based on what he did in PIT...even his last yr when he got a chance to start.

Stats are the best measurement in sports, but I think it's a little dangerous to put too much weight into them without seeing the games. If you say player A is better than player B because his stats are better and you didn't see the games, or how he fits what you do...you could end up like JAX...signing players based on stats...see Julius Thomas...he looked damn good in DEN...not so good in JAX.

These are all excellent points. Keep in mind that the book I posted a few pages ago was simply addressing a multitude of comments that I'd read throughout the thread up to that point, primarily trying to correct some of the misconceptions about stats and other fallacies that get regurgitated on a regular basis on sports message boards. Some of it has gone off on a bit of a tangent since then that isn't completely in context or that includes some minor revisions and interpretations of what I've actually said.

Stats are not the end all be all, absolutely correct, but contrary to the opinions of some, they are the best measurement in sports, as you acknowledged, and can absolutely be used in an evaluation or comparison of players provided that it's a comprehensive evaluation or comparison that doesn't just include a handful of cherry picked numbers that are being misused, misinterpreted, and spun out of context. It's part of how we keep track of some of our favorite players even when we don't get the opportunity to see them play because of coverage limitations or airing at the same time as our own team, etc.

I evaluate players on the following basis: stats (weighted most heavily since the numbers are a direct reflection of their performance and production), individual records/awards/accomplishments (secondary), followed by wins/playoff wins/Super Bowls (tertiary/tie breaker). It's a system that consistently yields very sound arguments for why one player is better than another and one that doesn't overly rely on the muddy waters of personal opinion.

 

[SteelerKing]

Except that I never said anything about him being a 'championship RB'. Only that he wasn't the kind of RB that will win you a championship. They tried and failed. Look at Barry's stat line in the NFL championship game against the Redskins. Biggest game of his career. He just wasn't that kind of back.

Semantics, bud. And you really don't know that he wasn't the kind of RB that would win you a championship. That's once again committing the fallacy of assigning team success or failure to the individual. I don't consider his 11 carries against the Redskins as an inability to carry the team on his back or even an attempt to do so. It wasn't his fault your Lions lost 41-10.

He was that kind of back. He just wasn't on the right team. Put him on the 90s Cowboys and he'd walk away from the game with the same number of Super Bowls Emmitt Smith had.

 

[SteelerKing]

Another shit pile from Money.

You all done now, princess, or is it time to change your tampon again? You account for 15 of my 17 (all in one day, no less) - the other two have Tgann's name on them. Statistically speaking, that makes you a faggot.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Haven't read thru this thread, but FF has made me aware of decent players on shit teams. Something I most likely would not of noted otherwise.