Dude
Well-Known Member
Excellent summary ATL96
I can agree with this, but that wasn't the argument or the statement that was originally made.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.
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.
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.
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.
The major luck variable in fantasy football...and real football is injuries.
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.
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.
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.