|
One thing that I love is to look at a player who is physically and mentally inferior to present day athletes and then assume they'd be as good across eras. I do this in order to downplay the amazing QB play we've seen over the last 20 years.
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
Do the inverse, though. Could you imagine Randy Moss but with the ability to push off as well?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Do the inverse, though. Could you imagine Randy Moss but with the ability to push off as well? How good would Randy Moss be with Jack Tatum spearing him with the crown of his helmet in the chinstrap?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
davecrazy posted:How good would Randy Moss be with Jack Tatum spearing him with the crown of his helmet in the chinstrap? He just needs to rub some dirt on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 00:39
|
|
|
Doltos posted:One thing that I love is to look at a player who is physically and mentally inferior to present day athletes and then assume they'd be as good across eras. I do this in order to downplay the amazing QB play we've seen over the last 20 years. I think again you also have to consider the inverse, there's no way to project how good someone would've been with modern training and nutrition and whatnot. The best we can do is compare people relative to their peers & era.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 01:42
|
|
|
Soultron posted:I think again you also have to consider the inverse, there's no way to project how good someone would've been with modern training and nutrition and whatnot. The best we can do is compare people relative to their peers & era. That's also true. What's the middle ground then? Do we compare them based on eras or do we ignore that and just look at what they did on the field? I mean I've seen enough clips from old timey QBs throwing wobbly rear end ducks all over the field to guys jumping 4 inches off the ground to know they have nothing on Tom Brady let alone Blaine Gabbert. Then you get to the late 80s and early 90s when the game was just so loving brutal everywhere. Everyone was running smash mouth offenses, big LBs in giant shoulder pads were flailing through the air, and DBs were still reject WRs. Along comes Bill Walsh and he realizes everyone is giant and fat and designed offenses to pass all over them while punishing slow d-line. Then you got the greatest show on turf era which spawned everyone wanting huge QBs with huge arms flinging it down field which led to the modern era of a hybrid between the two combined with a ton of play action everywhere always. They're simply just different playstyles and only guys like Elway, Young, Aikman, Marino, Cunningham, Moon, and Favre that bridged the gap between the two eras can really be rated together with present day guys. Even then everyone but Favre were all kinda calling it quits by the time the NFL did the huge shift to all passing all the time. We'll never really know how some of these people would look if they played in this era nor would we know how people would play in their era. Hell I'd like to imagine a big idiot Eli stumbling through huge clothesline tackles and tossing up big wobblers after slamming right into the pile for some unbelievably talented WR compared to the DBs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
This is why the "goat" talk is flawed. You can say "greatest of their generation or era" but "all time greatest player" is a flawed discussion because it's not a level playing field.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 09:44
|
|
|
If Tom Brady had played in the 70s his knee injury would've been a career-ender. e: Now granted he'd still won 3 SBs and played in a fourth by then, it's a hell of a body of work, but no amount of "physically and mentally superior" was gonna help him. Soultron fucked around with this message at 11:17 on Aug 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 11:11
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:This is why the "goat" talk is flawed. You can say "greatest of their generation or era" but "all time greatest player" is a flawed discussion because it's not a level playing field. Eh, Mahomes looks to be a special talent regardless of era.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 12:17
|
|
|
Mahomes is the first player to ever get me going the way Darren Sproles did when he played on the Chargers and Saints, god bless that man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 12:36
|
|
|
ASAPRockySituation posted:Mahomes is the first player to ever get me going the way Darren Sproles did when he played on the Chargers and Saints, god bless that man. I am also horny for Mahomes
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 12:53
|
|
|
Mahomes should legit be #1 on the list but I"M NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT YET FOR SOME REASON
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 17:31
|
|
|
Doltos posted:Mahomes should legit be #1 on the list but I"M NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT YET FOR SOME REASON Says who? Mahomes is a generational talent that is going to destroy every record in the books if he can stay healthy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
I hope he gets back asap https://twitter.com/jimmykempski/status/1300107308815577088?s=21
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 17:59
|
|
|
You compare players across generations by comparing how much better each of them were than their peers. 1975 QB A was 37% better than the average 1975 QB 2015 QB B was 25% better than the average 2015 QB 1975 was "better" You can't compare times if the distance changes each race. So instead you compare how much they beat their competition by.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Do the inverse, though. Could you imagine Randy Moss but with the ability to push off as well? Imagine if Randy Moss had to sell vacuum cleaners in the offseason
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 01:19
|
|
|
Can you statistically measure getting hit by defenders that are faster, stronger, and more talented?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 02:41
|
|
Doltos posted:Can you statistically measure getting hit by defenders that are faster, stronger, and more talented? Nowadays though the defenders have more rules to comply to. And the gear they are wearing is more advanced to absorb impact
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 08:13
|
|
|
Which means they hit harder. Better pads = more violent sport.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 13:58
|
|
|
Doltos posted:Can you statistically measure getting hit by defenders that are faster, stronger, and more talented? Actually, yes you can nowadays, but thats not the point. The point is that if every QB in 1975 faced generally the same bell curve of size, speed and strength of opponent, then you are just measuring standard deviations between QBs. Football is a competition. The task put to any player, in any era, is this: "perform your best in the service of winning this game, with the tools and obstacles in front of you." And since the tools and obstacles change from era to era, its not productive to judge one QB against another across eras. But you can judge how far above their peers they were in terms of performance, which is a more stable model that controls for the changing terms of different eras of football.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 14:46
|
|
|
Every year, the town of Runsalot hosts a River Run. The contestants all start at one end of the River, and race to the other end. But it rains alot, and there are mud slides, and vegetation grow, and every year the river accretes a little bit, and so on, so that the actual running trail is just a little bit different every year. In 1950, the best time was 10 minutes; the average time was 13 minutes. In 1990, the best time was 9 minutes, but the average time was only 10 minutes. The guy who beat everyone else in 1950 by 3 minutes was a better runner than the dude who did it in 1990 by only 1 minute - even though the guy in 1990 technically ran a faster time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 14:51
|
|
|
Doltos posted:
Also, may we never forget this, the greatest of self-owns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 14:53
|
|
|
The one who runs 9 minutes is the better runner and trying to use a model that works best for individual sports for football is real bad
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
Metapod posted:The one who runs 9 minutes is the better runner and trying to use a model that works best for individual sports for football is real bad No, you just don't understand statistics or analogies, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 15:34
|
|
|
And I don't want to poo poo on you for it, but this helps illustrate a very important point. So, going back to the story of Runsalot, lets list the things we don't know/can't quantify: - The true distance of the race track - The terrain or difficulty of running over the race track - The actual speed of the runners involved The race track could have actually been 40% shorter in 1990, which would make his 9 minute time garbage compared to the 10 minute time forty years earlier. We just don't know, so its impossible to say, based on his time alone, that 9 minutes was the better runner. We have a single data point regarding the difficulty of the race: the average time of the runners. The reason the analogy is structured this way is because it highlights the core issue with "individual performance" analysis in a "team sport" setting; there are too many variables (things we don't know about the race track) to derive meaningful information from a single data point (i.e. the lead finisher time). What we can do, however, is establish how difficult the race track is in a given year with enough data points (the average race time). If enough people run the race (enough people play QB in an era), then we get a distribution of what the average statistical quarterback looks like in 1975. If you have ~75 QBs in 1975 play 10,000 snaps, you'll get a really good idea of what it means to individual statistics to play QB in 1975. And you'll also see which QBs performed better than the rest of them. So, we can then extrapolate how "good" an individual QB performance was compared to other QBs of that era. And from there, we can compare their separation from their peers to others' separation from their peers in different eras. Its how you compare apples to oranges. You normalize the measuring stick by using the same fruit basket for each. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Aug 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 15:43
|
|
Doltos posted:Which means they hit harder. Better pads = more violent sport. What? That's like saying that cars with rollcages and airbags are more dangerous
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Every year, the town of Runsalot hosts a River Run. The contestants all start at one end of the River, and race to the other end. It's actually not even that complex and done in baseball all the time. I'm just using baseball since it's easier to quantify and their analysis is way ahead of football's. Like, during the dead ball era of the 60's, a guy hitting 20 homers or even batting .300 was well above average. In the 70's, guys like Mike Schmidt and Jim RIce would lead the league with 35-40 dingers. But you can't compare those totals/stats to the late 90's where steroids (and smaller ballparks) were leading to 15 -20 guys a year with 40+ home runs. Or how, in the 80's, certain players were stealing 80-100 bases a season but that's not done anymore since managers don't value the stolen base. Are there players around now who COULD do that? Most likely. Were there pitchers in the 50's that could have gotten 50+ saves? Are there modern pitchers who could pitch 20 complete games in a season. Of course, but they're not because the game has changed. So you take, say, MIke Schmidt who averaged 35 home runs when the league average was 10 or 15 vs Sammy Sosa who averaged 55 when the league average was 25 or so and base the comparison on percentages above the league norm. It's why what Babe Ruth was able to accomplish is so impressive and astonishing since his performance vs the league average is just insane. Or Hank Aaron for that matter with his RBI totals. So comparing Fran Tarkenton's or Ken Stablers' TD/INT ratio to Russel Wilson's or Desean Watson's without seasonal context doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 17:23
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:So comparing Fran Tarkenton's or Ken Stablers' TD/INT ratio to Russel Wilson's or Desean Watson's without seasonal context doesn't work. This was basically my point, yes - you compare Stablers TD/INT to the rest of the league at the time, and see how much better he was. Then you compare Wilson's TD/INT to the rest of the league today, and see how much better he is. Then you ask, "Who was further ahead of their contemporaries?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:This was basically my point, yes - you compare Stablers TD/INT to the rest of the league at the time, and see how much better he was. Yes we're in agreement. I started out saying my point was simpler then wrote 3x as many words as you did so sorry if my lovely post seemed like I was arguing with you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:What? That's like saying that cars with rollcages and airbags are more dangerous Bare knuckle boxing is safer than boxing with gloves. When you have more protection you hit harder. blarzgh posted:Actually, yes you can nowadays, but thats not the point. It is the point. Again you're so obsessed with numbers that you think that people will magically play up or play down to their competition when you stick them into different eras. It sucks you can't rate QBs across eras and that present day QBs are blatantly better than the ones you idolized as a kid, but it's the truth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 19:08
|
|
Doltos posted:Bare knuckle boxing is safer than boxing with gloves. When you have more protection you hit harder. Yes I'm sure bare knuckle boxers are super worried about pulling punches to protect their opponent. You make up so much poo poo.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
Doltos posted:Bare knuckle boxing is safer than boxing with gloves. When you have more protection you hit harder. they're only "blatantly better" because of the context they're in, which is the point of comparing them to their contemporaries
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:Yes I'm sure bare knuckle boxers are super worried about pulling punches to protect their opponent. Y'know a simple google search would show I'm right
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
Doltos posted:Bare knuckle boxing is safer than boxing with gloves. When you have more protection you hit harder. Bare knuckle boxing is not safer than boxing with gloves because of hitting harder. People hit significantly harder with mma gloves than they do with boxing gloves, for example, because there is 8-12oz of less padding. Heavier gloves soften blows and slow down punches. mma gloves are mainly to protect the fighter's hands from breaking where boxing gloves are for that plus to reduce impact. The reason that mma seems somewhat to be better for your dome than boxing is entirely because you receive less subconcussive impacts because blows are not padded and knock you out immediately. Also, the standing 8 count means people who are already concussed go out and get beat some more. In MMA the fight is just over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 19:28
|
|
Doltos posted:Y'know a simple google search would show I'm right Source your loving quotes then mate.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:Source your loving quotes then mate. I'm not doing citations for my posts on an internet forum. Gloves protect the hands and allow you to hit people harder in areas you wouldn't normally hit because it would hurt like hell for you too, IE the head. These are simple facts that I have no interest in explaining to you before you enter the argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 19:35
|
|
Doltos posted:I'm not doing citations for my posts on an internet forum. Gloves protect the hands and allow you to hit people harder in areas you wouldn't normally hit because it would hurt like hell for you too, IE the head. These are simple facts that I have no interest in explaining to you before you enter the argument. In other words. You are full of poo poo.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
SEARCH IT IN GOOGLE DO I HAVE TO GO TO THE WIKIPEDIA FOR IT FOR YOU HOLY CRAP
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 19:38
|
|
Doltos posted:SEARCH IT IN GOOGLE DO I HAVE TO GO TO THE WIKIPEDIA FOR IT FOR YOU HOLY CRAP Yes because you are the one making the claim. I'm not doing your work for you.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
Doltos posted:I'm not doing citations for my posts on an internet forum. Gloves protect the hands and allow you to hit people harder in areas you wouldn't normally hit because it would hurt like hell for you too, IE the head. These are simple facts that I have no interest in explaining to you before you enter the argument. Ah so you're just talking out your rear end and not actually about punching power. Yes people box with slightly different technique in bareknuckle matches than a boxing match because they don't want to break their hands. It has nothing to do with power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 19:39
|
|