Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBigD
LOL...man it took me some time to figure out what you were trying to say there. Please don't think I am insulting you or something.
Now, about stats and since you say you can't stand when people ignore stats and get "edgy". How come you and Jsarno tend to omit or minimize the importance of the most important stas of all, in my opinion at leas, which is WINS? You said Leinart had a better rookie year than Young, says who? You are saying that based on the fact that Leinart had better passing numbers because he had Boldin and Fitzgerald where Young had, at best, a banged up Drew Bennett. Young had more wins last year than Leinart. That is what I, and probably DefenseWins, think is what matters. Last time I checked, they don't award the SB to the the team whose players got the best stats but the team that has the most wins in the playoffs.
|
I honestly tried to respell 'perception' over and over again, and no matter what I tried, it looked even worse than the last time. I tend to be a pretty decent speller, and I don't know what hit me.
Wins are a great stat for answering a certain kind of question: something like: "who has won the most games?" Well, thats not a debate worth having since you can look the answer up online, someone is right, and then it's over.
That's why you never get that question on a fourm. So instead you get questions like "is Vince Young overrated" in which case wins are at best a stat that can support a sound argument, not actually make one.
Judging a QB by how many games he has won is no different than judging a baseball pitcher by how many games he has won. It sounds nice in passing conversation, but doesn't really tell you anything about the player.
Thus it doesn't really contribute to the "is Vince Young overrated" discussion. So when you say that jsarno is being anal because you are entitled to your opinion, you really arent providing an opinion really. You are drawing a conclusion prematurely from incredibly insignificant evidence.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of equally insignificant stats out there that people will use to argue that Young is playing awful, but a few of the key critical ones do support jsarno's argument.
So if you want to support your opinion, you'd have to provide some reasoning that the numbers presented are not an adequate predictor of Vince Young's future. And there are good reasons out there, as Matty and Smootsmack (among others) have definately brought up reasons that jsarno could be a bit off in his analysis.
Just be warned that saying that a guy wins more really doesn't answer the question "is player x overrated?"
Re: Leinart: His college career on the whole was more prolific (and more importantly, longer) than Young's and his passing numbers were significantly better as a rookie which is a lot of reason to think he will be better than Young. Your argument about him having better weapons is something I would probably have to open up a whole new thread to respond to about the effect of "weapons" on a QBs numbers, but here's the simple version: Good QBs will produce close to their expected level in numbers regardless of the talent they have surrounding them. If Young is better than Leinart, by the end of his career, his numbers will reflect that regardless of who he has helping him. If they turn out to be very, very close, then the argument that one guy had more help carries a lot of weight.
I know it wasn't even a whole year, but the difference between Young and Leinart in 2006 was quite the chasm. I do expect that trend to continue once Leinart gets healthy.