I had hoped to have pointed out by now that a huge percentage ofanalysis and analytics in football are going to wind up very debatable and in fact easily debatable.
I honor the effort but submit that your conclusion above that they are conclusive support eludes just about everyone in football.
Moby Dick would be a prize but Captain Ahab lost a lot pursuing the elusive.
So did the Old Man going out too far to get the Great Fish
I had hoped to have pointed out by now that a huge percentage ofanalysis and analytics in football are going to wind up very debatable and in fact easily debatable.
I honor the effort but submit that your conclusion above that they are conclusive support eludes just about everyone in football.
Moby Dick would be a prize but Captain Ahab lost a lot pursuing the elusive.
So did the Old Man going out too far to get the Great Fish
Bill, I agree with you that much of the analytics and analyses are debatable, and I have always been willing to engage in that debate. You of all people should know that about me by now. In many of our debates, you have forced me to think harder about certain things.
Was I piecing together various bits of information and speculating a conclusion. Absolutely, but it is clearly marked so. I have an opinion about the GMship of the Giants, but I didn't come to that opinion in a vacuum. We can disagree about some of the specifics that led me that opinion, and we can debate those. But I am allowed my opinion. What cannot be debated is that the product they have put on the field has been crappy for a long time. What cannot be debated is that they have failed. Whether it's because they are at 45% good decision making, or 25%, and how much under the 50% threshold does it have to be to result in lousy football, is debatable, but frankly I am not sure it's a debate worth having. There are clearly individuals who are capable of sustaining something over the threshold, and other who are not. What the threshold is and how much above defines success, is immaterial to me.
You're point is that all debate, all opinions are moot because it's all just noise in the machine, random luck, everything reverts to the mean. And in the macro sense over a very long period of time, that is true, I get it, I agree.
But we are not talking about macro trends and such long periods. As I am sure you are aware, there are organizations that know how to make money in a long term flat market. Why, because they know how to trade on the micro trends. As fans our view is generally in the micro... Mostly within a 5 year period. The fact that we have seen guys sustain success for 10, 15, 20 year periods, and others that no matter what can never achieve it, suggests that there is a human element to be considered as part of the micro trend analysis. I want the Giants to be the ones cutting through the noise and riding the crest of those micro trends, as clearly guys like Belichick, Walsh and even Parcels were able to do.
The Giants GMship has ridden under that threshold for a very long time, that is not debatable, and I don't believe that it is just bad luck. It's bad management, and bad decisions.
And while I can't realistically hold out hope for a change in ownership (neither the people, nor their approach), I can hold out hope of a GM that is strong enough to be able take that bull by the horns and manage it, and also be a good enough GM to carry the team to one of those crests. I don't think that description can be applied the Gettleman at this point. As a result, he is useless to me.
and using that data to draw conclusions, is not the same thing as evidence of a reality. Data is suggestive of a reality, not conclusive of it.
Hyperbole used when presenting opinions is generally what causes backlash. IMO one should be careful with the presentation of their opinions. If one fails to see that their opinion is informed by analysis of data (therefore suggestive) and truly believes that it is conclusive, they will likely believe that it to be superior to others. This then leads to arrogance and certainty that Bill2 is referring to.
Not a great way to win friends and influence people.
Unless stated otherwise, isn't it assumed exchanges on the internet are opinions to be defended/supported/debated?
I find it a touch strange that's such a touchy subject for some.
One of the nice things about this community is how often strong opinions can collide and evolve into changed minds and better understanding.
Not sure this exchange is still about Terps vs. some of the other things posted on here, but him having a strong, repeated opinion vs. some of the nasty things directed him seems unbalanced.
Unless stated otherwise, isn't it assumed exchanges on the internet are opinions to be defended/supported/debated?
I find it a touch strange that's such a touchy subject for some.
One of the nice things about this community is how often strong opinions can collide and evolve into changed minds and better understanding.
Not sure this exchange is still about Terps vs. some of the other things posted on here, but him having a strong, repeated opinion vs. some of the nasty things directed him seems unbalanced.
Christian, I would say it's popular for us humans to fall into the trap of thinking too highly of ourselves therefore stating our view as if it cannot be challenged. I think it's important to communicate as clearly as possible and not leave things to assumptions. As humans I think we love to show how smart we are which to me leads to an interruption in communicating our message. Why choose to communicate an opinion as fact if that isn't what we intend?
Crick, I agree. I assume (maybe incorrectly) exchanges on the internet are nothing more than balled up opinions on sticky notes tossed at the wall for others to read.
I guess all I am saying is I can get over someone coming off as arrogant, and less inclined to get over someone completely losing their shit and saying nasty things to someone.
The latter seems more likely to degrade the quality of exchange.
Crick, I agree. I assume (maybe incorrectly) exchanges on the internet are nothing more than balled up opinions on sticky notes tossed at the wall for others to read.
I guess all I am saying is I can get over someone coming off as arrogant, and less inclined to get over someone completely losing their shit and saying nasty things to someone.
The latter seems more likely to degrade the quality of exchange.
I think crick is correct, we should take care when stating opinions that they are stated as such.
On the other hand, as listeners/readers, we should keep in mind that no matter how something is stated, there is plenty that is unknowable by us, so just about everything is opinion.
Bill2, what magical thinking are you referring to? Deriving an opinion/drawing a conclusion from incomplete data? Isn't that what makes us human? The ability to synthesize incomplete data, form a model in our minds (whether correct or incorrect) and base future actions and decisions on that model. Isn't that how science works and advances. We form the model, test it, and while it works we use it until proven otherwise. Newton's laws of gravity are widely considered a brilliant achievement that advanced science considerably. However, in the end the model was wrong. Not that I am comparing what we do on this board to Newton in any way shape or form. Just the fact that as far as we know, the ability to create a abstract model (and thus an opinion) is uniquely human and isn't something to be scoffed at. THe fact that we realize that the model informs our opinion, but that it is still just an opinion is the recognition of of the fact that the data is incomplete. That doesn't change the opinion.
Unless stated otherwise, isn't it assumed exchanges on the internet are opinions to be defended/supported/debated?
I find it a touch strange that's such a touchy subject for some.
One of the nice things about this community is how often strong opinions can collide and evolve into changed minds and better understanding.
Not sure this exchange is still about Terps vs. some of the other things posted on here, but him having a strong, repeated opinion vs. some of the nasty things directed him seems unbalanced.
Often times posters state things as facts, and often provide "evidence" of those facts, when in fact they are opinions. The evidence is carefully curated to support those opinions and any evidence to the contrary is discounted or even disregarded in its entirety.
It is not always enough to be clear about what is your opinion and what isn't. We see today what happens to civilized discussion when opinion is represented as fact and repeated loudly and often enough to where it is nearly universally accepted as fact.
Should this bother anyone? I don't know, clearly the world is too big to worry about all misrepresentations and falsehoods. However, those things you hold dearest (like family) you are more likely to defend from inaccurate statements.
I've spent too much time on BBI since the Dave Gettleman hire trying to fight falsehoods from being unchallenged. A couple of months ago I gave up - I don't have the energy anymore that it takes to come on this site and point out to people where their logic is flawed or where they have overstated their opinions. The NYG are my team that I've been loyal to for decades and I've been bothered by so many falsehoods being spread, but I cannot let it become such a big part of my life. I've got other more important fish to fry.
And in the end, I'm still going to (hopefully) enjoy the games on Sundays regardless of what is believed generally about the team.
Often times posters state things as facts, and often provide "evidence" of those facts, when in fact they are opinions. The evidence is carefully curated to support those opinions and any evidence to the contrary is discounted or even disregarded in its entirety.
So lets use my 4% figure that I calculated before on how much DG has spent on the OLine... Is that a "carefully curated" piece of evidence? FMiC seems to think so, he offered 12.5%.
Lets take a look and see which number is more deceptive... Let use a stock portfolio as an example. Lets say you own 2 shares of stock, 1 share in each of two companies. You can say that your portfolio is "balanced" right... 50% of your share are in each company. But is that the right way to look at it. Lets say that 1 company is trading at $1 and the other $99. Isn't it more accurate to say that 99% of your capital is concentrated in 1 company and only 1% in the other?
Back to 4% vs 12.5%. The 4% represents the actual capitalized value based on the a widely accepted metric, the draft value chart. Out of all the 16 picks, there was the 34th pick and one in the 7th (maybe 6th I forget, its not impactful)... But there has been choices that were the 2nd pick, 6th pick, 17th pick, and 30th pick (also numerous in the 3rd 4th and 5th rounds that do affect the weighting significantly). I don't think anybody here is dumb enough to think that a 7th round pick is an equivalent investment to a 1st round pick. Nor is the 34th pick equivalent to the 2nd, 6th, 17th or 30th pick. So which number is the "better" fact? Which one is really the more "curated" one? You can dispute it as FMiC did, you can call it a falsehood, but is it really? But really, which is a more valid representation of the total DRAFT CAPITAL spent by DG?
You can argue that 4% is an incomplete picture, there is FA, waivers, and trades. This is true... But you are right, I discount that, because there are others "facts" out there that show that it has become increasingly rare that good OL become available in FA. Trades are wildcards and difficult to factor in. I appreciate that DG traded for Zietler. But I also put a discount on it because, he had Brown in the spot, Brown stated he wanted to stay, and he wasn't expensive. That means that had he been resigned, and the TRADE CAPITAL could have been better spent on another position... So I don't give a positive grade on the trade when taken as a whole, but that is my opinion. Again, its opinion, but it does have a factual basis underlying it. So, one person might find DGs moves in FA and trades as a compelling evidence that DG is "building" the oline. I look at it as a flawed approach not likely to succeed. My opinion is that the draft is the best way to "build" the OL for the long term. Thus my focus on 4%.
Its ok to have a different opinion. But you cannot expect to change mine without some other evidence that I would find compelling. And that is true of every debate.
1) im sick and tired of losing and I want SB an DJ to succeed but I support the length of time it would take to sort through the failure rate and development time for an ol while other areas also need. then I ruthlessly ridicule anyone who doesn't take my slow higher failure rate approach.
2) You think all debate is moot ( a made up accusation spoken as fact and asserted as something I think )
this is priceless. Debating why people get mad about other peoples posting only to keep posting the same exact way.
I have to ask myself this. If its so simple to allocate resources appropriately why isnt it done across the board? Whats your secret sauce that very few people in the NFL know about?
We already know how high the bust rate is for for Olineman, we experienced plenty of it. So what now?
The way the RG position has been managed the last few seasons drives me batty. We have cycled through three starting quality players at that position (Fluker, Brown, Zeitler) and meanwhile paid our injured mediocre starting RT, what I think is one of the most important positions on the team, $1.5mm, and started a journeyman at C. Forget the Solder signing - whats up with the RG?
refuse to get the point because I am the poster challenging you, so you get defensive:
Quote:
So lets use my 4% figure that I calculated before on how much DG has spent on the OLine... Is that a "carefully curated" piece of evidence? FMiC seems to think so, he offered 12.5%.
The point of challenging the 4% is that it is indeed a curated piece of evidence, presented without context.
Why is using 4% of draft equity (or capital) bad? Why is using 12.5% of the picks bad? Why is using the draft to fill two spots, FA to fill two spots and a trade to fill a spot doing things incorrectly.
Like Uconn just said - there is not special formula yet you want to foist numbers on the board that assumptively say the Giants are building the line incorrectly.
You used numbers and in your mind, that's presenting evidence and stating to the board the right way to do things. And you still fail to see why people take issue with it. Could be a self importance, or it could be because you are concentrating on crafting a 6 string post to address me, an exercise which in itself contradicts a lot of what you've said in the past.
You have the right to an opinion on how DG was building the Ol. Perfectly fine.
But what you advocated as the right approach has concerns as well. Namely time and risk up against all the needs of the team
Neither is "right or wrong". they are tradeoffs. Hence an analyst exposes both to the light and also remains humble and open to the downsides of choice.
When you start with the GM sucks then the data just shows up to support the pre set conclusion.
That's not a supported opinion. That's a supported take closer to propaganda in its incompleteness.
The point is that no one here has time to complete all the second and third derivatives of any choice in football. So even common sense protection from POV containing the many ways to second guess in a sport with so many variables should leave one with very few declarative positions.
That's feels logical to me.
McL, its not meant as an attack. None of my posts are. Im hoping they help form your own style of getting even better as an analyst of a very tough game to analyze
that some of these falsehoods you mention or neither true nor false?
Could you be the one claiming your opinion is fact?
As much time as I've spent on here in the past 20 years or so I'm sure I've had my opinion taken as a presentation of fact once or twice, but I don't think you'll find many who feel that way about me. Certainly not where I dig in my heels and argue repeatedly with conviction. This is especially true when it comes to interpreting causes for outcomes - I just don't believe I know as much about the game of football as most posters here, so I tend to try and learn what I can. That attitude guides pretty much all my football posts, even ones where I posit an opinion.
I don't deny I could be blind to my own behavior, but I'd welcome evidence that shows me to be wrong in this way.
There are very few absolute facts that get distorted on here, but sometimes they are repeated over and over again and I have tried to set the record straight unsuccessfully about it.
For example, the facts presented around Eli's "benching" regularly get stated wrong, both here and in the general media. There are some absolute facts, but mostly what gets repeated are people's opinions, interpretations, feelings, etc.
I don't want to get into that discussion again right now, but rarely do you get an actual historically accurate description of those events.
I agree that the facts around Eli’s benching get misrepresented
As do a lot of other things. People were convinced Tuck was afraid to get surgery because the usual first course of action is to see if it heals in its own....for example.
Won’t press you on it but would like to hear what you think is misrepresented. I think the same thing but am guessing we don’t see things the same way.
Its ok to have a different opinion. But you cannot expect to change mine without some other evidence that I would find compelling. And that is true of every debate.
I don't generally try to assert an opinion, and I'm not going to try to argue against the 4% number. I get it, it's a fine number to use if you want to, but it's not an argument that interests me.
I'll give you a better one that you've been indirectly related to in the past. This is an argument that I've spent too much time on already so don't really want to engage far down this road - what's been said on here is enough already - but I will remind you of the debate to illustrate the overall point.
The debate I'm referring to is the Dave Gettleman/Use of analytics debate.
Definitive assertions have been made about the attitude DG has about using analytics. These assertions have been presented as evidence-based facts. Part of what has been presented as evidence has been "an absence of evidence" - as in "we can't find any evidence from our internet browsers (Reddit, Github, LinkedIn, Giants.com)". A certain poster (not you) has insisted that they've provided evidence that proves DG is anti-analytics. They haven't positioned that as what all the evidence suggests - but as what absolutely is and must be.
Then they've repeated it over and over again until many have simply accepted the opinion as a fact.
I've spent a lot of hours trying to get a few different posters to admit that there MIGHT be more than what we have seen going on. It was painful and I'm not doing it anymore, because these posters were convinced of what reality was and insisted that their position was reality.
In contrast, I was only trying to argue that perhaps there was more than what they could see.
RE: I agree that the facts around Eli’s benching get misrepresented
As do a lot of other things. People were convinced Tuck was afraid to get surgery because the usual first course of action is to see if it heals in its own....for example.
Won’t press you on it but would like to hear what you think is misrepresented. I think the same thing but am guessing we don’t see things the same way.
Maybe sometime at training camp or something? I'm open to visiting on the subject in person - I think it would be better that way.
The point of challenging the 4% is that it is indeed a curated piece of evidence, presented without context.
Why is using 4% of draft equity (or capital) bad? Why is using 12.5% of the picks bad? Why is using the draft to fill two spots, FA to fill two spots and a trade to fill a spot doing things incorrectly.
Do I need to explain that the OL represents 5 of 22 stating players or about 23%? When I have posted that 4% in the past, I pointed that out... Do I need to rehash it every time I quote the stat?
Do I need to rehash that we have seen a steady decline in available OL in FA? And a decline in the quality? It has been discussed ad-nauseum.
I also did state that when he took over, the team had 0 starting offensive lineman (I'm not counting Flowers, he lasted only a few games, and everybody knew he has a problem).
By the way, I made mention of all of that context on this thread...
from my original post
Quote:
At the end of the day, Gettleman has only spent 4% of his draft equity on the offensive line, when the point at which the took over the team he had 0 starting offensive lineman. He went to FA where you generally don't find talent
Quote:
And even using your way overly simplistic formula of 2 picks out of 16, the OL represents 23% of the starting lineup, 5 out of 22.
Quote:
The philosophy I would like to see, is using FA to pick up 1 year (maybe 2 year) stopgap types, while long term filling out the position group through a draft heavy approach. Young and decent OL are almost never available in FA.
I went into far more context about the specific FA moves, and trades as well... Saying I stated it completely out of context, disingenuous to say the least, and clearly false. I used the word CAPITAL, and not PICKS... At least to me, CAPITAL implies the weighting, sorry if that wasn't clear.
I never waded too deep into the linked in discussion
Its ok to have a different opinion. But you cannot expect to change mine without some other evidence that I would find compelling. And that is true of every debate.
I don't generally try to assert an opinion, and I'm not going to try to argue against the 4% number. I get it, it's a fine number to use if you want to, but it's not an argument that interests me.
I'll give you a better one that you've been indirectly related to in the past. This is an argument that I've spent too much time on already so don't really want to engage far down this road - what's been said on here is enough already - but I will remind you of the debate to illustrate the overall point.
The debate I'm referring to is the Dave Gettleman/Use of analytics debate.
Definitive assertions have been made about the attitude DG has about using analytics. These assertions have been presented as evidence-based facts. Part of what has been presented as evidence has been "an absence of evidence" - as in "we can't find any evidence from our internet browsers (Reddit, Github, LinkedIn, Giants.com)". A certain poster (not you) has insisted that they've provided evidence that proves DG is anti-analytics. They haven't positioned that as what all the evidence suggests - but as what absolutely is and must be.
Then they've repeated it over and over again until many have simply accepted the opinion as a fact.
I've spent a lot of hours trying to get a few different posters to admit that there MIGHT be more than what we have seen going on. It was painful and I'm not doing it anymore, because these posters were convinced of what reality was and insisted that their position was reality.
In contrast, I was only trying to argue that perhaps there was more than what they could see.
That is fair... And I have always been willing to engage, and engage courteously in debates like that.
For the record, we have no proof of anything with regards to DG and analytics (except that they recently hired 4 people). However there is bits of various evidence that taken as a whole suggest (notice the caveat, people tend to disregard these) that DG is at best far behind in his approach to analytics. And, based on that, I have an opinion about DG and analytics. But it is an opinion.
On the other hand, there are some posters that try to claim that he is as progressive as any body else in football with regards to analytics (which was a mind blowing discussion since there is pretty much no evidence to back that up, and plenty to counter it), or more often, that analytics really don't matter much, so who cares.
I.E. back to my stock analogy, the person with 2 shares has 99% of their equity in one stock and 1% in the other. In this context the words are interchangeable.
On the other hand, there are some posters that try to claim that he is as progressive as any body else in football with regards to analytics (which was a mind blowing discussion since there is pretty much no evidence to back that up, and plenty to counter it), or more often, that analytics really don't matter much, so who cares.
Those debates were long enough and wasteful enough already, right? Although it may have seemed that we were on opposite sides, I think you are more likely right than the other side. My argument was that the lack of evidence isn't evidence, and the constant posting as "facts" what we really didn't know needed to stop.
Hope you have a pleasant evening - going to go enjoy what's left of mine now.
It ebbs and flows. No matter what course of action the Giants take, they'll be back in contention shortly (in the big picture). Take a breath, let it play out, and be entertained.
We're not making life and death decisions here. The conversation has gotten too serious (for the past two years).
But there is no guarantee the giants return to competitiveness any time soon.
We could smack in the middle of our next 15 years of lousy football.
I dont think the conversations are any more serious or vitriolic now than any other time Ive been in the board. And that includes when we were winning Super Bowl. Plus, when the team stinks, battles in BBI are a good fall back option for entertainment.
I honor the effort but submit that your conclusion above that they are conclusive support eludes just about everyone in football.
Moby Dick would be a prize but Captain Ahab lost a lot pursuing the elusive.
So did the Old Man going out too far to get the Great Fish
Honorable way to discuss in most fields.
Imo
Honorable way to discuss in most fields.
Imo
I honor the effort but submit that your conclusion above that they are conclusive support eludes just about everyone in football.
Moby Dick would be a prize but Captain Ahab lost a lot pursuing the elusive.
So did the Old Man going out too far to get the Great Fish
Bill, I agree with you that much of the analytics and analyses are debatable, and I have always been willing to engage in that debate. You of all people should know that about me by now. In many of our debates, you have forced me to think harder about certain things.
Was I piecing together various bits of information and speculating a conclusion. Absolutely, but it is clearly marked so. I have an opinion about the GMship of the Giants, but I didn't come to that opinion in a vacuum. We can disagree about some of the specifics that led me that opinion, and we can debate those. But I am allowed my opinion. What cannot be debated is that the product they have put on the field has been crappy for a long time. What cannot be debated is that they have failed. Whether it's because they are at 45% good decision making, or 25%, and how much under the 50% threshold does it have to be to result in lousy football, is debatable, but frankly I am not sure it's a debate worth having. There are clearly individuals who are capable of sustaining something over the threshold, and other who are not. What the threshold is and how much above defines success, is immaterial to me.
You're point is that all debate, all opinions are moot because it's all just noise in the machine, random luck, everything reverts to the mean. And in the macro sense over a very long period of time, that is true, I get it, I agree.
But we are not talking about macro trends and such long periods. As I am sure you are aware, there are organizations that know how to make money in a long term flat market. Why, because they know how to trade on the micro trends. As fans our view is generally in the micro... Mostly within a 5 year period. The fact that we have seen guys sustain success for 10, 15, 20 year periods, and others that no matter what can never achieve it, suggests that there is a human element to be considered as part of the micro trend analysis. I want the Giants to be the ones cutting through the noise and riding the crest of those micro trends, as clearly guys like Belichick, Walsh and even Parcels were able to do.
The Giants GMship has ridden under that threshold for a very long time, that is not debatable, and I don't believe that it is just bad luck. It's bad management, and bad decisions.
And while I can't realistically hold out hope for a change in ownership (neither the people, nor their approach), I can hold out hope of a GM that is strong enough to be able take that bull by the horns and manage it, and also be a good enough GM to carry the team to one of those crests. I don't think that description can be applied the Gettleman at this point. As a result, he is useless to me.
Hyperbole used when presenting opinions is generally what causes backlash. IMO one should be careful with the presentation of their opinions. If one fails to see that their opinion is informed by analysis of data (therefore suggestive) and truly believes that it is conclusive, they will likely believe that it to be superior to others. This then leads to arrogance and certainty that Bill2 is referring to.
Not a great way to win friends and influence people.
I find it a touch strange that's such a touchy subject for some.
One of the nice things about this community is how often strong opinions can collide and evolve into changed minds and better understanding.
Not sure this exchange is still about Terps vs. some of the other things posted on here, but him having a strong, repeated opinion vs. some of the nasty things directed him seems unbalanced.
Kind of an impasse for the foreseeable future.
Although you are correct in pointing out that all said here is noise in the end. Useful for a of us to keep in mind.
Take care
I find it a touch strange that's such a touchy subject for some.
One of the nice things about this community is how often strong opinions can collide and evolve into changed minds and better understanding.
Not sure this exchange is still about Terps vs. some of the other things posted on here, but him having a strong, repeated opinion vs. some of the nasty things directed him seems unbalanced.
Christian, I would say it's popular for us humans to fall into the trap of thinking too highly of ourselves therefore stating our view as if it cannot be challenged. I think it's important to communicate as clearly as possible and not leave things to assumptions. As humans I think we love to show how smart we are which to me leads to an interruption in communicating our message. Why choose to communicate an opinion as fact if that isn't what we intend?
I guess all I am saying is I can get over someone coming off as arrogant, and less inclined to get over someone completely losing their shit and saying nasty things to someone.
The latter seems more likely to degrade the quality of exchange.
I guess all I am saying is I can get over someone coming off as arrogant, and less inclined to get over someone completely losing their shit and saying nasty things to someone.
The latter seems more likely to degrade the quality of exchange.
Understood 👍
Thanks for the reply
I think crick is correct, we should take care when stating opinions that they are stated as such.
On the other hand, as listeners/readers, we should keep in mind that no matter how something is stated, there is plenty that is unknowable by us, so just about everything is opinion.
Bill2, what magical thinking are you referring to? Deriving an opinion/drawing a conclusion from incomplete data? Isn't that what makes us human? The ability to synthesize incomplete data, form a model in our minds (whether correct or incorrect) and base future actions and decisions on that model. Isn't that how science works and advances. We form the model, test it, and while it works we use it until proven otherwise. Newton's laws of gravity are widely considered a brilliant achievement that advanced science considerably. However, in the end the model was wrong. Not that I am comparing what we do on this board to Newton in any way shape or form. Just the fact that as far as we know, the ability to create a abstract model (and thus an opinion) is uniquely human and isn't something to be scoffed at. THe fact that we realize that the model informs our opinion, but that it is still just an opinion is the recognition of of the fact that the data is incomplete. That doesn't change the opinion.
I find it a touch strange that's such a touchy subject for some.
One of the nice things about this community is how often strong opinions can collide and evolve into changed minds and better understanding.
Not sure this exchange is still about Terps vs. some of the other things posted on here, but him having a strong, repeated opinion vs. some of the nasty things directed him seems unbalanced.
Often times posters state things as facts, and often provide "evidence" of those facts, when in fact they are opinions. The evidence is carefully curated to support those opinions and any evidence to the contrary is discounted or even disregarded in its entirety.
It is not always enough to be clear about what is your opinion and what isn't. We see today what happens to civilized discussion when opinion is represented as fact and repeated loudly and often enough to where it is nearly universally accepted as fact.
Should this bother anyone? I don't know, clearly the world is too big to worry about all misrepresentations and falsehoods. However, those things you hold dearest (like family) you are more likely to defend from inaccurate statements.
I've spent too much time on BBI since the Dave Gettleman hire trying to fight falsehoods from being unchallenged. A couple of months ago I gave up - I don't have the energy anymore that it takes to come on this site and point out to people where their logic is flawed or where they have overstated their opinions. The NYG are my team that I've been loyal to for decades and I've been bothered by so many falsehoods being spread, but I cannot let it become such a big part of my life. I've got other more important fish to fry.
And in the end, I'm still going to (hopefully) enjoy the games on Sundays regardless of what is believed generally about the team.
Could you be the one claiming your opinion is fact?
To me it's important to understand if someone is providing evidence to support their opinion or trying to push off untrue statements as fact.
I don't encounter a lot of people making things up or linking to inaccurate sources, more just interpretations that are different than mine.
Anyway, it's certainly a valuable thing to look out for, and I'll take notice.
As I noted, I more annoyed by the posters who just burst out with rude posts. I've never once seen that tactic lead to an interesting conversation.
So lets use my 4% figure that I calculated before on how much DG has spent on the OLine... Is that a "carefully curated" piece of evidence? FMiC seems to think so, he offered 12.5%.
Lets take a look and see which number is more deceptive... Let use a stock portfolio as an example. Lets say you own 2 shares of stock, 1 share in each of two companies. You can say that your portfolio is "balanced" right... 50% of your share are in each company. But is that the right way to look at it. Lets say that 1 company is trading at $1 and the other $99. Isn't it more accurate to say that 99% of your capital is concentrated in 1 company and only 1% in the other?
Back to 4% vs 12.5%. The 4% represents the actual capitalized value based on the a widely accepted metric, the draft value chart. Out of all the 16 picks, there was the 34th pick and one in the 7th (maybe 6th I forget, its not impactful)... But there has been choices that were the 2nd pick, 6th pick, 17th pick, and 30th pick (also numerous in the 3rd 4th and 5th rounds that do affect the weighting significantly). I don't think anybody here is dumb enough to think that a 7th round pick is an equivalent investment to a 1st round pick. Nor is the 34th pick equivalent to the 2nd, 6th, 17th or 30th pick. So which number is the "better" fact? Which one is really the more "curated" one? You can dispute it as FMiC did, you can call it a falsehood, but is it really? But really, which is a more valid representation of the total DRAFT CAPITAL spent by DG?
You can argue that 4% is an incomplete picture, there is FA, waivers, and trades. This is true... But you are right, I discount that, because there are others "facts" out there that show that it has become increasingly rare that good OL become available in FA. Trades are wildcards and difficult to factor in. I appreciate that DG traded for Zietler. But I also put a discount on it because, he had Brown in the spot, Brown stated he wanted to stay, and he wasn't expensive. That means that had he been resigned, and the TRADE CAPITAL could have been better spent on another position... So I don't give a positive grade on the trade when taken as a whole, but that is my opinion. Again, its opinion, but it does have a factual basis underlying it. So, one person might find DGs moves in FA and trades as a compelling evidence that DG is "building" the oline. I look at it as a flawed approach not likely to succeed. My opinion is that the draft is the best way to "build" the OL for the long term. Thus my focus on 4%.
Its ok to have a different opinion. But you cannot expect to change mine without some other evidence that I would find compelling. And that is true of every debate.
2) You think all debate is moot ( a made up accusation spoken as fact and asserted as something I think )
Mirror
I have to ask myself this. If its so simple to allocate resources appropriately why isnt it done across the board? Whats your secret sauce that very few people in the NFL know about?
We already know how high the bust rate is for for Olineman, we experienced plenty of it. So what now?
The point of challenging the 4% is that it is indeed a curated piece of evidence, presented without context.
Why is using 4% of draft equity (or capital) bad? Why is using 12.5% of the picks bad? Why is using the draft to fill two spots, FA to fill two spots and a trade to fill a spot doing things incorrectly.
Like Uconn just said - there is not special formula yet you want to foist numbers on the board that assumptively say the Giants are building the line incorrectly.
You used numbers and in your mind, that's presenting evidence and stating to the board the right way to do things. And you still fail to see why people take issue with it. Could be a self importance, or it could be because you are concentrating on crafting a 6 string post to address me, an exercise which in itself contradicts a lot of what you've said in the past.
But what you advocated as the right approach has concerns as well. Namely time and risk up against all the needs of the team
Neither is "right or wrong". they are tradeoffs. Hence an analyst exposes both to the light and also remains humble and open to the downsides of choice.
When you start with the GM sucks then the data just shows up to support the pre set conclusion.
That's not a supported opinion. That's a supported take closer to propaganda in its incompleteness.
The point is that no one here has time to complete all the second and third derivatives of any choice in football. So even common sense protection from POV containing the many ways to second guess in a sport with so many variables should leave one with very few declarative positions.
That's feels logical to me.
McL, its not meant as an attack. None of my posts are. Im hoping they help form your own style of getting even better as an analyst of a very tough game to analyze
The bottom line is the OL still stinks and DGs moves to correct it have borne little fruit.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but you have said words to that effect in the past.
Could you be the one claiming your opinion is fact?
As much time as I've spent on here in the past 20 years or so I'm sure I've had my opinion taken as a presentation of fact once or twice, but I don't think you'll find many who feel that way about me. Certainly not where I dig in my heels and argue repeatedly with conviction. This is especially true when it comes to interpreting causes for outcomes - I just don't believe I know as much about the game of football as most posters here, so I tend to try and learn what I can. That attitude guides pretty much all my football posts, even ones where I posit an opinion.
I don't deny I could be blind to my own behavior, but I'd welcome evidence that shows me to be wrong in this way.
There are very few absolute facts that get distorted on here, but sometimes they are repeated over and over again and I have tried to set the record straight unsuccessfully about it.
For example, the facts presented around Eli's "benching" regularly get stated wrong, both here and in the general media. There are some absolute facts, but mostly what gets repeated are people's opinions, interpretations, feelings, etc.
I don't want to get into that discussion again right now, but rarely do you get an actual historically accurate description of those events.
Won’t press you on it but would like to hear what you think is misrepresented. I think the same thing but am guessing we don’t see things the same way.
Its ok to have a different opinion. But you cannot expect to change mine without some other evidence that I would find compelling. And that is true of every debate.
I don't generally try to assert an opinion, and I'm not going to try to argue against the 4% number. I get it, it's a fine number to use if you want to, but it's not an argument that interests me.
I'll give you a better one that you've been indirectly related to in the past. This is an argument that I've spent too much time on already so don't really want to engage far down this road - what's been said on here is enough already - but I will remind you of the debate to illustrate the overall point.
The debate I'm referring to is the Dave Gettleman/Use of analytics debate.
Definitive assertions have been made about the attitude DG has about using analytics. These assertions have been presented as evidence-based facts. Part of what has been presented as evidence has been "an absence of evidence" - as in "we can't find any evidence from our internet browsers (Reddit, Github, LinkedIn, Giants.com)". A certain poster (not you) has insisted that they've provided evidence that proves DG is anti-analytics. They haven't positioned that as what all the evidence suggests - but as what absolutely is and must be.
Then they've repeated it over and over again until many have simply accepted the opinion as a fact.
I've spent a lot of hours trying to get a few different posters to admit that there MIGHT be more than what we have seen going on. It was painful and I'm not doing it anymore, because these posters were convinced of what reality was and insisted that their position was reality.
In contrast, I was only trying to argue that perhaps there was more than what they could see.
Won’t press you on it but would like to hear what you think is misrepresented. I think the same thing but am guessing we don’t see things the same way.
Maybe sometime at training camp or something? I'm open to visiting on the subject in person - I think it would be better that way.
Cheers!
The point of challenging the 4% is that it is indeed a curated piece of evidence, presented without context.
Why is using 4% of draft equity (or capital) bad? Why is using 12.5% of the picks bad? Why is using the draft to fill two spots, FA to fill two spots and a trade to fill a spot doing things incorrectly.
Do I need to explain that the OL represents 5 of 22 stating players or about 23%? When I have posted that 4% in the past, I pointed that out... Do I need to rehash it every time I quote the stat?
Do I need to rehash that we have seen a steady decline in available OL in FA? And a decline in the quality? It has been discussed ad-nauseum.
I also did state that when he took over, the team had 0 starting offensive lineman (I'm not counting Flowers, he lasted only a few games, and everybody knew he has a problem).
By the way, I made mention of all of that context on this thread...
from my original post
I went into far more context about the specific FA moves, and trades as well... Saying I stated it completely out of context, disingenuous to say the least, and clearly false. I used the word CAPITAL, and not PICKS... At least to me, CAPITAL implies the weighting, sorry if that wasn't clear.
He laid out some facts and came to his own conclusion which is opinion
Quote:
Its ok to have a different opinion. But you cannot expect to change mine without some other evidence that I would find compelling. And that is true of every debate.
I don't generally try to assert an opinion, and I'm not going to try to argue against the 4% number. I get it, it's a fine number to use if you want to, but it's not an argument that interests me.
I'll give you a better one that you've been indirectly related to in the past. This is an argument that I've spent too much time on already so don't really want to engage far down this road - what's been said on here is enough already - but I will remind you of the debate to illustrate the overall point.
The debate I'm referring to is the Dave Gettleman/Use of analytics debate.
Definitive assertions have been made about the attitude DG has about using analytics. These assertions have been presented as evidence-based facts. Part of what has been presented as evidence has been "an absence of evidence" - as in "we can't find any evidence from our internet browsers (Reddit, Github, LinkedIn, Giants.com)". A certain poster (not you) has insisted that they've provided evidence that proves DG is anti-analytics. They haven't positioned that as what all the evidence suggests - but as what absolutely is and must be.
Then they've repeated it over and over again until many have simply accepted the opinion as a fact.
I've spent a lot of hours trying to get a few different posters to admit that there MIGHT be more than what we have seen going on. It was painful and I'm not doing it anymore, because these posters were convinced of what reality was and insisted that their position was reality.
In contrast, I was only trying to argue that perhaps there was more than what they could see.
That is fair... And I have always been willing to engage, and engage courteously in debates like that.
For the record, we have no proof of anything with regards to DG and analytics (except that they recently hired 4 people). However there is bits of various evidence that taken as a whole suggest (notice the caveat, people tend to disregard these) that DG is at best far behind in his approach to analytics. And, based on that, I have an opinion about DG and analytics. But it is an opinion.
On the other hand, there are some posters that try to claim that he is as progressive as any body else in football with regards to analytics (which was a mind blowing discussion since there is pretty much no evidence to back that up, and plenty to counter it), or more often, that analytics really don't matter much, so who cares.
Quote:
2) You think all debate is moot ( a made up accusation spoken as fact and asserted as something I think )
Perhaps I misunderstood, but you have said words to that effect in the past.
Better said like this. You have said things in the past, that I interpreted that way. Perhaps I misunderstood.
I.E. back to my stock analogy, the person with 2 shares has 99% of their equity in one stock and 1% in the other. In this context the words are interchangeable.
On the other hand, there are some posters that try to claim that he is as progressive as any body else in football with regards to analytics (which was a mind blowing discussion since there is pretty much no evidence to back that up, and plenty to counter it), or more often, that analytics really don't matter much, so who cares.
Those debates were long enough and wasteful enough already, right? Although it may have seemed that we were on opposite sides, I think you are more likely right than the other side. My argument was that the lack of evidence isn't evidence, and the constant posting as "facts" what we really didn't know needed to stop.
Hope you have a pleasant evening - going to go enjoy what's left of mine now.
Cheers!
We're not making life and death decisions here. The conversation has gotten too serious (for the past two years).
We could smack in the middle of our next 15 years of lousy football.
I dont think the conversations are any more serious or vitriolic now than any other time Ive been in the board. And that includes when we were winning Super Bowl. Plus, when the team stinks, battles in BBI are a good fall back option for entertainment.