I tend to agree with Steven Wright:
"42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot."
"You can use facts to support anything that's even remotely true. Facts schmacts." -Homer Simpson.
I don't argue with the value of stats, including YPC, but I don't think they apply in this particular case. This article isn't comparing what Marshawn Lynch of the Seahawks could be doing with the Packers, it's arguing one Packers running back in the Packers' system vs. the former tandem of running backs in the Packers' system.
My point is that we have seen first hand the value of Starks, regardless of what this writer's invented formula is showing him. We're not arguing could-bes and should-bes, we're comparing players we've seen every snap of.
I don't argue with the value of stats, including YPC, but I don't think they apply in this particular case. This article isn't comparing what Marshawn Lynch of the Seahawks could be doing with the Packers, it's arguing one Packers running back in the Packers' system vs. the former tandem of running backs in the Packers' system.
My point is that we have seen first hand the value of Starks, regardless of what this writer's invented formula is showing him. We're not arguing could-bes and should-bes, we're comparing players we've seen every snap of.
quote:Originally posted by BearNDesert:
I think the most important statistic when analyzing statistics is this...
Statistics that support preconceived notions: Valuable analysis.
Statistics that run contrary to preconceived notions: Crap.
B-N-D
I still think the reason McCarthy didn't run the ball as much earlier in the year is he just does not think Jackson is an every down RB. Just look at the carries, in 3 playoff games Starks has 23, 25 and 22 carries. This is a guy who going into the playoffs had a total of 29 NFL carries. Meanwhile, Jackson has had 22 carries once in his NFL career, week 15 against New England.
Watching them both it seems pretty clear which one is bettter.
MM used to run the ball plenty the last 2.5 seasons with Grant. Jackson is good as a role player but just does not cut it as an every down RB.
Watching them both it seems pretty clear which one is bettter.
MM used to run the ball plenty the last 2.5 seasons with Grant. Jackson is good as a role player but just does not cut it as an every down RB.
Grant had 22 carries or more 3 times in 2009. Therefore MM thinks Starks is as good as Grant.
If Starks carries it more than 22 times in the Super Bowl, then that will show that MM thinks Starks is better than Grant.
If Starks carries it more than 22 times in the Super Bowl, then that will show that MM thinks Starks is better than Grant.
The neat part is this thought and the inverse thoughts on stats can be true and false at the same time.
Conclusions are like belly buttons and arseholes ...
Conclusions are like belly buttons and arseholes ...
I sewed my sphincter shut just before the play-offs started.
so you are full of ****
quote:Originally posted by justanotherpackerfan:
Good places to put stuff?
Such as shiny things and narratives?
quote:Originally posted by Sally-Ka-Nancypants:
so you are full of ****
It took you 7 years to figure that out?
quote:Originally posted by Blair Kiel:
I sewed my sphincter shut just before the play-offs started.
Just remember to announce "sh!tters full" when the Super Bowl is done.
quote:Originally posted by justanotherpackerfan:
Good places to put stuff?
Well if it is in your sphincter, you certainly know where it is.
