Playing Devil's Advocate
124 replies
Jersey Dolfanforum_veteranI don't get all the celebrations. We added Suh. Cool. But other than that everyone is just celebrating getting rid of people. How does that equate to taking a shot etc etc ??
We aren't a better team as far as wins or losses right now.
"Rock Sexton wrote:
How would you even begin to know the directions? Can't even acknowledge Wallace's impact on the field unless it's a buried somewhere in a stat. Man you sabermetrics boys are an entertaining group. LOL
If the effect is so significant, one shouldn't have much trouble demonstrating it objectively.
Fin Dforum_veteran"Jersey Dolfan wrote:
I don't get all the celebrations. We added Suh. Cool. But other than that everyone is just celebrating getting rid of people. How does that equate to taking a shot etc etc ??
We aren't a better team as far as wins or losses right now.
Suh + any NFL caliber DT > Odrick & Starks
McCain > Wilson
Cameron & Stills > Hartline & Wallace
Plus we got money back for more signings.
PhinFan1968subscriber"Tannephins wrote:
If the effect is so significant, one shouldn't have much trouble demonstrating it objectively.
Wasn't there some reports last year that he wasn't pulling as much double-coverage as was expected? Having a primarily speed guy didn't really work out, when the team didn't have major success in that one area (and a few guys on here predicted that when we signed him IIRC). Kinda lessened his impact a good bit.
Brian Flores when asked about tanking: “Again, no we’re not (tanking). We’re going to try to win every game. I think that’s disrespectful to even say that.”
:rimshot:
Rock Sextonforum_veteran"Tannephins wrote:
If the effect is so significant, one shouldn't have much trouble demonstrating it objectively.
"Miami Dolphins wide receiver Mike Wallace was in no mood to chat after being used as a $60 million decoy in Sunday's 23-10 victory over the Cleveland Browns.
Wallace got his wish in drawing Joe Haden as a shadow corner; he promptly was limited to 15 yards on one reception.
"I don't want to talk. I don't feel like talking about it," Wallace said, via The Palm Beach Post. "Ask Coach. It's not my game plan."
The extra attention paid to Wallace freed up Miami receivers Brian Hartline and Brandon Gibson for a combined 16 receptions and 191 yards. It's still surprising that Dolphins offensive coordinator Mike Sherman failed to call a screen or a slant to get the ball in his best playmaker's hands".
"Tannephins wrote:
If the effect is so significant, one shouldn't have much trouble demonstrating it objectively.
Clearly not true when you can't disentangle the relative contribution of two or more things that each had (or are thought to have) a great effect.
If you disagree, start with this: Historians still debate to what degree the dropping of the atomic bombs vs. the declaration of war by the Soviet Union on Japan shortly afterwards caused Japan to surrender in WW2 in short order. There's a ton of evidence showing a major effect of both events on the opinions of those that helped make the decision, but historians can't come to any real consensus on what the relative contributions were (not saying that any consensus would be accurate, but still..). Indeed, many say only one of the two events was the primary cause.
So, given your statement above, maybe you can enlighten them.
"Rock Sexton wrote:
That's a start. So far you're at one game, and there's nothing there to show that any other receiver who drew the opposing team's best corner and was likewise shut down wouldn't have resulted in a similar, or an even better, performance for the rest of the skilled position players on his offense. And yes, I'm making it hard on you, because my goal is to show just how little we know for certain about things like this, despite our ability to theorize plausibly.
"cbrad wrote:
Clearly not true when you can't disentangle the relative contribution of two or more things that each had (or are thought to have) a great effect. If you disagree, start with this: Historians still debate to what degree the dropping of the atomic bombs vs. the declaration of war by the Soviet Union on Japan shortly afterwards caused Japan to surrender in WW2 in short order. There's a ton of evidence showing a major effect of both events on the opinions of those that helped make the decision, but historians can't come to any real consensus on what the relative contributions were (not saying that any consensus would be accurate, but still..). Indeed, many say only one of the two events was the primary cause. So, given your statement above, maybe you can enlighten them.
But our theories alone should tell us something with certainty, under those circumstances?
Rock Sextonforum_veteran"Tannephins wrote:
That's a start. So far you're at one game, and there's nothing there to show that any other receiver who drew the opposing team's best corner and was likewise shut down wouldn't have resulted in a similar, or an even better, performance for the rest of the skilled position players in his offense. And yes, I'm making it hard on you, because my goal is to show just how little we know for certain, despite our ability to theorize plausibly.
Wow, your response is seriously mind numbing. When told that he effects the game even without the ball and given an actual example citing the effect, you still deny.
You're a real piece of work. :chuckle:
Rock Sextonforum_veteranJoe Philbin and staff are doing a poor job setting up big plays to Wallace, creating favorable matchups to counteract the cloud
coverage he gets on most snaps.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-10-03/sports/fl-omar-kelly-dolphins-1004-20131003_1_mike-wallace-miami-dolphins-ryan-tannehill
Cloud Coverage
In cloud coverage, one cornerback and two safeties handle the deep part of the field, while another cornerback plays the flat.
Bracketed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy0JWtlAx2g
"Rock Sexton wrote:
When told that he effects the game even without the ball and given an actual example citing the effect, you still deny.
Clearly we disagree about whether a sample size of one, without any supporting contextual information coming from other teams in similar situations, should be regarded as conclusive. And I'm not denying that the effect of Wallace without the ball is plausible -- I'm saying neither you nor I know with any certainty whether it's true one way or the other.
Rock Sextonforum_veteran"Tannephins wrote:
Clearly we disagree about whether a sample size of one, without any supporting contextual information coming from other teams in similar situations, should be regarded as conclusive. And I'm not denying that the effect of Wallace without the ball is plausible -- I'm saying neither you nor I know with any certainty whether it's true one way or the other.
You're not saying anything actually.
Moving on.
"Tannephins wrote:
But our theories alone should tell us something with certainty, under those circumstances?
In the example I gave, no one seems to be able to settle the question of the relative contribution of the two possible causes. So, no not necessarily. Remember the logic here: if it's true that something that has a major effect => easy to demonstrate objectively, then since no one can yet demonstrate objectively the (relative) effects of the atomic bombing and the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan's surrender, then by your logic => neither had a major effect.
"cbrad wrote:
In the example I gave, no one seems to be able to settle the question of the relative contribution of the two possible causes. So, no not necessarily. Remember the logic here: if it's true that something that has a major effect => easy to demonstrate objectively, then since no one can yet demonstrate objectively the (relative) effects of the atomic bombing and the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan's surrender, then by your logic => neither had a major effect.
You're underscoring my point in a roundabout way. My point was that if the effect of Wallace without the ball on the rest of the offense was so significant, there should be some way of objectively determining it. If there isn't, then how do we know there was any effect at all, or that the effect wasn't in fact negative? If there is no possible way of determining that effect objectively, then how can someone say that effect was in fact significant? Because the theory of it alone says so?
"Tannephins wrote:
You're underscoring my point in a roundabout way. My point was that if the effect of Wallace without the ball on the rest of the offense was so significant, there should be some way of objectively determining it. If there isn't, then how do we know there was any effect at all, or that the effect wasn't in fact negative? If there is no possible way of determining that effect objectively, then how can someone say that effect was in fact significant? Because the theory of it alone says so?
Yup, it's back to eyeball vs. stats. We can't always quantify things. That doesn't mean those things don't exist or have a major impact.
"cbrad wrote:
Yup, it's back to eyeball vs. stats. We can't always quantify things. That doesn't mean those things don't exist or have a major impact.
Well and in this case, we aren't even at the level of "eyeball." We're stuck at a theoretical proposition.
Rock Sextonforum_veteran"cbrad wrote:
Yup, it's back to eyeball vs. stats. We can't always quantify things. That doesn't mean those things don't exist or have a major impact.
He wants to debate for the sake of debating. Anyone can go look at the game tape and see the coverages Wallace draws. When he commands a DB and safety clearing out one side of the field LOGICALLY we can deduce that leaves more favorable coverages for others.
"Rock Sexton wrote:
He wants to debate for the sake of debating. Anyone can go look at the game tape and see the coverages Wallace draws.
I want to debate for the sake of illustrating what can be known, and the ways of knowing it that are most definitive.
"Rock Sexton wrote:
He wants to debate for the sake of debating. Anyone can go look at the game tape and see the coverages Wallace draws. When he commands a DB and safety clearing out one side of the field LOGICALLY we can deduce that leaves more favorable coverages for others.
Yeah, but you know what? His views have changed over time. At one point he wouldn't ever admit that a professional scout's opinion is worth anything IF there were no stats to back it up. That's changed now. And I think it's important to push back against the stats-only approach, even if it clutters the board somewhat (sorry about that guys..).
"cbrad wrote:
Yeah, but you know what? His views have changed over time. At one point he wouldn't ever admit that a professional scout's opinion is worth anything IF there were no stats to back it up. That's changed now. And I think it's important to push back against the stats-only approach, even if it clutters the board somewhat (sorry about that guys..).
My position has always been that scouting information that doesn't comport with objective information is weaker than scouting information that does comport with objective information.
As a corollary to that, there isn't a person here who functions as a scout when it comes to the evaluations of the Miami Dolphins, because presumably everyone here has an interest in the Dolphins' success, and is therefore prone to bias of some sort. A professional scout has a primary interest in being accurate first and foremost, since his very livelihood depends on it, not in having his favorite team win.
We watch lots of football and believe we know a great deal, but we aren't scouts, and we don't function in that capacity.
Fin Dforum_veteran"Tannephins wrote:
My position has always been that scouting information that doesn't comport with objective information is weaker than scouting information that does comport with objective information.
As a corollary to that, there isn't a person here who functions as a scout when it comes to the evaluations of the Miami Dolphins, because presumably everyone here has an interest in the Dolphins' success, and is therefore prone to bias of some sort. A professional scout has a primary interest in being accurate first and foremost, since his very livelihood depends on it, not in having his favorite team win.
We watch lots of football and believe we know a great deal, but we aren't scouts, and we don't function in that capacity.
The problem of bias (or human imperfection) exists with stats as well. The numbers for any given thing are based on observation, just like scouting. There are some things that are objective like yards or timing.
For example, is a given incompletion a drop or a bad pass or blown assignment or rushed throw because of pressure or bad wind or etc.? The context of that incompletion is important. That's been proven time and again with the long ball discussions on this site.
The result is neither stats or scouting are all that reliable when predicting ability or outcomes.
dolphin25forum_veteranBrees wanted to get rid of Stills because he did not like him. Brees is one of the best QB's in the game, yet somehow Tannehill who most of the receivers from last year were not happy with is somehow supposed to make Stills better........... okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
Lord help us.
Fin Dforum_veteran"dolphin25 wrote:
Brees wanted to get rid of Stills because he did not like him. Brees is one of the best QB's in the game, yet somehow Tannehill who most of the receivers from last year were not happy with is somehow supposed to make Stills better........... okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
When did this thing happen where "most of the receivers last year were not happy with Tannehill"?
"dolphin25 wrote:
Brees wanted to get rid of Stills because he did not like him. Brees is one of the best QB's in the game, yet somehow Tannehill who most of the receivers from last year were not happy with is somehow supposed to make Stills better........... okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
Stills can stay just the same in terms of his performance, or even worsen somewhat, and the team will be quite well-served by him.
"Fin D wrote:
The problem of bias (or human imperfection) exists with stats as well. The numbers for any given thing are based on observation, just like scouting. There are some things that are objective like yards or timing.
For example, is a given incompletion a drop or a bad pass or blown assignment or rushed throw because of pressure or bad wind or etc.? The context of that incompletion is important. That's been proven time and again with the long ball discussions on this site.
The result is neither stats or scouting are all that reliable when predicting ability or outcomes.
The trick as fans, in my opinion, is to make observations and then determine whether they can be confirmed (or refuted) objectively. In some cases we'll be right, in some we'll be wrong, and in some we'll have to say we still don't know, because even the statistics offer nothing conclusive (as in your example, which I bolded).
However, if we make observations and fail to check and balance them with anything objective, we have no way of knowing whether we're arriving at a biased and inaccurate conclusion.
Log in to reply.