Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sebastian0622
Moss was giving Collins 15-20 points this season before he got injured, and guys with their more advanced metrics would argue that Collins has indeed been 15% better this season than last.
Owens gave McNabb 15-20 points when he arrived in Philly.
Owens took 15-20 points when he left Garcia.
Johnson gave Kitna 15-20 points.
Moss took 15-20 points when he left Culpepper.
I guess I don't see what's so ludicrous?
Is the claim perfect, down to every situation and every game and everything? Well, no, but what claim is sports is? No matter how much people hate on it (people for some reason want to believe that QB's dictate more than they do), past results show that 15-20 points, or that equivalent in performance, is a pretty damned good rule of thumb.
|
And it's just an observation, but you are treating it as some kind of theory.
As I said, unless you provide a model that can be reviewed, otherwise it's on the same level of superstition.
For example, why these three specific receivers? You selection them because they fit your idea, not because they have something in common so we can use the idea to predict other recievers in the future.
Why 15-20 ratings? Are there 10-15 rating receivers? What's the reason for that increase? Are all of them in similar ways? How do you discount for other influences?
Instead of trying to figure out why it might be true, you spent more time arguing why it must be true, and of course that would make people think your ideas are ludicrous.
It's kind of like talking about intelligent design even.