Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Tim Harper
Originally posted by Malvado

We held Chicago to 36 points, you really think DC is going to put up 60 on us?

I held Chicago to 36 points.

I haven't ran the score up on anyone yet this season.

I'm not trying to say that we're some elite defense or anything. I know we're still a team rebuilding, but we turned the ball over 5 times that game and gave you guys good field position a lot. Granted I'm sure your tactics werent set to run the score up in the second half, but regardless; five turnovers and good field position and only 36 points.

Bottom line, there really is no point to this argument seeing as how we're still 0-6. I guess we're not granted the right to have any sort of respect yet.

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert

You couldn't be more wrong about this.


http://goallineblitz.com/game/team_stats.pl?league_id=1&conference_id=0&stat=rushing&sort=rushing_yards_allowed&playoffs=0

It's pretty simple.

Originally posted by Asheme
Originally posted by The Strategy Expert


You couldn't be more wrong about this.


http://goallineblitz.com/game/team_stats.pl?league_id=1&conference_id=0&stat=rushing&sort=rushing_yards_allowed&playoffs=0

It's pretty simple.

It's also wrong.

Originally posted by Asheme
Originally posted by The Strategy Expert


You couldn't be more wrong about this.


http://goallineblitz.com/game/team_stats.pl?league_id=1&conference_id=0&stat=rushing&sort=rushing_yards_allowed&playoffs=0

It's pretty simple.

A stat by definition is data with a numerical value, not a report. The word "stat" itself DOES NOT EQUAL "report" (or query or tabulation or chart or whatever else you wanna call that link). The link you provided is a report (amongst possible other terms). The stat itself cannot be altered, it is real and unique and cannot be affected by invalid nomenclature.

Here is the top 2 definitions from dictionary.com if you want to check it out...

sta·tis·tic Audio Help (stə-tĭs'tĭk) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A numerical datum.
2. A numerical value, such as standard deviation or mean, that characterizes the sample or population from which it was derived.

Notice the bold part. This is the key in your confusion. The population from which "rushing yards allowed" comes from does not include sacks, that is a different population therefore combining the values from that separate population no longer keeps the definition of the word intact, thus you have something else, but you don't have a "stat" because you violated the qualifying set of words that would otherwise have made it a "stat".

So I will also disagree with your contention that it is "pretty simple" because most people would not find this matter to be a "simple" one because I am using my advanced understanding of logic to carefully delineate the difference between the contrasting remarks between the two of us.

Your problem is with the population being used, doesn't change the fact that it's a statistic. Your advanced understanding of logic may tell you that sacks shouldn't be included in the population, but in the GLB universe they are.

Originally posted by McGrai37
Your problem is with the population being used, doesn't change the fact that it's a statistic. Your advanced understanding of logic may tell you that sacks shouldn't be included in the population, but in the GLB universe they are.

Sacks appear to fall under quantum theory. They appear in both rushing and passing stats.
You look at the rushing stats, and the "number of sacks" doesn't appear.

You look at the passing stats, and the yardage doesn't appear.
http://goallineblitz.com/game/team_stats.pl?league_id=1&conference_id=0&stat=passing&playoffs=0

We broke the waveform.
Stop looking at the stats page, and they will appear correctly !!

Originally posted by McGrai37
Your problem is with the population being used, doesn't change the fact that it's a statistic. Your advanced understanding of logic may tell you that sacks shouldn't be included in the population, but in the GLB universe they are.

Now you are changing the word "population". The rushing yards allowed are "one population". The QB being sacked is not a rushing attempt and exists within its own population. That would be like saying 50% of the American population believes in God, and then when asked for the numbers that led to the stat...

Oh well let's see we have a vote here, uh 9 thousand Americans said yes and 10 thousand Americans said no.

Well how do you get 50% for the stat? Oh, well we are going to borrow 1 thousand Chinese from another study that also said yes and combine it with this one.

But, I thought this was a study regarding just the American population?... These Chinese are from an entirely different population!

Now we have 2 populations involved, not 1. The definition of "statistic" above, signifies a singular population.

So the report can be titled as a "statistic" but it is not one. It cannot exist as a statistic if it doesnt meet the definition of the essence of the word in the first place. Everything else that spirals beyond that point after this premise is violated is thus invalid.

You can cry all you want about the sacks in rush yards, but the fact is GLB IS NOT THE NFL. In this game yards lost on sacks ARE rush yards lost, so you might as well get over it and accept it. Do I agree it should be like this? Nope, but that doesn't change the fact that it is.


Again, GLB does NOT equal NFL. Thus, many things can be different, it is legal!

Originally posted by Galkuris
You can cry all you want about the sacks in rush yards, but the fact is GLB IS NOT THE NFL. In this game yards lost on sacks ARE rush yards lost, so you might as well get over it and accept it. Do I agree it should be like this? Nope, but that doesn't change the fact that it is.


Again, GLB does NOT equal NFL. Thus, many things can be different, it is legal!

I'm not saying GLB is the NFL. The NFL doesnt have the privilege of redefining what a statistic is as well. Since they report numbers correctly as statistics, their items of data that they call "statistics" actually happen to be statistics. GLB does this as well but not with the query for rushing yards allowed, it's very confusing because it shows up in a column surrounded by a whole bunch of statistics.

wait. Is TSE trying to argue that being counted as a stat doesn't make it actually count as a stat?

Originally posted by brigmar

It's also wrong.


For the love of sweet pete, Jed referenced that number in that column, nothing more. The only way it would be "wrong" in this instance, is if Jed was off on the number, which he wasn't, which is why this tangent is absurd.

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert

I am using my advanced understanding of logic to carefully delineate the difference between the contrasting remarks between the two of us.

You never cease to amaze. Please save your advanced understanding of logic for an actual rational emergency. You're trying to use a shotgun to flush a toilet right now.

Originally posted by Asheme


You never cease to amaze. Please save your advanced understanding of logic for an actual rational emergency. You're trying to use a shotgun to flush a toilet right now.

Well gee I wouldn't have to pull out a shotgun if you wouldn't have made such a big deal about it. All I was trying to do was reconcile -124 to know what the correct number of yards is for the rushing allowed and you seemed to want to make it into a war, yikes!

Originally posted by Serenity
wait. Is TSE trying to argue that being counted as a stat doesn't make it actually count as a stat? o_O

Yes, he actually is.

This is possibly the dumbest argument I've seen on this site. We're all measured in the same way, if you want to go through and adjust every team's stats to what is true in the NFL, then go right ahead, I'll quote those stats instead. Till then, I'll use what this site provides, however flawed they are.

Originally posted by Jed

This is possibly the dumbest argument I've seen on this site.

You have got to be kidding me. You have a seriously warped way of looking at things if you would classify my argument in that such way with some of the really, really asinine things that other people have come up with on the boards here. If this was America's Got Talent, I stamp your judgment with a big buzzing red X!

But see, you just referenced some horrid reality show, therefore you lose