Warrior General Games

Originally posted by HoggLife

WOW
One game your Defense wasnt completely lousy it just sucked bad.
Cookies for everyone on D. Ya the Warpath could easily put up 60 on you
but I will say the score will be 48-3. You guys suck and we are as good
as any team. Even the two games we lost we not by any means easy wins
and that was against two of the best teams in all of GLB!

Can the O have a cookie too? Me like cookies!

60-0? Bring it on.

Oh, and Harper, you say you don't blow people out, but I see a 83-3 in your past.

Blah blah blah.

Mozilla isn't a good team, no disagreement there, but 'we could have beaten you by more but we took it easy'... and 'I will say the score will be 48-3.'

Yawn.

Anything less than 57 point spread will be a Pyrrhic victory. You get the W, but the cost will be your manhood. (Ask your boyfriend if you can have it back for a bit, in case you forgot what it looks like.)

Originally posted by Jed
But see, you just referenced some horrid reality show, therefore you lose

It's great entertainment, I love this show!

Although I despise the obviously weak acts, but the truly good ones and the background of the people that overcome adversities to get the opportunity to show their talent to the world and follow their dreams makes it very worthwhile.

Originally posted by outus
Originally posted by HoggLife


WOW
One game your Defense wasnt completely lousy it just sucked bad.
Cookies for everyone on D. Ya the Warpath could easily put up 60 on you
but I will say the score will be 48-3. You guys suck and we are as good
as any team. Even the two games we lost we not by any means easy wins
and that was against two of the best teams in all of GLB!

Can the O have a cookie too? Me like cookies!

60-0? Bring it on.

Oh, and Harper, you say you don't blow people out, but I see a 83-3 in your past.

Blah blah blah.

Mozilla isn't a good team, no disagreement there, but 'we could have beaten you by more but we took it easy'... and 'I will say the score will be 48-3.'

Yawn.

Anything less than 57 point spread will be a Pyrrhic victory. You get the W, but the cost will be your manhood. (Ask your boyfriend if you can have it back for a bit, in case you forgot what it looks like.)






My manhood looks a little like your Moms but a little less hairy and not used and abused. Your O gets no cookies. When you score a total of 26 points in 6 games the only thing your O deserves is to cut all of its players and start over. The Warpath has scored more points in 1 quarter than you guys have in all of season 3. Go back to building the Suspects and leave the USA Pros to guys that actually know what they are doing I heard Canada has great things like their Health Care but really they cant hang with American Football. LOL I had to throw that in there LOL

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Either, but I'll save you the time, the answer is he cannot. Sack yards count against passing yardage for team totals not rushing yards. And yes I realize that GLB's stat reporting system counts sack yards against running totals but that is not a logical way to report the data, and it is also inconsistent with the NFL which deducts sack yards from team passing yards, however QB personal stats remain the same with respect to his total passing yardage he has earned.

In NCAA, they report the numbers off of rushing totals, but you can't validate a stat based upon the NCAA doing something that doesn't make any sense.

The fallacy of your arguement is you discard a perfectly logical reporting method.

The Webster-Merriman definition of pass (definition 10) is a transfer of a ball or puck from one player on a team to another player on the same team.

Since the NFL doesn't own the word PASS they are the ones that incorrectly report sacks as passing stats rather than rushing stats since a PASS has clearly not been thrown.

I would say the NCAA reports the stats in an unbiased manner without concern for fantasy football players or bubble gum pack cards.

If GLB counts a sack as rushing yards, then the loss on a sack is deducted from running. If the NFL does it differently is irrelevant. GLB gives the stat to rushing, therefore if they had a stat of -X amount of rushing yards last year, and nothing changed, they can very well match or pass that mark and still be statistically accurate.

We could call a rushing yard a rushing fish, and they would have the same amount of -X rushing fishes. It sounds stupid, yes, but the point is, a stat can be anything with a constant value, regardless of what it is referred to outside of GLB.

Damn, this thread took a left turn a loooong time ago.

Originally posted by chad13
Damn, this thread took a left turn a loooong time ago.

We took over your thread lame

Originally posted by HoggLife
Originally posted by chad13

Damn, this thread took a left turn a loooong time ago.

We took over your thread lame

Go play with some balls

Originally posted by spartans72


The Webster-Merriman definition of pass (definition 10) is a transfer of a ball or puck from one player on a team to another player on the same team.

Since the NFL doesn't own the word PASS they are the ones that incorrectly report sacks as passing stats rather than rushing stats since a PASS has clearly not been thrown.

I would say the NCAA reports the stats in an unbiased manner without concern for fantasy football players or bubble gum pack cards.

Wow man, please tell me you don't want a logic beat down too.

The NFL doesnt take sack yards away from a "passing stats". They take them from Team Passing Yardage which is a function of the plus and minus yards resulting from the offense's passing plays. They are not violating the set of multiple populations, as the population for THIS stat of which the data is derived from is passing plays, not pass attempts.

Your digging down for definition 10 and trying to invent a circumstance under an alternative definition contrary to the context of which the correct definition of "passing" applies to this situation is quite astonishing. Thanks for stopping by though!

Oh and by the way, when quoting dictionary sources, provide a location for where you are getting your information from as there are MANY different dictionaries and you just throwing words together that may or may not come exactly from a dictionary holds very little value. Here is a link to the name of the dictionary you asked for and when selecting "passing" or "pass" as a verb I see no such definition at number 10.

I see this definition though which is different and clarifies that it is a throw as opposed to a general transfer. Part of applying correct logic for a situation as this involves first identifying the correct definition that applies to the particular context, so next time you have something to say to me in this fashion, please try a little bit harder in thinking through your counterpoint before posting it...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary , (enter pass)
Definition 11b:
to throw or hit a ball or puck to a teammate

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Originally posted by Asheme


That is the stat. Rushing yards allowed, we're at -124 as the game tabulates it. So, given that's how the stat is currently recorded, then it is, in fact, true. You may or may not agree with how the game accounts for rushing yard totals, but that's a different issue. .

You couldn't be more wrong about this.

That is not the stat for "rushing yards allowed". GLB doesn't own the English words "rushing" and "yards" and "allowed" amongst other words in that sentence. They are not allowed to change the meaning and definitions of those words, the stat exists in theory and is real and can be computed, GLB just doesn't happen to compute it and publish it easy for you to see. They can tabulate anything they want to and in any way but they can't change the nature of statistics and how they work and how they are correctly and logically interpreted.

I'll give you a fun little analogy as well...

Let's say you are a QB and you play in a game today and you have 1 play, 1 pass attempt, complete for 10 yards. You in fact threw for 10 yards, it happened, and in the world of statistics and how people use the word "statistics" and create statistics within this world, that would constitute an average of 10 yards per pass attempt, and nothing else can change that as it has happened and that's what it is.

Now if GLB wanted to make a stat report and say we are going to add his yards plus the total of all of the 50 rushing yards that the RB gained on that drive, and in his passing yards column he now has 10 + 50, which equals 60 and here is his stat, 60 yards per pass attempt... Just because GLB has defied the meaning of English words and twisted the world's well known acceptance of the meaning of those words as well as the mathematics and logic behind how statistics are computed, it still doesn't make 60 yards per pass attempt "the stat". The stat is 10 yards per pass attempt and there's nothing GLB can do to alter that reality.



The only flaw is that the stats being conflated in your argument are clearly of a different type whereas there is a legitimate argument to both sides of the issue with what to count sack yards. This debate stems from the real purpose of stats in the first place, which is to convey masses of information in a meaningful way. The debate, as you will see, is between what actually happened during a sack and what it represents or means in terms of evaluating performance. On the one hand, the QB did rush for negative yards. He took the snap and backed up several yards and was there tackled. What happens if a QB runs an option in a college game but gets sacked almost immediately? There is no way to tell if he would have pitched the ball or thrown an option pass or ept the ball himself. All you know is that he was a runner inasmuch as he had the ball in his hand and he was hit and tackled behind the line of scrimmage, hence the loss in rushing yards. On the other hand, since most NFL teams do not run the option (only the shotgun read option occasionally), for the sake of what the stat actually tells you about a QBs performance, it is more useful to subtract the yards from the passing statistics than from the rushing statistics. For an option team the QB being hit behind the LOS for -30 yards may really tell you meaningful information about the success of your running game, but for a non-option team the lost yards by the QB are more a reflection of the passing game performance, which is why it is tabulated that way. If you ran for 100 yards with your HBs on an NFL team and had 1 big sack for -25 yards and another for -15, looking at those results and concluding that the run game gained only 60 yards would be a misleading representation of the true meaning you would want your stats to convey. This is one reason why some people have also suggested that tipped balls be counted against the receivers and not as INTs by the QB if they were truly catchable. The same thing happens in baseball all the time when umpires make a ruling n errors vs hits. Often the stats are judgement calls in this particular case. In GLB, since there are pretty much no QB running plays (well there is the 1), I think sack yards would be more indicative of the success (or failure) of the passing game than of the run game, and thus I would subtract them from the passing yards rather than the rushing yards, and this is coming from the Pushovers' NT.

Originally posted by DR1C3
If GLB counts a sack as rushing yards, then the loss on a sack is deducted from running. If the NFL does it differently is irrelevant. GLB gives the stat to rushing, therefore if they had a stat of -X amount of rushing yards last year, and nothing changed, they can very well match or pass that mark and still be statistically accurate.

We could call a rushing yard a rushing fish, and they would have the same amount of -X rushing fishes. It sounds stupid, yes, but the point is, a stat can be anything with a constant value, regardless of what it is referred to outside of GLB.

Well I'd perhaps be more inclined to agree with you on your rushing fishes example if the logic of the connection of the data to the stat is coherent with respect to the definition of "stat". If we call rushing plays as rushing fishes and you want to do an average result of the rushing fishes and give out a number then that's one thing. But in THIS analogy example you have created we are combining rushing fishes with passing fishes or widget fishes to create the stat of "average rushing fishes" which is flawed because the data is derived from 2 non-relating population sets thus you don't result in a "stat".

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Originally posted by DR1C3

If GLB counts a sack as rushing yards, then the loss on a sack is deducted from running. If the NFL does it differently is irrelevant. GLB gives the stat to rushing, therefore if they had a stat of -X amount of rushing yards last year, and nothing changed, they can very well match or pass that mark and still be statistically accurate.

We could call a rushing yard a rushing fish, and they would have the same amount of -X rushing fishes. It sounds stupid, yes, but the point is, a stat can be anything with a constant value, regardless of what it is referred to outside of GLB.

Well I'd perhaps be more inclined to agree with you on your rushing fishes example if the logic of the connection of the data to the stat is coherent with respect to the definition of "stat". If we call rushing plays as rushing fishes and you want to do an average result of the rushing fishes and give out a number then that's one thing. But in THIS analogy example you have created we are combining rushing fishes with passing fishes or widget fishes to create the stat of "average rushing fishes" which is flawed because the data is derived from 2 non-relating population sets thus you don't result in a "stat".


Lmfao... God AAA#2 just isnt the same without you guys... Congrats on a great year so far... Good luck guys...

Originally posted by tpaterniti
In GLB, since there are pretty much no QB running plays (well there is the 1), I think sack yards would be more indicative of the success (or failure) of the passing game than of the run game, and thus I would subtract them from the passing yards rather than the rushing yards, and this is coming from the Pushovers' NT.

Well that block was a little interesting read lol. But yes it all comes down to this last core thought of your post that you can't use something from the passing population and combine it with data from the rushing population and call it a stat, because you are breaking the code or the recipe of the very sheer concept of what a stat is.

If you wanted to do a measure of offensive production in general, and you combine all running plays with passing plays and called this stat "AVG offensive play net worth" or whatever, well this AOPNW is the population that the stat is a measure of and everything under the umbrella of the AOPNW is one population together and that would be a viable stat. Now if you muddy it and try to include 8 times the coach picked his nose during the game, well now you have 2 populations that data is coming from and a stat title that is referring to 1 population, thus you no longer have a stat, you have number jibberish.

If GLB wants to count sack yards off the rushing totals and keep them in the same column as the reports they have, the easiest way they could fix the broken logic here would be to rename the category from "AVG rushing yards" to "AVG rushing yards w/influence of the passing game's sack yardage". That sounds awfully silly as a category, but logically it would result in a stat, and a very confusing stat as well because it's hard to draw conclusions as to what that really means.

Originally posted by BleedingBlackandOrange

Lmfao... God AAA#2 just isnt the same without you guys... Congrats on a great year so far... Good luck guys...


Hey there, yeah we miss you guys too! How did you get past security to post in our league? See I can still post in your forum since the Pro League clearance extends down, but it don't work both ways! lol

Here's an interesting stat for you:

AAA2 Thread has about 12 threads currently with "Power Rankings" in the title compared to oh I lost count now, I think 3 here in our forum lol.

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Originally posted by BleedingBlackandOrange


Lmfao... God AAA#2 just isnt the same without you guys... Congrats on a great year so far... Good luck guys...


Hey there, yeah we miss you guys too! How did you get past security to post in our league? See I can still post in your forum since the Pro League clearance extends down, but it don't work both ways! lol

Here's an interesting stat for you:

AAA2 Thread has about 12 threads currently with "Power Rankings" in the title compared to oh I lost count now, I think 3 here in our forum lol.


Shhhhhhh! I found a security bug... Dont screw it up...
I swear to god those fucking "Power Rankings" are just a reason for the girls to fight... If I recall you guys were ranked 8th at week 14... Then you went on to crush the opponents in the playoffs... I am getting sick of them for sure...