Warrior General Games

Originally posted by BleedingBlackandOrange


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...

Yeah and earlier in the year for the league-wide rankings we were like 20th or so for a while and countless people were flaming me and other members of our team and taunting us for not being able to make the playoffs. I tried to tell them, uhhh you people don't seem to understand that winning in the playoffs is the whole point, NOT the regular season, don't attack me just because you don't know how to visualize the road to victory!

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
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.



If you focused on the end then you missed the point. A stat is simply information. What it means is what people are interested in and what they argue about. I like to say that a stat tells you lots about the past and nothing about the future. This is true IMO although if ESPN got wind of this half of their programming would be shot (because they try to almost equate probability with fact - e.g. no one has ever come back from down 0-3 in a 7 game series. But what does that actually tell you about what will happen in this series? These are different players playing against each other with different mindsets than all who have played before, different fans, different refs, etc. Basically the stat tells you about what has happened and what you can expect to happen if you want to think of it that way, but the unreliability of stats is actually what makes sports so great. No one had come back from down 0-3...until a team did it. Anyway, I digress). Basically TSE and Jed (if he is even arguing anymore) are just arguing about what a stat means in this game, which will depend on how certain information is classified. There are legitimate arguments to be made in favor of each but I think counting the stat against pass yards makes more sense. You can classify sacks however you want. The problem is not the stat, as you could come up with an infinite number of stats to describe past games. The problem is what it means and that is what you are arguing about. That is also why the answer will ultimately be an opinion. You can't dispute facts, but you can dispute the meanings they convey. That is basically what all the sciences, especially history, are all about, taking facts and trying to draw meaning from them. That is the point I was trying to make.

Well yeah now you are digressing into a whole lot of other issues regarding stats, I don't think there is any confusion or disagreement as to the purpose or intent of stats, I'm just focusing on the one key issue in that in order to truly appreciate what a stat is and to gain value and meaning out of the interpretation and discussion of stats, one must first have a solid understanding as to the foundation of what makes a stat a real and bonafide stat. If you get mystified into creating a false premise for what the innermost constituents and core of what statistics truly are, then you lose focus and clarity in your endeavor to use them and make sense out of them in conversation.

Having a discussion with just one single but very concrete and valid stat in structure and design holds more weight and value than an infinite number of disjointed phony numbers deriving from the figments of one's imagination, and those such falsehoods will inevitably spiral a very simple conversation into a chaotic mess of misinformation and inadequacy.

What I've learned today on GLB:

a) The word Statistic is commonly misused
b) Jed wants a certain negative number to be a larger negative number
c) America's Got Talent is receiving mixed reviews

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Well yeah now you are digressing into a whole lot of other issues regarding stats, I don't think there is any confusion or disagreement as to the purpose or intent of stats, I'm just focusing on the one key issue in that in order to truly appreciate what a stat is and to gain value and meaning out of the interpretation and discussion of stats, one must first have a solid understanding as to the foundation of what makes a stat a real and bonafide stat. If you get mystified into creating a false premise for what the innermost constituents and core of what statistics truly are, then you lose focus and clarity in your endeavor to use them and make sense out of them in conversation.

Having a discussion with just one single but very concrete and valid stat in structure and design holds more weight and value than an infinite number of disjointed phony numbers deriving from the figments of one's imagination, and those such falsehoods will inevitably spiral a very simple conversation into a chaotic mess of misinformation and inadequacy.

Well the stat is real. I think I explained well enough why some people might subtract sacks from rushing yards. In very literal terms it is a negative rush. it's just that the meaning it conveys with regard to your run game is negligible in this game and in the NFL thus people want to reappropriate the stat elsewhere. But subtracting a sack from rushing yards is not as crazy as you are making it out to be and it doesn't undermine the meaning of the word stat. It is not like adding rushing yards to passing yards or FGs to sack totals. There is a good reason people do it. On a very basic level it is a negative rushing play.

Consider the difference in our definitions of a sack.

My definition: A sack is any time the QB gets tackled behind the LOS (i..e could be a designed run or pass).

Your definition: A sack is any time the QB gets tackled behind the LOS on a designed passing play.

College uses my definition of a sack while the NFL uses yours.

Some biased person you are, can't even give the Kalamazoo Finkles the number 1 spot

Hey, look at that, we added to our negative rushing yard stat:

http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=37515

-2.5 from DLJ

Originally posted by Jed
Hey, look at that, we added to our negative rushing yard stat:

http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=37515

-2.5 from DLJ

wow its because of the sacks not because we didnt get positive yards on you

I know, but I find the argument funny, so I figured I'd add to it

We did actually hold you guys to pretty low rushing (like 10 yards or so on 15 carries) so I know we're doing a good job.

10 yards on 15 carries? Is that really the best your Defense can do

Originally posted by tpaterniti

My definition: A sack is any time the QB gets tackled behind the LOS (i..e could be a designed run or pass).

Your definition: A sack is any time the QB gets tackled behind the LOS on a designed passing play.

College uses my definition of a sack while the NFL uses yours.

Well to be honest I'm not 100% sure how the NFL records designed QB runs that result in negative yardage.

The correct way would be to make that distinction, if the NFL doesn't account for that distinction then they too are violating the nature of the stat as well, but the difference is very minute, so if they are violating the stat in this manner, then when you look up their report of the stat, you may know it is technically wrong but the true number is very, very close to that number since obviously the number of designed QB runs that go for negative yardage is an incredibly low number.

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert

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


Sorry

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

enter pass

Click [noun,3] and there it is... definition 10a. Just because a simple word has multiple definitions doesn't diminish the importance of each definition. I am sure the concept of realization (meaning 1) has been around much longer and deserves its due.

Why dont sacks count as pass attempts (since that is the logic behind counting a sack against Team Passing Yards) and why don't scrambles that gain positive yards count as Team Passing Yards as well? The original intent was to pass correct? Imagine the team passing numbers that the Falcons could have put up with Vick or the 49ers with Young.

The NCAA has decided to follow another path of reasoning. A pass is defined as throwing the ball. The passer is the player who throws a legal forward pass. He is a passer from the time he releases the ball until it is complete. (2006 NCAA Rule Section 27, Article 5 http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2006/2006_football_rules.pdf ) In order to get a sack the quarterback must still have posession of the ball and therefore is not a passer.

Again, if you argument is that GLB is wrong in its reporting of data because it is incosistant with the NFL and this is supposed to be an NFL simulation, then I would agree with you. If your arguement is that the reporting is wrong because the sacks are taken from the rushing totals, you will find the NCAA and NFHS (National Federation of State High School Associations) count sacks against rushing totals due to their defintions of pass, passer, and passing.

First Question: Well I'm in no position to answer that as I didn't write the NFL rule book, so why it is that way you would have to ask the person who made that decision, who am I to speak for him?

Last part, I would prefer personally if GLB mimicked the NFL as much as they could, so if they wanted to do that they would change it, but I don't mind if they don't want to copy the NFL in every way. If they don't mimic the NFL then the alternative is to do something else that makes logical sense and the ways the NCAA and the NFHS do it are not within the scope of valid logic. So copy the NFL or do something logical, one of the two is all I ask.

I really think this was a good write up.