Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Ironically, your own description of your sampling methodology identifies the bias: "highlighting the resulting 4 that ended up ranked the highest from the entire pool." You specifically chose the highest-ranking quarterbacks. That is a bias.

I mean you can call the argument "bias" or whatever name you want, but it's certainly nowhere near a sampling bias to go back 1 year and highlight the top 4 guys on a list.

Where are we going with this, by the way? We're ending up further and further away from what the initial thing I responded to was.

Highlighting the top 4 from a completed calculation (the current ones are all incomplete) from the previous year pretty much killed the OP's point. That's why we're on all this other stuff.

Haha I ninja'ed another edit in while you were responding, and I think that edit answers part of your question:

Edit: You're right that I'm not addressing the original question or the merits of the answers provided, as I admittedly don't know enough about the stat to say one way or another. I am challenging the approach you took in your answer because I think you reached an unsupported conclusion. You might be right overall (I don't know), but the evidence you used to get there is unsatisfactory.

We disagree regarding the sampling methodology you used and your interpretation of the evidence you selected, and I explained why I find that unsatisfactory. Nowhere else to go from here...I'm simply not going to answer the original question.

Originally posted by JoseCortez:
Yeah what kind of idiot scores 13 points with all this talent??????

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199101200sfo.htm

Rice
taylor
Jones
Craig
Rathman

Hmmm....a 15-3 eventual SB champion vs. the depleted 'Aints?

This wont end well....

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by JoseCortez:
Yeah what kind of idiot scores 13 points with all this talent??????

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199101200sfo.htm

Rice
taylor
Jones
Craig
Rathman

Hmmm....a 15-3 eventual SB champion vs. the depleted 'Aints?

This wont end well....

Do you want me to show you other games where Montana scored 3 points? Or how about Rodgers? Brees?

Offenses sometimes don't score. There's a variety of factors. But its a low iq move blaming just the qb.

And how does Brady do against the 'aints????

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
We disagree regarding the sampling methodology you used and your interpretation of the evidence you selected, and I explained why I find that unsatisfactory. Nowhere else to go from here...I'm simply not going to answer the original question.

I think this is your main gaffe,...because I only highlighted and I never sampled, and never suggested I was doing so.

sample(n.) -- a small part or quantity intended to show what the whole is like.

Never ever did I say or suggest that the top 4 represents the entire population of QBs and if anything,...I clearly spoke of their differences (more points, pocket guys).

Originally posted by JoseCortez:
Do you want me to show you other games where Montana scored 3 points? Or how about Rodgers? Brees?

Offenses sometimes don't score. There's a variety of factors. But its a low iq move blaming just the qb.

And how does Brady do against the 'aints????

From a different era? Not sure what it would prove. Jimmy played serviceable this past game so I dont know what you're upset about.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Ironically, your own description of your sampling methodology identifies the bias: "highlighting the resulting 4 that ended up ranked the highest from the entire pool." You specifically chose the highest-ranking quarterbacks. That is a bias.

I mean you can call the argument "bias" or whatever name you want, but it's certainly nowhere near a sampling bias to go back 1 year and highlight the top 4 guys on a list.

Where are we going with this, by the way? We're ending up further and further away from what the initial thing I responded to was.

Highlighting the top 4 from a completed calculation (the current ones are all incomplete) from the previous year pretty much killed the OP's point. That's why we're on all this other stuff.

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
Does that mean the system globally favors Arabian families? Hardly...

favors. I never used this word, "favors." Words like "benefit" and "help" are very different words, and this is the word I used. You can help or benefit everyone equally if you like,...but favor implies not doing so equally. So this is null and void.

In response to the second part of your post, that's not the point of the example. I provided the example to show the flaw in the underlying reasoning. Are you able to recognize the flaw?

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
We disagree regarding the sampling methodology you used and your interpretation of the evidence you selected, and I explained why I find that unsatisfactory. Nowhere else to go from here...I'm simply not going to answer the original question.

I think this is your main gaffe,...because I only highlighted and I never sampled, and never suggested I was doing so.

sample(n.) -- a small part or quantity intended to show what the whole is like.

I simply highlighted.
Never ever did I say or suggest that the top 4 represents the entire population of QBs and if anything,...I clearly spoke of their differences (more points, pocket guys).

You used the top four to generalize across all pocket passers. That is precisely what the term sampling means, as defined in your own post.

"If the TOP 4 guys after the data has been fully compiled averaged 7-14 ypg running the ball, then can I come to the conclusion that pocket passers are surely benefitting from the formula?"

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
In response to the second part of your post, that's not the point of the example. I provided the example to show the flaw in the underlying reasoning. Are you able to recognize the flaw?

Does that mean something is favored is what you asked? I cant stress to you enough that the question asked is the entire basis for how you interpret an answer. So you are saying it's not the point,...well it may not be your point, but it's 99% of what matters.

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
You used the top four to generalize across all pocket passers.

I 100% did not and we're way, way off on a tangent. Can we stop boring the rest of the board members @ this point?

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
In response to the second part of your post, that's not the point of the example. I provided the example to show the flaw in the underlying reasoning. Are you able to recognize the flaw?

Does that mean something is favored is what you asked? I cant stress to you enough that the question asked is the entire basis for how you interpret an answer. So you are saying it's not the point,...well it may not be your point, but it's 99% of what matters.

To the bold: if you are attempting to be persuasive, yes. If you are attempting to be scientific and objective, no.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
You used the top four to generalize across all pocket passers.

I 100% did not and we're way, way off on a tangent. Can we stop boring the rest of the board members @ this point?

I quoted your own post...which you cut out of my response. Here it is again:

"If the TOP 4 guys after the data has been fully compiled averaged 7-14 ypg running the ball, then can I come to the conclusion that pocket passers are surely benefitting from the formula?"

0 interceptions in 5 weeks. Jimmy G wins games.

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
I quoted your own post...which you cut out of my response. Here it is again:

"If the TOP 4 guys after the data has been fully compiled averaged 7-14 ypg running the ball, then can I come to the conclusion that pocket passers are surely benefitting from the formula?"

yea it's a question. I didn't say or suggest anything about all pocket passers being represented by the top 4 in QBR (1), I didn't suggest any favortism (2), and I didn't take a sample (3). These are 3 major gaffes you have replied to me with that I had to correct. Shouldnt you be satisfied by now?

Simply answer the question with your opinion. Can we conclude that pocket passers are benefitting as well if the top 4 from the previous year were pocket passers,...3 of the 4 clearly old guys that arent punishing teams with their legs?

Originally posted by JoseCortez:
Yeah what kind of idiot scores 13 points with all this talent?????? And what kind idiot scores 13 points with a genius coach?

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199101200sfo.htm
Walsh
Rice
taylor
Jones
Craig
Rathman

Not sure the point you are making here. I guarantee you had WZ been around during that time, you wouldn't find a single poster who would claim that the 13 points was enough.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by JoseCortez:
Do you want me to show you other games where Montana scored 3 points? Or how about Rodgers? Brees?

Offenses sometimes don't score. There's a variety of factors. But its a low iq move blaming just the qb.

And how does Brady do against the 'aints????

From a different era? Not sure what it would prove. Jimmy played serviceable this past game so I dont know what you're upset about.

Just look at the bucs saints game last year when the saints shut out the great Tom Brady with all his weapons. And to just blame Jimmy? Common

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRCHLa4V/