NFL Week 5 LD - Brady vs Manning

[Megatron]

Do you deny these intangibles exist?

Like what, momentum? Leadership? Crap like that?

 

[Megatron]

Yet it's the same intangible that a lot of former players use to make the same arguments. I'm sure they have zero idea what they're talking about too. What would Steve Young know about football?

Because former players are always the best analysts. If that was the case Michael Jordan would know how to make a better team than the Charlotte Bobcats.

 

[Megatron]

The Pats are trying to give this one away.

 

[Slyfox696]

Like what, momentum? Leadership? Crap like that?

Leadership. Focus in pressure situations. Motivation. Belief in one's own abilities/confidence. Ability to inspire.

Do you deny these things exist?

 

[Megatron]

Leadership. Focus in pressure situations. Motivation. Belief in one's own abilities/confidence.

Do you deny these things exist?

Sure they exist. Doesn't mean they should have any relevance in MVP votings. There are great leaders who suck at playing, and there are poor leaders that are some of the best. I'm pretty sure Barry Bonds didn't have a lot of friends on the team because he was a dick. Still a great player.

 

[klunderbunker]

Because former players are always the best analysts. If that was the case Michael Jordan would know how to make a better team than the Charlotte Bobcats.

Not exactly. Jordan can do a lot on a court. It doesn't mean the players he picks can do the things he could. He knows his stuff though, as do the analysts on ESPN, and if they say those things mean something, that's good enough for me. It goes with the things I've seen in sports that can't be explained by numbers. When people do try to explain them with numbers, it makes me think that they completely miss the point of sports.

 

[Slyfox696]

Sure they exist. Doesn't mean they should have any relevance in MVP votings.

Do you deny that having an inspirational leader, a man who is calm under pressure, who can focus on the task at hand and motivate others to do the same is valuable?

 

[Megatron]

Not exactly. Jordan can do a lot on a court. It doesn't mean the players he picks can do the things he could. He knows his stuff though, as do the analysts on ESPN, and if they say those things mean something, that's good enough for me. It goes with the things I've seen in sports that can't be explained by numbers. When people do try to explain them with numbers, it makes me think that they completely miss the point of sports.

If Jordan knew what he was doing he'd know how to assemble a team that wasn't one of the worst basketball teams ever. Sure he knows more than Joe Schmo that watches 2 games a year, but it's not like people who were never blessed with god-given talents can't understand the game better than ones that were. I'm not gonna simply agree with what Steve Young and Jerry Rice say because of who they are. If they make sense and have logic, sure, but that's not always the case with former players.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Did I miss an argument somewhere?

 

[Slyfox696]

Did I miss an argument somewhere?

In a sports thread on this forum? Highly doubtful.

 

[Megatron]

Do you deny that having an inspirational leader, a man who is calm under pressure, who can focus on the task at hand and motivate others to do the same is valuable?

Sure it's valuable. Doesn't simply make him most valuable, though.

 

[klunderbunker]

If Jordan knew what he was doing he'd know how to assemble a team that wasn't one of the worst basketball teams ever. Sure he knows more than Joe Schmo that watches 2 games a year, but it's not like people who were never blessed with god-given talents can't understand the game better than ones that were. I'm not gonna simply agree with what Steve Young and Jerry Rice say because of who they are. If they make sense and have logic, sure, but that's not always the case with former players.

Sure some people with no experience can learn a ton about whatever sport and learn it to the point where they're experts on it. Most sportswriters would fall under this category and they certainly qualify as experts on it. It's the category I fall under as a wrestling writer. However, if multiple wrestlers tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about, the odds are pretty solid that it's them that's right and me that's wrong.

 

[Slyfox696]

Sure it's valuable.

Then I'm not sure I understand your previous statement:

Sure they exist. Doesn't mean they should have any relevance in MVP votings.

How can these intangibles, which you have admitted have value, not have any relevance in a discussion on value?

That doesn't make any sense at all. Either they have value or they don't. If you claim the intangibles don't have value because you cannot assign a number to them, then I'd question if you've ever played competitive sports. But if you claim they do have value, then they most certainly belong in a discussion to determine which player provides the most value to a team.

Does it have to be the only things which are discussed? No, but to deny them a place in the discussion of value, just because they don't have a number attached to them, would be silly.

Doesn't simply make him most valuable, though.

No one ever claimed as much. What people are taking issue with you is the idea intangibles should never be included at all in any discussion of the value a player brings to his team, when you have just agreed these intangibles clearly have value to a team.

 

[Megatron]

How can these intangibles, which you have admitted have value, not have any relevance in a discussion on value?

That doesn't make any sense at all. Either they have value or they don't. If you claim the intangibles don't have value because you cannot assign a number to them, then I'd question if you've ever played competitive sports. But if you claim they do have value, then they most certainly belong in a discussion to determine which player provides the most value to a team.

Does it have to be the only things which are discussed? No, but to deny them a place in the discussion of value, just because they don't have a number attached to them, would be silly.

Allow me to rephrase myself;

Sure they exist. Doesn't mean they should have much relevance in MVP votings.

No one ever claimed as much. What people are taking issue with you is the idea intangibles should never be included at all in any discussion of the value a player brings to his team, when you have just agreed these intangibles clearly have value to a team.

When there's pretty clear evidence that one player has been as good or superior in all facets of the game, I don't think intangibles really need to be considered. Especially in a sport like baseball, which people are essentially punishing Trout for his teammates not playing well enough when he wasn't there (since they had the best record in MLB once he was called up).

 

[shattered dreams]

I'd say the most relevant addendum is that people that actually understand the arguments for both sides tend to almost exclusively pick one side. People that make it abundantly clear they don't even understand the argument of the other side and have no intention of attempting to do so are hardly a group that I would celebrate.

Do you think Girardi has cliches or numbers in that binder? Even scouts have long assigned measuring sticks to what they observe.

 

[Slyfox696]

Allow me to rephrase myself;

Sure they exist. Doesn't mean they should have much relevance in MVP votings.

Theoretically, if two players have the exact same team, and the two players have the exact same statistics, but one team wins and the other team loses, would you say the intangibles did not play a part?

Extreme example, I know, but highlights the idea that sometimes the sum is greater than the parts. And there is usually a leader or two responsible for that outcome.

When there's pretty clear evidence that one player has been as good or superior in all facets of the game, I don't think intangibles really need to be considered.

If two players are equal, how else do you determine?

If one is clearly superior, that's one thing. But very rarely are intangibles brought up in a case where one player is clearly superior.

Especially in a sport like baseball, which people are essentially punishing Trout for his teammates not playing well enough when he wasn't there (since they had the best record in MLB once he was called up).

That's a rather narrow view of the argument. The much broader view of the argument would be Cabrera being the first Triple Crown winner in 40+ years, in addition to the Tigers making the playoffs.

 

[Megatron]

Theoretically, if two players have the exact same team, and the two players have the exact same statistics, but one team wins and the other team loses, would you say the intangibles did not play a part?

Extreme example, I know, but highlights the idea that sometimes the sum is greater than the parts. And there is usually a leader or two responsible for that outcome.

Sure? That's not the case here, though.

If two players are equal, how else do you determine?

If one is clearly superior, that's one thing. But very rarely are intangibles brought up in a case where one player is clearly superior.

I should have expanded a bit. Trout and Cabrera are about equal offensively, and Trout's vastly superior in defense/baserunning.

That's a rather narrow view of the argument. The much broader view of the argument would be Cabrera being the first Triple Crown winner in 40+ years, in addition to the Tigers making the playoffs.

And Trout's the only player to have 125 runs, 30 HRs, and 40 SBs in over 125 years of baseball. I can pick 3 arbitrary stats to fit my argument as well.

 

[klunderbunker]

And Trout's the only player to have 125 runs, 30 HRs, and 40 SBs in over 125 years of baseball. I can pick 3 arbitrary stats to fit my argument as well.

This right here would have been enough for me to pay attention to a case for him being an MVP candidate. Why didn't you use this beforehand?

 

[Slyfox696]

Sure? That's not the case here, though.

It is the case here, because it is the argument for intangibles, which you earlier dismissed as having no real value.

I should have expanded a bit. Trout and Cabrera are about equal offensively, and Trout's vastly superior in defense/baserunning.

And Trout's the only player to have 125 runs, 30 HRs, and 40 SBs in over 125 years of baseball. I can pick 3 arbitrary stats to fit my argument as well.

I've already argued why you are wrong about the baseball MVP. Our discussion right now is related to the value of intangibles. Which I believe I've also made my argument now for why you are wrong about that as well.

 

[Megatron]

Because I used stats that show the sum of his production and not just 2 or 3 stats to try and base it on.

 

[klunderbunker]

Because I used stats that show the sum of his production and not just 2 or 3 stats to try and base it on.

He has power, he can get on base, he has speed. That would be three of the five tools of a baseball player. I would think that would be a pretty good measure. Again, you would be amazed how much you can tell about ball players if you put down your calculator and laptop and watch the games.

 

[Megatron]

It is the case here, because it is the argument for intangibles, which you earlier dismissed as having no real value.

I've already argued why you are wrong about the baseball MVP. Our discussion is related to the value of intangibles. Which I believe I've also made my argument now for why you are wrong about that as well.

I conceded that they have slight value. However, your example was rather poor and it's not really applicable to the MVP discussion. Trout and Cabrera play on different teams. Trout's team finished with a better record. They don't have the exact same stats.

 

[shattered dreams]

He has power, he can get on base, he has speed. That would be three of the five tools of a baseball player. I would think that would be a pretty good measure. Again, you would be amazed how much you can tell about ball players if you put down your calculator and laptop and watch the games.

Except this was about the 500th way someone has already said that. As I alluded to earlier, your purposefully ignorance does not make what others are saying incorrect.

 

[Steve0904]

I think I'll bring it back to football here. I think the problem with the Broncos this season is that they've relaxed on defence because they have Manning, so they think they don't have to stop anybody because the offence will score a load of points. I mean how do you allow a team to convert 3rd and 17 with a run play? Which later results in a TD. Tebow still sucks ok, lets make that clear. The Broncos need to stop getting themselves in huge holes. Overall though, the game today was well played by both QB's, especially Manning. He had the better game in my estimation.

 

[klunderbunker]

Except this was about the 500th way someone has already said that. As I alluded to earlier, your purposefully ignorance does not make what others are saying incorrect.

When did I ever say Trout wasn't valuable to his team and not the second most valuable player in the league?