Feeling Nos_sturt_damus-like

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In sturts defense it may not be a lack of understanding but rather just trying to play spin doctor on the wrong subject.

For example it is like saying that the BPA is "the projected best player in 5 years" one year and then saying the BPA is "the player least likely to bust" the year before.

---

Just more "ripples on a shallow pond."

Thanks for the excellent illustration.

Suffice it to say that the term "best player available" can be qualified depending on a GM's other priorities (beyond mere position-filling)... though I know you don't want to see that, I believe you can... but you just flat-out refuse.

---

Funny you should say that because earlier in the thread you said this

Quote:

---

I'm not sure what the mystery is here, but indeed, B is correct.

By BPA, particularly in a rebuilding situation and/or when drafting underclassmen like Marvin, it should not be taken to mean "best RIGHT-NOW player available."

---

You didn't mention any other priorities. The whole argument for taking Marvin was that he was the consensus choice to be the best player in 5 years which outweighed any positional concerns.

If you start taking into account other priorities then you aren't talking about the BPA. The whole point of the BPA argument when drafting is to get the best player regardless of any positional needs.

Your definition of the BPA is actually quite clear. it is as follows...

In any given year the BPA is whatever player BK happens to pick when he isn't drafting for need.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

( Pretending I'm on the Budweiser commercial, giving Sturt a "will you let this ish die look", while saying . . .)Dude.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Honestly man, I really don't care either way, so don't waste any more time responding to me, I probably won't read. I thought your comments showed a lack of understanding of stats, if you think I'm wrong, then so be it, no reason to care what I think. I probably wouldn't haven't been so blunt if a very similar discussion hadn't happened a bunch of times in the past, in particular with Diesel. Sorry if you felt insulted.

---

Not meaning to jump all in your business. However,

Truly uncaring people would not have even responded. Especially not to say that they don't care. Somehow, someway... Sturt has threatened you and you're showing all the classical signs... Even with the diversion shown above by mentioning my name?? It must be that a lot of what he said about you was true.. otherwise you wouldn't be barking like a Vick tortured dog!

[exodus]

sturt reminds me of KB. KB is obviously a smart guy (you don't get in med school if you aren't) but he tried to spin everything and when you do that constantly you end up looking foolish. sturt on the one hand says Marvin and Chill were drafted as the BPA's but his definition of the BPA is different in each case. Then he tries to say that there are other priorities that GM's have to consider, which is true. But those other priorities (attitude, injury history, positional needs, team philosophy) have nothing to do with determining who the BPA is. The other priorities only come into play when determining whether or not to draft the BPA.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

sturt reminds me of KB. KB is obviously a smart guy (you don't get in med school if you aren't) but he tried to spin everything and when you do that constantly you end up looking foolish. sturt on the one hand says Marvin and Chill were drafted as the BPA's but his definition of the BPA is different in each case. Then he tries to say that there are other priorities that GM's have to consider, which is true. But those other priorities (attitude, injury history, positional needs, team philosophy) have nothing to do with determining who the BPA is. The other priorities only come into play when determining whether or not to draft the BPA.

---

I've think we've seen the whole gambit now.First there was the back and fourth. Then there was the disagreement that couldn't end. Now... we have Insults flying saying that Sturts is like KB..Like I said before...It's just your nature to be argumentative and Insulting. Prolly the most negative poster on this board.I declare myself the winner of the three day bet!!

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

sturt reminds me of KB. KB is obviously a smart guy (you don't get in med school if you aren't) but he tried to spin everything and when you do that constantly you end up looking foolish.

sturt on the one hand says Marvin and Chill were drafted as the BPA's but his definition of the BPA is different in each case.

Then he tries to say that there are other priorities that GM's have to consider, which is true. But those other priorities (attitude, injury history, positional needs, team philosophy) have nothing to do with determining who the BPA is.

The other priorities only come into play when determining whether or not to draft the BPA.

---

I've think we've seen the whole gambit now.

First there was the back and fourth. Then there was the disagreement that couldn't end. Now... we have Insults flying saying that Sturts is like KB..

Like I said before...

It's just your nature to be argumentative and Insulting. Prolly the most negative poster on this board.

I declare myself the winner of the three day bet!!

---

you can't declare youself a winner.

When you made your Marvin proposal i asked for other posters to decide whether you overstepped. Only when other posters declare that i have lost will i concede.

(as an aside to said posters, you wouldn't like me when i am angry.... )

[Diesel]

The Marvin proposal wasn't mine to start with and my only comment was one where I question them wanting Marvin when they would have Gay and Horf?

However, you've been business as usual... along with the insults..

Do I need to drag Stevie Wonder into this to declare me the winner?

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

Not meaning to jump all in your business. However,

Truly uncaring people would not have even responded. Especially not to say that they don't care. Somehow, someway... Sturt has threatened you and you're showing all the classical signs... Even with the diversion shown above by mentioning my name?? It must be that a lot of what he said about you was true.. otherwise you wouldn't be barking like a Vick tortured dog!

---

How could I feel threatened when I wasn't in the thread? People mangling statistics on this website is somewhat of a pet peeve of mine, and I cared enough to jump on and throw in my 2 cents after skimming the thread. That being said, I really don't care that much at all. I see that he got offended, probably because he teaches statistics. I didn't realize that, and he probably would have written up another long explanation, and I'm telling him not to bother because I honestly don't really care, he might as well not waste his time. I realize that my tone in previous posts came across s little harsher than necessary, so I'm just telling him not to go to the trouble.

Like exodus said, a decent part of this might be a guy arguing just to argue. Like arguing over the definition of lucky. I don't know, I don't care.

But I do know this, Vick's dead dogs know more about statistics than you!

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

Prolly the most negative poster on this board.

---

This is ludicrous. Make a most negative poster poll, and I guarantee that 1 single poster gets 90%+ of the vote, and it ain't exodus.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

That is to say, if it were theoretically possible for EVERY lottery team's actual draft position to somehow calculate to 0.64 greater than they actually drafted, then there would be NO "lucky" or "unlucky" teams... and by way of illustration, if that standardized score were to be 1.0 (i.e., the average team actually drafted exactly 1.0 position better than their raw expected position), then ATL's 0.64 would be on the "unlucky" side... and the opposite holds equally true, that if the standardized score were to be -1.0, then ATL's 0.64 would be on the "lucky" side.

---

If someone has complete lottery odds for 2005 perhaps they can finish this:1 Atlanta Projected 2.64 actual 2 = +.642 New Orleans* 178 .178 + .3472 + ...3 Charlotte* 177 .177 + .3458 + ...4 Utah .119 + .2516 + .3975 + .394 + 1.751 + .9648 + .0889 = 3.9668 actual 6 = -2.035 Portland .088 + .1928 + .3192 + 0 + 1.31 + 2.154 + .588 + .032 = 4.684actual 3 = +1.6846 Milwaukee* .063 + .1418 + .2427 + ...7 Toronto* .036 + .0832 + .147 + ..... 8 New York* 9 Golden State* 10 LAL* 11 Orlando .008 + .019 + .0345 + (11) 9.9517 + .7536 + .0104 + .0014 = 10.779actual 11 = -.22112 LAC .007 + .0166 + .0303 + (12) 11.2248 + .507 + .0028 = 11.787actual 12 = -.21313 Charlotte .006 + .0142 + .0261 + (13) 12.4826 + .252 = 12.78actual 13 = -.2214 Minnesota .005 + .0118 + .0144 + (14) 13.7452 = 13.776actual 14 = -.224

[leftwich]

Quote:

---

Second, I have a response to your assertions, but time looks to be short today. I'll do my best to get back with something tomorrow. The skinny is that this discussion at this stage seems to have become analogous to the fact that there are granny-smith apples, yellow-delicious apples, and winesap apples... that is, while not a classic case of "apples and oranges," there appears to be an occasional wrinkle in how different posters are parsing the criteria, and the conclusions may seem to be defendable, but on closer examination are not optimally and precisely relevant to the original pursuit/intent/criteria. I perceive that to be the case specific to your post.

I'll have to wait and offer more later, though, if you care to check back.

---

You're understanding of the law of averages was incorrect. You can use metaphors and hundred dollar words to try to make it more complicated than it actually is, but the way you were using the law of averages to support your argument was just plain wrong.

I don't intend to sound like a jackass, but I also don't want to get in a drawn out argument over this.

As for my id, I'm actually not a Marshall fan. I just thought Byron Leftwich was a badass college QB and would like to see him catch a break sometime soon in the NFL.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Second, I have a response to your assertions, but time looks to be short today. I'll do my best to get back with something tomorrow. The skinny is that this discussion at this stage seems to have become analogous to the fact that there are granny-smith apples, yellow-delicious apples, and winesap apples... that is, while not a classic case of "apples and oranges," there appears to be an occasional wrinkle in how different posters are parsing the criteria, and the conclusions may seem to be defendable, but on closer examination are not optimally and precisely relevant to the original pursuit/intent/criteria. I perceive that to be the case specific to your post.

I'll have to wait and offer more later, though, if you care to check back.

---

You're understanding of the law of averages was incorrect. You can use metaphors and hundred dollar words to try to make it more complicated than it actually is, but the way you were using the law of averages to support your argument was just plain wrong.

I don't intend to sound like a jackass, but I also don't want to get in a drawn out argument over this.

As for my id, I'm actually not a Marshall fan. I just thought Byron Leftwich was a badass college QB and would like to see him catch a break sometime soon in the NFL.

---

1. You don't sound like a jackass.

2. Neither do I mean to sound like a jackass, but I don't mind sounding like a bulldog sometimes... my mind can be changed (which is more than can typically be said of internet board posters in general, here or otherwise), but I like a solid airing of all perspectives first, including my own.

3. I'm not sure what is considered a "hundred dollar word." Closest I can figure, "winesap" best qualifies(???).

4. I stand by my contention that there is more than "law of averages" concepts encased in this thread, and that some mislabeling has applied, perhaps because of just plain laziness to be precise. (I might even admit to some of that on my own part, but there's plenty of blame to go around.) And, I will try to elaborate on it maybe tomorrow when I tune back in to read exodus' newest best attempt at meaningful discussion... if not tomorrow... soon enough... after all, I'm sure that NO ONE wants to see this thread die.

5. And... off topic... no offense to the Falcons fans around here, but this marriage seemed to be doomed from the start... I realize it didn't seem prudent at the moment, but I seriously felt he should wait for Kyle Boller to tank (again), and return to his Maryland home.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

That is to say, if it were theoretically possible for EVERY lottery team's actual draft position to somehow calculate to 0.64 greater than they actually drafted, then there would be NO "lucky" or "unlucky" teams... and by way of illustration, if that standardized score were to be 1.0 (i.e., the average team actually drafted exactly 1.0 position better than their raw expected position), then ATL's 0.64 would be on the "unlucky" side... and the opposite holds equally true, that if the standardized score were to be -1.0, then ATL's 0.64 would be on the "lucky" side.

---

If someone has complete lottery odds for 2005 perhaps they can finish this:1 Atlanta Projected 2.64 actual 2 = +.642 New Orleans* 178 .178 + .3472 + ...3 Charlotte* 177 .177 + .3458 + ...4 Utah .119 + .2516 + .3975 + .394 + 1.751 + .9648 + .0889 = 3.9668 actual 6 = -2.035 Portland .088 + .1928 + .3192 + 0 + 1.31 + 2.154 + .588 + .032 = 4.684actual 3 = +1.6846 Milwaukee* .063 + .1418 + .2427 + ...7 Toronto* .036 + .0832 + .147 + ..... 8 New York* 9 Golden State* 10 LAL* 11 Orlando .008 + .019 + .0345 + (11) 9.9517 + .7536 + .0104 + .0014 = 10.779actual 11 = -.22112 LAC .007 + .0166 + .0303 + (12) 11.2248 + .507 + .0028 = 11.787actual 12 = -.21313 Charlotte .006 + .0142 + .0261 + (13) 12.4826 + .252 = 12.78actual 13 = -.2214 Minnesota .005 + .0118 + .0144 + (14) 13.7452 = 13.776actual 14 = -.224

---

AHF, hopefully someone will beat me to it so that I don't invest so heavily in the pursuit... but... fwiw, this one's on my radar screen. I just happened upon the fact today, in fact, that Wikipedia has published some numbers for each draft, and just at a brief glance, it looked as if they've done ALL of the work for each team's possible draft slots.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

You didn't mention any other priorities... If you start taking into account other priorities then you aren't talking about the BPA. The whole point of the BPA argument when drafting is to get the best player regardless of any positional needs.

---

Ex, don't be disingenuous.

Geez, I've probably accumulated 50 different posts on this exact topic over the last 12 months... and while you or anyone else can slice up my or anyone else's posts into sound bytes that make people out to seem to say what you want them to say, the one thing you can't take away from me is that I've been completely consistent and cogent in my thinking about this...

You can disagree with it at another level, but to suggest that I'm inconsistent is to demonstrate that you're just not paying attention accurately.

With just my SECOND POST in this thread, I alluded to the point you're attempting to disparage as if I've just recently, conveniently, dreamed it up...

Quote:

---

That's essentially the contention of the assertion. BK was committed to (a) gutting the team (check), (b) building a roster through high picks with an emphasis on athletic guys who can play multiple positions (check), and © attempting to use cap space for a critical acquisition as the opportunity presented itself (check... see Johnson, Joe).

---

It's not "BPA" in a vacuum, as if there's absolutely no other considerations...

That's even by your own analysis when you agreed with me that simply calling Marvin a BPA in pre-draft 2005 terms isn't sufficient... you and I agreed that there's a QUALIFIER to that assertion, but that shouldn't mean that BPA isn't a better description of the philosophy than DFN (drafting for need).

Indeed, we didn't NEED another 6-9 guy. But clearly--and I just don't get why this is so hard for you to see--drafting Marvin made a retroactive statement about drafting Childress... if it makes you feel better, perhaps we could agree that neither BPA nor DFN applies precisely enough, and that instead we adopt the acronym BPAWPBTADRFBAB...

That's "best player available with prescribed body type and decreased risk for being a bust."

It's the theory that best fits the data we see, as long as you start from a paradigm that Billy Knight is an educated, intense, purpose-driven businessman... otoh, you could begin from the paradigm that Billy Knight is a buffoon or a masochist... either way, there's some presumption that's related to one's world view and how one tends to look at people, and especially people in authority.

[leftwich]

Quote:

---

4. I stand by my contention that there is more than "law of averages" concepts encased in this thread, and that some mislabeling has applied, perhaps because of just plain laziness to be precise. (I might even admit to some of that on my own part, but there's plenty of blame to go around.)

---

I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this. I really just think you misunderstood the law of averages. I don't think any "mislabeling has applied, perhaps of just plain laziness to be precise; nor do I stand next to you on your contention that there is more than law of averages encased in this thread."(and if you don't understand what I mean by hundred dollar words, read my last sentence that was influenced by the tone and words you used)

[exodus]

Quote:

---

That's even by your own analysis when you agreed with me that simply calling Marvin a BPA in pre-draft 2005 terms isn't sufficient... you and I agreed that there's a QUALIFIER to that assertion,

---

No. Again you are confusing the identification of the BPA with the decision whether or not to draft the BPA.

If all GM's could evaluate talent perfectly (major reach) then there would be a unanimous BPA at every draft slot.

After the BPA is identified then the decision is whether or not to draft the BPA. Then things like positional importance (center > pg > sf) and team needs have to be taken into account.

In 2004 these other considerations didn't matter because the Hawks had (if i remember correctly) only 2 players under contract for the following season. Positional importance had no relevance because iggy, Childress, and Deng all played the 2 or 3 spots which are the easiest to fill.

There was no reason not to take the BPA (best player in 5 years) and that BPA was not Childress.

Quote:

---

there's some presumption that's related to one's world view and how one tends to look at people, and especially people in authority.

---

Like The Tyrant?

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

I do need to wait until season's end to celebrate my infinite correct-ness. I could still be wrong.

But just for the record, here's some foundational positions-o-mine argued throughout the off-season, and even before... and those positions are looking pretty stout, even while others are desperately grasping for new ways to couch their old positions so that they don't seem SO wrong.

I'll put it in my tickler file to revisit these in April to see if they seem any more or less true...

=======================================

1. BK did have a cogent plan for re-building the roster.

2. BK did execute that plan for the most part.

3. The few exceptions to that are glaring: the attempt to jump-start the process by throwing money at Kenyon Martin and at Speedy Claxton... though the glare is slightly mitigated by the point that injuries are always a wild card to some degree.

3. Patience, something fans too often have little of, is wonderful when an ownership and a GM have a good dose of it.

4. When Marvin Williams ends his career, ATL fans will look back on his body of work and consider him clearly worthy of his #2 selection.

5. The perception of "being a good coach" is only as good as the won-loss record that his team has accumulated... and in the end, too few fans recognize the great difficulty in distinguishing between when success or failure is primarily a reflection of the coaching, as opposed to a reflection of the talent.

6. Obtaining Andrew Bynum this past off-season would have been a mighty good idea... he is as good as I'd advertised.

---

This post is amusing in so many ways.

[exodus]

I do need to wait until season's end to celebrate my infinite correct-ness. I could still be wrong.

But just for the record, here's some foundational positions-o-mine argued throughout the off-season, and even before... and those positions are looking pretty stout, even while others are desperately grasping for new ways to couch their old positions so that they don't seem SO wrong.

I'll put it in my tickler file to revisit these in April to see if they seem any more or less true...

=======================================

1. BK did have a cogent plan for re-building the roster.

2. BK did execute that plan for the most part.

3. The few exceptions to that are glaring: the attempt to jump-start the process by throwing money at Kenyon Martin and at Speedy Claxton... though the glare is slightly mitigated by the point that injuries are always a wild card to some degree.

3. Patience, something fans too often have little of, is wonderful when an ownership and a GM have a good dose of it.

4. When Marvin Williams ends his career, ATL fans will look back on his body of work and consider him clearly worthy of his #2 selection.

5. The perception of "being a good coach" is only as good as the won-loss record that his team has accumulated... and in the end, too few fans recognize the great difficulty in distinguishing between when success or failure is primarily a reflection of the coaching, as opposed to a reflection of the talent.

6. Obtaining Andrew Bynum this past off-season would have been a mighty good idea... he is as good as I'd advertised.

:sarcastichand:

I wonder is sturt is still feeling like Nostradamus. What sturt calls patience I call denial.

[AHF]

:sarcastichand: I wonder is sturt is still feeling like Nostradamus. What sturt calls patience I call denial.

I strongly suspect sturt has changed his views on a couple of those with the passage of time.