![]() |
|
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jesus fucking Christ man it’s like arguing with my 6 yr old. You make whatever fucking argument you want to make regardless of what anyone has said.
Here is my statement on analytics, “Moneyball”, and your comment about the foundation of the Casino industry: Quote:
Quote:
Here is your analogy: Quote:
So, as I stated, I had an issue with the analogy because I see no comparison between the guaranteed long term return the casino sees and the “better guess” return that analytics provides in football. Especially in the context you provide them. Not to mention the casinos advantage is driven and realized by time. They don’t need to win at any specific point. They will get their return eventually. Winning a Super Bowl is not in anyway similar. The Polian led Colts won more games in whatever long period than any other team and they won one Super Bowl. I loved those teams, but to me they were ultimately a disappointment from what they should have been. Being really good for the long term does not itself lead to Super Bowl wins. Being cumulatively 3% or 6% better than any other team for the next decade should not be the goal (as it is for the casino). Being the best team team in a given year should be the goal. Yes you want to have as many of those opportunities to be the best team as you can, but there is always going to be a trade off between this year and the future. You have a finite amount or resources. Dedicating those resources to the future comes at a cost to the present. It is a balancing act all teams deal with. And that is the point of the whole fucking argument. I take exception to the constant pushing of resources to the future at the expense of the present. In my view the league is so damn competitive that you have to pick smaller windows to make your push to be the best. You have to sacrifice some tomorrow for today or it will be extremely difficult to be the best in any given year where other teams are doing just that. You don’t counter that argument in anyway, you tell me I’m to fucking stupid to see the dynasty that Ballard is so obviously building. You don’t at all care to understand or counter someone’s argument. You simply make up what you think or want their argument to be and argue against that. If someone points out that’s not their point you accuse them of moving the goal posts. Or you simply tell them they are to stupid to understand yours. Oh, and no me saying I deleted part of my post because it was to long wasn’t a dig at you. Surprisingly it meant exactly what it said - I typed more out about that topic (the 3-4 yr rebuild) and deleted it because I thought it was to long. I’m not surprised you read into it something that wasn’t there. You do with every post that isn’t sucking Ballard’s dick or acknowledging the obvious coming dynasty. I’m done with this conversation. Feel free to continue arguing with yourself. You’ve essentially been doing that for several posts now anyway. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|