Ryan Tannehill: The Objective Evidence | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Ryan Tannehill: The Objective Evidence

S

Shouright

☠️ Banned ☠️
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
15,051
Reaction score
18
Age
53
This is a counterpoint to another thread that was started this evening on this board, and started merely to provide balance in our current analysis of Ryan Tannehill.

Click on any column heading on this page:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2013/passing.htm

...or this one:

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?pos=QB

...or this one:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb

When we do that, we see that Ryan Tannehill is no better than average in comparison to the league's QBs in almost every category, and in some categories he's worse than average.

Now, that leaves us with only two possible conclusions:

1) The statistics on those pages are meaningless, so the fact that Peyton Manning is at the top of the list in almost every category on each page, for example, actually means nothing, and he somehow isn't really the best quarterback in the league right now, or;

2) The statistics are meaningful, and Ryan Tannehill is playing no better than an average (or slightly worse than average) quarterback right now.

Of course we all have the freedom to choose which of those options we'd like to believe, and individual needs and motivations can often trump objective reality, but realize that our options in perceiving the statistics on those pages are confined to the above two.

[video=youtube;kb7WnB-20uA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb7WnB-20uA[/video]

;)
 
Or what about factoring that his completely ****ty OL and run-pass balance has hindered his ability? Where does that factor in?

Those of us who argue against you don't think Tannehill is a Pro Bowl QB (yet), we just are tired of you ranting about how bad he is when he is clearly improving and clearly not the main problem of this team.
 
The emphasis you place on the supposed objectivity of cherry picked statistics is subjective.

And theres no objective reason to even root for this team. We havent won the big game in 40 years. Totally subjective and therefore you are prone to bias.
 
Spesh said:
The emphasis you place on the supposed objectivity of cherry picked statistics is subjective.
Click to expand...
Like I said, you're free to disregard them for whatever reason you'd like, but realize that in the process you're also disregarding the fact that they say Peyton Manning is currently the best quarterback in the league.

The stats can't mean nothing for one QB and something for another QB. :)
 
You really need statistical analysis to determine that Tannehill and the Dolphins are not playing well? Notice I included the entire team not just one position.
 
shouright said:
Like I said, you're free to disregard them for whatever reason you'd like, but realize that in the process you're also disregarding the fact that they say Peyton Manning is currently the best quarterback in the league.

The stats can't mean nothing for one QB and something for another QB. :)
Click to expand...

Wow. This is what you've deduced? I think the rec center at the Y is having a 101 statistics class this week. I recommend you attend.
 
Harry_Bagpipe said:
Wow. This is what you've deduced? I think the rec center at the Y is having a 101 statistics class this week. I recommend you attend.
Click to expand...
Translation:

"I know more than you about this. What it is I think I know more than you I won't say [because that might expose me], but just trust me; I know more." ;)
 
shouright said:
Like I said, you're free to disregard them for whatever reason you'd like, but realize that in the process you're also disregarding the fact that they say Peyton Manning is currently the best quarterback in the league.

The stats can't mean nothing for one QB and something for another QB. :)
Click to expand...

The importance of objectivity is subjective.
Your assumption on what i am and am not disregarding is an example of subjectivity.
 
The statistics tell me exactly the same thing as my eyeballs....that Tannehill is performing at a below average level. So yeah, stats do mean something, they just don't mean everything. Hope Ryan gets it right.
 
Spesh said:
The importance of objectivity is subjective.
Your assumption on what i am and am not disregarding is an example of subjectivity.
Click to expand...

solipsism

in philosophy, formerly, moral egoism (as used in the writings of Immanuel Kant), but now, in an epistemological sense, the extreme form of subjective idealism that denies that the human mind has any valid ground for believing in the existence of anything but itself. The British idealist F.H. Bradley, in Appearance and Reality (1897), characterized the solipsistic view as follows: "I cannot transcend experience, and experience is my experience. From this it follows that nothing beyond myself exists; for what is experience is its (the self 's) states."
Click to expand...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/solipsism?s=t
 
shouright said:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/solipsism?s=t
Click to expand...

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. [1] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally...

Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, "selective use of evidence" rejects material unfavorable to an argument, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available. Cherry picking can refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study or survey will give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even completely contrary to actuality.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)
 
Spesh said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)
Click to expand...
That's a great point, but misapplied in this case IMO.

---------- Post added at 03:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 AM ----------
mega-fin-love said:
The statistics tell me exactly the same thing as my eyeballs....that Tannehill is performing at a below average level. So yeah, stats do mean something, they just don't mean everything. Hope Ryan gets it right.
Click to expand...
Well, and I suspect your eyeballs are also telling you that Peyton Manning is performing pretty damned well. :)
 
shouright said:
That's a great point, but misapplied in this case IMO.

---------- Post added at 03:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 AM ----------

Well, and I suspect your eyeballs are also telling you that Peyton Manning is performing pretty damned well. :)
Click to expand...

Nah...I don't care what the stats say. Peyton Manning sucks balls
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom