Originally posted by Shaj:Originally posted by dtcomposer:Originally posted by Shaj:Originally posted by Memphis9er:Originally posted by Shaj:Originally posted by Memphis9er:Originally posted by Shaj:Originally posted by dtcomposer:Originally posted by Shaj:
I have some hope for Alex after the last game. The biggest improvement I saw was his pocket presence. I think his upside is very limited, but he can be the game manager that Nolan envisioned.... kind of like Dilfer the year the Ravens won the superbowl.
I would be interested to know why you think his upside is limited?
past performance is the best predictor of future performance.
Not always true, people can work hard and better themselves Shaj. Take Steve Young as an example, he was terrible until he got his game turned around, then he became one of the all time greats. You cannot say that Smith hasn't gotten better every year he has been healthy, at least not honestly anyways.
Is this the Einstein logic again? Please don't make me repeat the fallacious analogy......
No just common sense.
Steve Young sucked and then he ended up with a HOF career, Alex Smith sucked, and therefore he may have a HOF career? You call that common sense? It's the Einstein fallacy I keep bringing up. All these massive exceptions aside, 99% of the time, the best predictor of future play is past play.
Show me the raw data that proves this or I call BS. What kind of past performance are you talking about... recent past, very recent past, College? Just because you think you understand a statement doesn't mean that you really do. Here is an article explaining some actual scholarly research on the subject (this is probably the idea that you are b*****dizing)
link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQR/is_5_17/ai_86042885/
Although we have all been told that a mutual fund's past performance is no indicator of its future performance, no one really believes this platitude. We don't know of any fund advisor who does not rely on past performance in choosing a fund. Yet the past performance has not been a consistent predictor of future performance.
Now comes a new study by two PhD candidates from a U.S. University: Melvyn Teo and Sung-Jun Woo of Harvard University. Here are their findings:
* On average, funds that had the worst performance over the previous two years in a given style category (e.g., large value, small growth, midcap growth, etc.) beat the return of the S&P 500 Index in the following year.
Most Popular
CBS MoneyWatch.com Blogs
* On average, funds in the best performing style category underperfomed in the following year.
* Categories that took in low net inflows during the four prior years tended to outperform in the following year.
* Conversely, categories that received the highest inflows underperformed.
So past performance is an indicator of future performance after all! If a fund does very well, it is likely to do less well and if it does poorly, it is likely to do better! So what is the lesson? Don't be afraid to be a contrarian. - END ARTICLE
So yeah... you have nothing.
you just used a highly volatile stock market analogy to debunk what I said? You think individual player performance is like the stock market? really? So Peyton Manning may have a "housing bust" performance this year? Give it a rest, bro.
Ok If you can't understand the parallels between those two ideas then I don't know what to tell you. I was showing that not only are you using a faulty and unproven supposition (i.e that the past performance indicates future performance ) but you were also most likely cross pollinating the idea from its original source; business and finance. That is a dangerous thing to do as they are completely different systems with different variables. Obviously I don't think that individual player performance is like the stock market, though if somebody did a study on the subject it might be somewhat similar statistically in certain basic ways. I didn't think I would have to spell out every logical step for you, so I was allowing you to see where it was going on your own.
Basically I am telling you to come up with a real reason why you think A. Smith has "very limited potential". The reason most likely is because you don't think he does, or you don't like him, which is fine, but don't act like you have any other reasons than your personal observations/ bias. If you were saying that A. Smith probably won't reach his potential (whatever that is) based on past performance then I can agree with that statement a little bit more, at least statistically.
From my perspective Smith's ceiling does not seem to be that of a game manager. Game managers have weak arms, are more accurate, and a knack for converting the big third down. Smith has shown that he is best in a wide open system, and that he can move the team effectively through the air with a high volume of passes. I see his ceiling (again I am not comparing him to these players at all right now) as much more like a Drew Brees/ Tom Brady/ Peyton Manning in terms of production/playing style. Does he have the intangibles of those guys? probably not. Will he reach that potential? Who knows but I would guess No.
Again if you can prove empirically that past performance equates to potential then I will be fine with that.
