Time to drink your gin-and-tonic-ah

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Obviously players have bad days. The best examples are tennis players who hit way too many unforced errors. Or jump shooters who don't hit open shots. But in football, it is so difficult to tell when someone "just had a bad game" because there is so much going on.

I tend to think that if you fuck up in a big game, that should be how we define you. All those great games you had during the regular season, when the pressure wasn't as intense and the defenses weren't as pumped up, don't really mean a fucking thing. Romo is the perfect example. Does he always just have uncharacteristically bad games in the postseason or can he not handle the pressure. He was a great quarterback this year (especially in the latter half of the season). But the dude can't complete a pass in the playoffs when he has to.

TM

We are pretty much agreeing with each other, which you'd understand if you hadn't stayed up all night and you bothered to read my posts closely.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

As for Romo, it's probably only a matter of time until he finds post-season success too. As you say, there is just too much going on, and the sample size is too small, to conclude anything about losing post-season games.

And Alex Smith will find his groove -- one that lasts for more than one game in a row. No, seriously. It'll happen.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Flinty_McFlint

Same here. At one point, I couldn't remember the Saints converting a 3rd down for most of the second half. I also thought that Brees wasn't throwing with much accuracy or zip, and that the play calling on 1st down was pretty atrocious (generally a sweep or off tackle run, or whatever it's called). They always seemed to be in 3rd and 6 situations, where the defense could just concentrate on pass defense.

In fairness, you may have been watching thru a drunken haze.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

"Favre: 2010 season return 'highly unlikely'"

I'm going to have to add a vomitorium too.

TM

If only the press could ignore it until after training camp. Only then does anything he says matter.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

No. His main distinction is, although being a largely forgettable offensive player otherwise, hitting big shots in big moments time and time again. What are you smoking?

TM

cost the Pistons a title. there was a split second where everyone in the Palace thought- "last shot- Sheed left Horry open at the 3? Horry? oh shit."

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

I used Peyton as an example. What you said about Romo has used to be said about Peyton. People no longer say that about Peyton. You have two options: (1) take the example as a caution against deciding some otherwise excellent guys just can't win the big game, and (2) decide that you need only worry about the example in front of you and conclude you were wrong about Peyton.

Now you're just being stupid. There is a difference between being able to win the big one and playing well in the playoffs. You are intentionally conflating the two.

Romo won his first playoff game against an Eagles team that didn't show up. Before and after that, he played like absolute shit in every other appearance.

Peyton Manning played much better with a much worse team his first three playoff appearances.

Originally Posted by Adder

That's the point. It isn't evidence. One, two or even three observations is evidence of nothing.

No, jackass. That's your point. You are choosing to ignore the evidence because you think you can't draw a conclusion unless we have satisfied whatever subjective number you have chosen makes it a significant sample size. What is that number, by the way? Five? Ten? Twenty? As many as it takes for the person to succeed?

Originally Posted by Adder

While, on the other hand, several seasons of success during the full season may actually be evidence (i.e. 48 observations might be able to tell you more than 3 observation).

Sure. That's evidence. It's evidence of how well someone can do under much less pressure, which, as you like to say, is the point. It isn't evidence.

Originally Posted by Adder

I have played organized sports, and I have watched people apply post-hac explanations for lots of things. Surely you have read some of the stat-head analysises of whether Big Papi is really "clutch," right?

Yes. I have concluded that without steroids he would have been a joke in the regular and post season.

Originally Posted by Adder

Okay, maybe you haven't.

Now it just sounds like you choked in every big moment you had in little league and are looking for a justification, Herb.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

cost the Pistons a title. there was a split second where everyone in the Palace thought- "last shot- Sheed left Horry open at the 3? Horry? oh shit."

I always hated that guy. But he has ice water running through his fucking veins.

TM

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Adder

I used Peyton as an example. What you said about Romo has used to be said about Peyton. People no longer say that about Peyton. You have two options: (1) take the example as a caution against deciding some otherwise excellent guys just can't win the big game, and (2) decide that you need only worry about the example in front of you and conclude you were wrong about Peyton.

Uh perhaps we should wait until after the Super Bowl? If the Colts lose, Peyton's decade will include an SB win over an relatively weak Bears team, an AFC conference championship over the Patriots, and a bunch of losses in their first game or second, including years where they started 13-0. Outside of this season and the SB season, he's 3-8 in the playoffs.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Fugee

Obscure Geekage extra credit to anyone who knows this mad scientist from one of my (originally local, later national cable) favorite shows.

That's not obscure. What's obscure -- inexplicable, really -- are the reasons why Joel Hodgson, a real comic talent and creative wunderkind, hasn't done anything of note since 1993.

ETA: If someone makes a movie about us, I'm picking Joel to play Sidd Finch, so that's something.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Now you're just being stupid. There is a difference between being able to win the big one and playing well in the playoffs. You are intentionally conflating the two.

Sorry, but I don't see the distinction you are drawing, and I don't think you can put as much space between Romo and the old view of Peyton as you would like. Peyton was seen as a choker who didn't get it done in the big games. Perhaps he was slightly less of a choker than Romo, but this is a prettly weak place to hang your hat.

No, jackass. That's your point. You are choosing to ignore the evidence because you think you can't draw a conclusion unless we have satisfied whatever subjective number you have chosen makes it a significant sample size. What is that number, by the way? Five? Ten? Twenty? As many as it takes for the person to succeed?

I will leave it to someone more statistically-minded to say what is enough to be significant, but the notion isn't at all subjective.

Your position is like deciding Hank can't handle the pressure of the big time after he craps out three times in a row in Vegas, even though he won the last time he was in AC.

ETA: Okay, so that is a crappy analogy, but whatever.

Sure. That's evidence. It's evidence of how well someone can do under much less pressure, which, as you like to say, is the point.

We clearly disagree about how different the playoffs are. But I guess that isn't surprising from a Yankees fan. You guys spend a lot of time searching for reasons to explain Yankee success other than spending three times the league average on payroll.

Now it just sounds like you choked in every big moment you had in little league and are looking for a justification, Herb.

Nah, I sucked in both the regular season and the playoffs.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

Sorry, but I don't see the distinction you are drawing, and I don't think you can put as much space between Romo and the old view of Peyton as you would like. Peyton was seen as a choker who didn't get it done in the big games. Perhaps he was slightly less of a choker than Romo, but this is a prettly weak place to hang your hat.

I will leave it to someone more statistically-minded to say what is enough to be significant, but the notion isn't at all subjective.

Your position is like deciding Hank can't handle the pressure of the big time after he craps out three times in a row in Vegas, even though he won the last time he was in AC.

ETA: Okay, so that is a crappy analogy, but whatever.

Yes. Whatever to all of the above.

Originally Posted by Adder

We clearly disagree about how different the playoffs are. But I guess that isn't surprising from a Yankees fan. You guys spend a lot of time searching for reasons to explain Yankee success other than spending three times the league average on payroll.

Unbelievably stupid, especially since we're talking about football. But I will let you sit and think about the lack of importance you put on playoffs and what that means.

Question for all of you who think Yankees fans are ridiculous for cheering for the team they grew up with, what would you do if the owner of your team started spending exorbitant amounts of money on your favorite team? Stop rooting for them?

TM

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

That's not obscure. What's obscure -- inexplicable, really -- are the reasons why Joel Hodgson, a real comic talent and creative wunderkind, hasn't done anything of note since 1993.

ETA: If someone makes a movie about us, I'm picking Joel to play Sidd Finch, so that's something.

I should have known you'd be the one to know this show. I was sad when Joel left. I never warmed up to his replacement. I think LA killed his creativity.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Or watched the Eagles in the playoffs in the last decade.

Ouch.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Sorry, but I don't see the distinction you are drawing, and I don't think you can put as much space between Romo and the old view of Peyton as you would like. Peyton was seen as a choker who didn't get it done in the big games. Perhaps he was slightly less of a choker than Romo, but this is a prettly weak place to hang your hat.

Say Bret hadn't thrown the interception, had ran the 7 or 8 yards you all thought he had, AND then his kicker missed. NO comes down and scores. Bret would have lost, but played a pretty good game (except for the one fumble you could possibly blame on him). He couldn't be said to have choked, but did lose.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Question for all of you who think Yankees fans are ridiculous for cheering for the team they grew up with, what would you do if the owner of your team started spending exorbitant amounts of money on your favorite team? Stop rooting for them?

TM

Probably, but only because I know that if the Niners did that, it would be to pay Alex Smith a lot of dough.