Peter King Challenge (no, not that other one)

[spenser]

I'm sorry guys, I can't hold this in any more, and as a Redskins fan it's tough to even say aloud:

A Redskin fan? Your IGNORANT and STUPID POST are only a match to your newly acquired ego.

Your post is so IGNORANT and STUPID that it is not worth even discussing it.

Quite frankly, I do not even think that this has anything to do with Art. I do not think that you are even old enough to have watched his games.

I think that this post has to do with enhancing your personal ego and have an argument to try to bolster your self-esteem. You know what? I am not going to waste any posts or time with your posts anymore.

The day you begin to post intelligent and informed posts, I will respond to you. Right now, it is not worth my time or effort.

As somebody put it in Smack: Maybe you should go and spend a bit more time with Matt. No, actually a lot more time.

Dude, you need to chill Canadian. His post is absoulty valid, and whats more i am somewhat in agreement. And for the record im sure ive seen as many or more redskins games as yourself so dont flater yourself. Just because someone doesnt agree with you, you dont need to freak out on them dawg. Do i think art should be in? YES. but do i also think he is a "fringe" player? YES. If he wasnt a on the fringe guy he would be in.I am in total and complete agreement about peter king being an incompetant boob, he is NOT the ONLY person keeping art out. Im not here to say he shouldnt be in, but just to say that skinsfan55 does have some valid points, and if it is his OPINION that he shouldnt be in, then fine. Obviously its your OPINION that he should.

Just out of curiosity, would you have told RiC to chill if you agreed with him?

Absoultly. I DO agree with him. I think monk should be in the HOF. however... it doesnt give me the right to call people idiots, and or question the degree of ones love of the redskins because of their opinion, especially when it is a valid opinion and not just some ridiculous statement that skins DomM8 would write. Well i guess i have the Right to, but it woudl make me look like an A-hole . Steve Spurrier 3 has without question given us the best insight on this argument. He has looked at it objectivly and taken into account multiple variables to adjust his statistics. Just because Skinsfan 55 cant or didnt articulate better and include Raw Numbers/data doesnt make his opinion less valid, just his argument. mmmkay'

[JansenFan]

Just curious. The way you wrote the post made it seem as though you were telling him to chill because you agreed with the opposite view point.

It seems you agree with both, at least to an extent.

[spenser]

thats cool, i got ya! I kind of do agree with both to an extent, but i just think it is so dumb when someone disagrees and then stats bringin in the whole "your not a fan" and "your a total moron" stuff. We're all skins fans right? anyway for the record, i DO think art should be in, but i dont think its a slam dunk. I think he is a fringe guy who hopefully will get his due. One question though.. seriously how did swann get in? I know he didnt play as long, but does that make terrell davis a HOF? Kurt Warner? I mean come on. If the writers can vote for him then surely art is worthy.

[JansenFan]

Swann got in because he was on the Steelers team that seems to make you a lock to get in and he had 3 Super Bowl TDs.

[Redskin in Canada]

Just because Skinsfan 55 cant or didnt articulate better and include Raw Numbers/data doesnt make his opinion less valid, just his argument. mmmkay'

We can agree all the way until this point. All opinions can be respected but some are supported and others are not. If anybody says that ALL opinions are valid gives the impression that ALL opinions are equally true. They are not.

The ability to articulate and express an opinion makes all the difference here. You object to my approach to his post. I can deal with that but you are suggesting that I did not follow the rules here and I did.

Last and not least, it is completely absurd for a "fan" to come here and express a strong opinion detrimental to the recognition of one of the greatest receivers of all time that he did not even watch play due to his age. That is plain irresponsible. Nobody should be surprised that knowledgeable fans who followed and admire Art Monk's life as an athlete should not accept those views as "true".

Heated discussions are always difficult. Some of you do not feel so strongly as some of us do about this injustice. It is difficult for me to understand it but I accept it.

I have seen the word "fringe" player or "fringe"candidate mentioned a few times around here. Nothing could be further from the truth if one really had the opportunity to appreciate his entire contribution as a WR.

[Redskin in Canada]

Hopefully I will have the run-heavy/pass-heavy adjustments up tonight.

How about a "weighted" average that takes into consideration several variables ignored in your analysis to date?

You see, you are comparing raw numbers of yards in a normalised form. That does not take into consideration the number of receptions, the number of first downs produced, the difficulty of the Conference in which they played, the ability required to make a certain catch as opposed to another, etc, etc.

For a quantitative analysis to be a close estimate of the quality of a player, it has to be able to account for far many more variables than a simplistic (if time consuming) normalised yard average.

And in the end, Art does not have to come on top as the greatest deep threat with the largest average of yards per game or reception. No, he -only- needs to have statistics that are -comparable- with those already inducted in the Hal of Fame PLUS the quality of his game and play be worthy of being considered among the elite number of wide receivers inducted in the Hall. I have no doubt in my mind that Art Monk fulfills splendidly all those requirements. He made the Redskins offense work in ways that would have been very difficult if not impossible to achieve in his absence.

[JansenFan]

And in the end, Art does not have to come on top as the greatest deep threat with the largest average of yards per game or reception. No, he -only- needs to have statistics that are -comparable- with those already inducted in the Hal of Fame PLUS the quality of his game and play be worthy of being considered among the elite number of wide receivers inducted in the Hall. I have no doubt in my mind that Art Monk fulfills splendidly all those requirements. He made the Redskins offense work in ways that would have been very difficult if not impossible to achieve in his absence.

Unfortunately, the selection committee doesn't look at it this way, and as a result, some deserving players are overlooked, including (as much as I hate to say it) Bob Hayes.

[Redskin in Canada]

Unfortunately, the selection committee doesn't look at it this way,

Many of the members do. We are only about eight miserable votes away.

The final push to the induction of Art Monk will be the victory of another Superbowl by Joe Gibbs and the Washinton Redskins.

[JansenFan]

By that measure, you should add this to your signature.

Art Monk: HOF: 2007

[Redskin in Canada]

Art Monk: HOF: 2007

[Steve Spurrier III]

You see, you are comparing raw numbers of yards in a normalised form. That does not take into consideration the number of receptions, the number of first downs produced, the difficulty of the Conference in which they played, the ability required to make a certain catch as opposed to another, etc, etc.

I never said my metric would be perfect (and it never can be). But that doesn't mean it has no value (and certainly more than the raw data that you are fond of posting).

I will get to the receptions and touchdown numbers eventually, and I'm intrigued by the idea of the "difficulty of opponent" suggestion. It's something I'll try to get to. I simply don't have access to the first down numbers. But again, it's not fair for you to assume that Monk was better at it than the other guys unless you have some sort of evidence yourself.

For a quantitative analysis to be a close estimate of the quality of a player, it has to be able to account for far many more variables than a simplistic (if time consuming) normalised yard average.

It's a work in progress. And what I am trying to do is remove those variables one at a time. But what we have already is a better estimate of a player than raw yardage numbers.

[Steve Spurrier III]

I adjusted Monk's numbers for the run-heavy pass-heavy problem. The Redskins had some extreme numbers with Monk - they ran the ball higher than the league average in 1982-1985, 1987, 1990-1992 (and the Eagles in 1995). The Redskins were under the league average in 1980-1981, 1986, 1988-1989, 1993 (and the Jets in 1994). The most extreme instance was in 1983, when the Redskins ran the ball 58% of the time, while league ran the ball just 50% of the time.

In the end, the adjustment helped Monk quite a bit. His score moved from .258 to .279 - a jump that would land him in a tie with Paul Warfield, Tommy McDonald and James Lofton, putting him right in the middle of the Hall of Fame recievers.

Obviously the numbers need to be run for the rest of the players (which I will do), but it's still a fantastic leap.

[Redskin in Canada]

It's a work in progress. And what I am trying to do is remove those variables one at a time. But what we have already is a better estimate of a player than raw yardage numbers.

It is an interesting exercise. Not one that will make or brake Art's case but interesting nevertheless. Why is an unweighted normalised statistic better than the estimates of several nearly-stochastic processes, which overlap in time?

You know what among several famous quotes on the subject of statistics and lies from Mark Twain may apply here, right?

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

[Steve Spurrier III]

Why is an unweighted normalised statistic better than the estimates of several nearly-stochastic processes, which overlap in time?

Aren't you the one who is always saying that there are so many qualities in recieving yardage that aren't captured by the raw number?

I think you are so skeptical of this study because you believe it is designed to prove Monk unworthy of the Hall. That's just not the case, and so far, each layer I have pulled away has helped Monk statistically.

[Redskin in Canada]

Aren't you the one who is always saying that there are so many qualities in recieving yardage that aren't captured by the raw number?

I think you are so skeptical of this study because you believe it is designed to prove Monk unworthy of the Hall. That's just not the case, and so far, each layer I have pulled away has helped Monk statistically.

My point, as stated above and in several other threads on the subject, is that statistics are only one part of the equation, an important part. But they are not onto themselves the whole reason to elect Art.

I am not making my point clearly then. And this was one of the points made by others, including Stephen in the King rag: The whole record and his role for what he did and allowed -others- and the team to do is what makes this player great. It is his personal skill, his role against some of the toughest opponents in the NFC East and several playoff games that build his case.

Yards whether those quoted by myself or yourself and processed in whatever way are only -part- of the case.

No, I am not skeptical of the approach whatever its results. If they help Art, all the better. I have no preconceived notion about their advantage or disadvantage to Art. I simply see stats as only a small part, that is -comparable- to others there, but that it has other very important components that as a -whole- build the case.

If this approach persuades others and yourself of the merits of the case, not as a "fringe" case, but as a full and worthy case, all the better! Different people may arrive at the same conclusion through different paths. All the power to you and your hard work. Just beware of the partial limitations of the numbers in building the case.



PS You are trying to generate a stochastic-statistical model for the measurement of performance by WRs in football. This is a graduate-degree topic in statistics if taken seriously. But you know that. Do not let me discourage you from the effort. It actually may go very far with the NFL if you are serious about it. Just keep in mind the magnitude of the effort. By the way, my preference would be on the use of robust (non-Gaussian) statistical estimators.

[Deadskins]

The funniest part about this whole debate is how passionate the "he should be in!" people get when in fact by "stats", "pro bowl appearances", "professional opinions of the majority of people who saw and played with or around Monk", "comparison to other probowl members", etc. the only conclusion you can really come to is that Art is clearly a fringe guy.

It seems that just because Art is a Redskin, some of you are quite biased, when in fact you should be able to simply admit that he is clearly a fringe guy that "could" get in eventually, but who probably should not.

(Oh..and I can't wait for RIC to tell me I'm disrespectful and a complete moron for stating the obvious)

The professional opinions of the majority of people who saw and played with or around Monk is that he should be in the HOF. According to King, it is only 8 out of the 38 HOF voters who are keeping Monk out, so he is even in a small minority of sportswriters who agree with your point of view. Every player or coach I have ever heard comment on the subject says Monk belongs in the Hall. At one time or another, he held the all-time records for receptions, consecutive games with at least one catch, and receptions in a season. It is the job of a WR to catch passes. At the point of his retirement, he had done that better than anyone in the history of the NFL. How can you argue that he is a fringe candidate? Anyone who was the all-time leader of the league in his position's most important stat is a first ballot Hall of Famer. It does not matter what team he played for. Yes, I'm proud he was a Redskin, but that is not why I think he should be in the Hall.

[Steve Spurrier III]

You are trying to generate a stochastic-statistical model for the measurement of performance by WRs in football. This is a graduate-degree topic in statistics if taken seriously. But you know that.

You're right, I do know that. But why exactly do you feel the need to spell it out?

[skinpride1]

Unfortunately, the selection committee doesn't look at it this way,

Many of the members do. We are only about eight miserable votes away.

The final push to the induction of Art Monk will be the victory of another Superbowl by Joe Gibbs and the Washinton Redskins.

I agree with you!!!Sadly, Monks best chance is for another superbowl win from the skins(so the sports writers will have plenty to write about)I think it will give him the extra push and maybe there won't be any damn Q.b's up either!!

[Redskin in Canada]

You're right, I do know that. But why exactly do you feel the need to spell it out?

Because of the second part of the PS that you removed.

The use of means throughput your analysis involves a statistical hypothesis. Nobody knows for sure the probability distribution function underlying this process.

I do not understand what displeases you about it. It seems hopeless to even try to put this effort into perspective.

[spenser]

Just because Skinsfan 55 cant or didnt articulate better and include Raw Numbers/data doesnt make his opinion less valid, just his argument. mmmkay'

We can agree all the way until this point. All opinions can be respected but some are supported and others are not. If anybody says that ALL opinions are valid gives the impression that ALL opinions are equally true. They are not.

The ability to articulate and express an opinion makes all the difference here. You object to my approach to his post. I can deal with that but you are suggesting that I did not follow the rules here and I did.

Last and not least, it is completely absurd for a "fan" to come here and express a strong opinion detrimental to the recognition of one of the greatest receivers of all time that he did not even watch play due to his age. That is plain irresponsible. Nobody should be surprised that knowledgeable fans who followed and admire Art Monk's life as an athlete should not accept those views as "true".

Heated discussions are always difficult. Some of you do not feel so strongly as some of us do about this injustice. It is difficult for me to understand it but I accept it.

I have seen the word "fringe" player or "fringe"candidate mentioned a few times around here. Nothing could be further from the truth if one really had the opportunity to appreciate his entire contribution as a WR.

This post is wrong on SO many levels. where to start.. ok.. First of all you wrote "All opinions can be respected but some are supported and others are not." isnt that EXACTLY what I JUST SAID when i wrote "Just because Skinsfan 55 cant or didnt articulate better and include Raw Numbers/data doesnt make his opinion less valid, just his argument"? Thats what i said right... that FACTS help support the argument? so not sure why your basically saying the same thing i said in a different way. 2nd you write "If anybody says that ALL opinions are valid gives the impression that ALL opinions are equally true. They are not." ok... fine.. let me help you out a little real quick:

o·pin·ion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof:

So by the very defination of the word ALL opinions are valid AT LEAST to the person giving the OPINON. thats why its an OPINION. It may not be fact, but it is one persons view and that makes it valid at least to the person sharing their view. you go on to say "The ability to articulate and express an opinion makes all the difference here." which again is exactly what i just said, but the problem is that had you originally followed that path you woulndt have flew off the handle and said his post was "ignorant" and "Stupid" and further question his age, his length of time watching games and also his ego and self esteem. You didnt have to go all RumpleStiltskin on him. Lastly... your OPINION says art is not a "fringe" guy, but unfourtuatly for all of us skins fans there are a few dozen writer who would disagree.

[Skinsfan55]

Judging by the NUMBERS Monk is a fringe canidate.

I may not have watched Art Monk at an age of appreciation (let's not act like I wasn't born when Monk retired) but that only makes me more OBJECTIVE when I look at the numbers.

I made several solid arguments against Monk (as respectfully as possible) and was met with complete rudeness, a complete lack of argument FOR him, and completely idiotic and irrational behavior.

If I had grown up watching Monk win 2 Superbowls with the Redskins I wouldn't have more "appreciation" for his game or a better "understanding" of what he meant to the team I'd have a pair of rose colored glasses like a certain Canadian based Redskins fan.

Look, Monk was awesome, but he is so clearly not among the All-Time greats.

The BEST argument presented is that Monk is better than Swann and MAYBE better than Joiner who are to of the "worst" (for lack of a better word) players in the Hall of Fame.

Look, I have all the respect in the world for Monk, he was the kind of guy everyone wants on their team, dedicated, humble, productive... he was an all time great Redskin...

But not one of the best players in the history of football.

[Redskin in Canada]

This post is wrong on SO many levels. where to start.. ok.. First of all you wrote "All opinions can be respected but some are supported and others are not." isnt that EXACTLY what I JUST SAID .

If you are trying to argue that we agree and that makes you feel better, fine.

so not sure why your basically saying the same thing i said in a different way.

If you are trying to argue that we agree and that makes you feel better, fine.

you go on to say "The ability to articulate and express an opinion makes all the difference here." which again is exactly what i just said,

If you are trying to argue that we agree and that makes you feel better, fine.

Lastly... your OPINION says art is not a "fringe" guy, but unfourtuatly for all of us skins fans there are a few dozen writer who would disagree.

If you are trying to argue that we agree and that makes you feel better, fine.

Point taken, point taken, point taken, and point taken.

Thanks.

[Chris Luva Luva]

If I had grown up watching Monk win 2 Superbowls with the Redskins I wouldn't have more "appreciation" for his game or a better "understanding" of what he meant to the team I'd have a pair of rose colored glasses like a certain Canadian based Redskins fan.

I disagree. I think that seeing a player gives you more insight into how good he was. Stats dont show you how defenses had to gameplan around him, or how is presence took pressure off of the rest of the game or how he constantly was a sure catch.

James Thrash isn't an Art Monk but will his stats ever show how much he meant to this squad? 15 years from now someone will look at his stats and call him a bun when he actually is one of our prized players.

My point is that stats dont tell the whole story. This guy is a football legend not only a Skin legend. If he wasn't all of what people say he was then he'd just be popular amongst us and not the entire fanbase of football.

f I had grown up watching Monk win 2 Superbowls with the Redskins I wouldn't have more "appreciation" for his game or a better "understanding" of what he meant to the team I'd have a pair of rose colored glasses like a certain Canadian based Redskins fan.

Lets try to keep it civil out here.

[Skinsfan55]

I'm not trying to bash Monk, I am just frustrated by the unwillingness of some to even accept a contrary opinion.

I think Monk was great, but I can't see anything that puts him in the Hall of Fame.

He's a great Redskin, his #81 is unofficially retired (though I am not a fan of retiring numbers, I think numbers should be kept in circulation to be used again as a tribute most of the time with obvious exceptions.) but he just isn't one of the greatest ever.

If he had more yards from scrimmage, more TD's, more pro-bowl appearences then maybe he would seperate himself.

You'll never hear me say a word against Monk though, great player, but not Hall worthy.

Can't a player be great but fall just short of the Hall? Not everyone can go, that's what makes it such an honor to be inducted! Am I insulting Monk and disrespecting him because I think he falls on the fringe of players up for the Hall of Fame?

But that's not the point. Educated and informed people will disagree about Monk's place among the All-Time greats. People can debate intelligently over this issue... Hell, even Die-Hard Redskins fans disagree on this! That's not the problem.

The problem is that some people are so stubborn, so invested and so shocked by a contrary opinion that they freak out and turn people against the cause when they lose objectivity, rationality and generally act like a baby.

[welch]

I think I'll repeat what Chris said, just for emphasis...and because I've said it in previous discussions of Monk. You had to see Monk play to know that he was a deep threat and a powerful guy who could rip a 50/50 ball away from a defender. He could then run over or around most defenders.

That is, he was big, fast, tough, strong, and had great hands.

Numbers don't tell much about a catch he made in his first year, in a lost-cause game against the Cowboys. Monk took a crossing pass about 15 yards over the middle. He turned toward the Cowboys safety, lowered his shoulder, and plowed into the stunned defender. The Cowboy got credit for a tackle, but he made it on his back, grabbing at Monk's knees. Monk had made no attempt to fake the defender or avoid a hit, as any other WR would have done. No. Monk was frustrated that the Redskins were losing badly, and demolished the first guy in his way.

Nor will stats tell about his one catch in SB 22, played when he had sprained his knee. You need a tape of the game, because it happened toward the end of the first quarter, when the announcers were praising the Broncos and joking about the Redskins. The Skins were stuck on about their own 20, 3rd and 10 or 15, and Dan Dierdorf said something like, "Well, if you're Joe Gibbs, you've got to go to any play you've got hidden in your playbook right now, because the way John Elway is burning your defense, you'd better get a first down or this game will be out of reach". Monk must have been in as H-back, and the Bronco's must have figured him as a decoy. He ran down the left about 15 yards, and Williams floated a pass perfectly to Monk's jumping height and above the defender. Monk snatched the ball away and ran another ten yards -- on the sprained knee, remember -- to push the ball out past the 40.

It doesn't make the NFL films, and neither does a block he made in the second quarter. Clark took a pass on the right side-line, and Monk, who was running a deeper route, came back to knock Tony Lilly six feet in the air, and out of the ballgame.

No stats...you have to see it.

Finally, I'll say that, having seen Monk, he would be a star today if you plucked him out of anytime before he was about 35. For comparison, imagine Terrell Owens with the heart of a football player. That was Monk in his prime: 6 foot 2, 210 pounds, great hands, great concentration, and all the moves and toughness that comes from having started at running back in college. When you gasp an Anguan Boldin, consider that you're watching a guy who is like Art Monk...except that Monk was near the top of the league in receptions every year.

No, I don't believe that someone is a traitor to motherhood, apple pie, and the "American" way of life just because they argue against Art Monk being in the Hall of Fame. I do believe that they are mistaken, and that stats often talk silliness.