Rotoworld ranks the NFL's best owners; Ross 29th

No. If 32 teams each flip a coin 10 times, the average heads % will be pretty close to 50%. But some teams will get 9-10 heads and others will get 1 or 2. The teams that get heads 60+% of the time, are not more skillful coin flippers. It's luck.

It may separate you, but that doesn't mean that it is due to skill.

Again, this assumes that there are people who have a meaningful edge in talent evaluation. There is no real evidence of that. It may be that the people who you think have that edge based on draft results over a limited sample size are simply the lucky coin flippers.

Theoretically it could be, but it could also just be luck. Needing a QB and having the first pick in a draft with a great QB prospect. Having the luck of 20+ other teams passing on an elite player thus enabling you to get him even though you had him rated no higher than the rest. Having the guy you really wanted (but who would be a bust) picked the spot ahead fo you and then going with your second choice (who turns out to be great). Etc.

A three year study would tell you very little. It's just 21 picks or so and only 6 or so high picks. And even if one team had much better results from such a study, it certainly wouldn't prove that it was due to skill as opposed to luck. Had we done this 4 years ago and did a 3 year study from 2010-2012 (too early to judge the 2013 draft), I'm guessing you would have felt pretty darn good about choosing the Newsome (Ravens) over Ireland (Dolphins). In fact, you probably would have been positively giddy about that matchup. But the truth is that the Dolphins' talent haul over those three drafts is much better than the Ravens':

Dolphins

Pouncey
Tannehill
Clay
Odrick
Vernon
Miller
Matthews
Wilson
Odrick
Carroll
Misi
Jerry

Ravens

Kindle
Cody
Dickson
Pitta
JSmith
TSmith
Upshaw
Osmele

 

Was irsay lucky when manning went down and his team tanked the same year luck came out.

 

I believe in "Cause and Effect", not in luck. The fact is that I will NEVER when the lottery, because I don't waste my money buying a ticket. Those who do win the lottery though, only win because they actually purchased a ticket, (the cause), and eventually someone, among the many who purchased lottery tickets will eventually win the lottery,(the effect).

To believe that anyone who actually wins the lottery is lucky, would also means that all the people who purchased tickets and didn't win are unlucky. You must purchase a ticket to even have a chance to win the lottery. You have the same chance of winning as anyone else who purchased a ticket. Random numbers are selected and if you hold the ticket with those number on it, you win. The fact you took the time to purchase the tickets and held the winning numbers doesn't prove to me that any luck is involved in who wins or who loses. It is all related to cause and effect and has absolutely nothing to do with this thing you call luck.

 

Again, do you believe the lottery is a game of skill?

 

They were lucky that if Manning was going to go down, he did it that year and before the season even started. Had he gone down in week 13 after going 10-3, or in a year with no good QB prospects, it would have been very different.

 

The data shows a lot of playoff appearances for the Steelers, 49'ers, Packers over the past few decades with relatively few for the the Cardinals, Lions, current version of the Browns and us, since Dan (Bills too).

 

You seriously just typed that out? Do you really believe it? You wrote the very reason it was not luck, and then attribute it to luck. Amazing how your brain works Fin D. Classes need to be taught about this.

As for Rivers, he just posted a 105 QBR, 6.0% TD rate, 2.0% INT rate, 8.2 ypa. I don't care what you call Rivers, that is a great season. He had two subpar seasons at the end of Norv's disastrous reign, but before that 105, 104, 101 QBR seasons.

The only difference separating Rivers and Brees right now (numbers wise) is the attempts Brees throws. 650 vs 450.

 

Considering those teams have all had numerous GMs over that span, how does that help your argument?

 

So you think it is a waste of money, i.e., stupid, to buy a lottery ticket, but you don't think the person who buys one (entirely against logic, according to you) and wins is lucky?

And no, it doesn't mean the people who buy lottery tickets and don't win are unlikely. They have a 1 in 300 million (or so) chance of winning, so not winning is expected, not "unlucky."

So you think there are skillful lottery players?

 

It took big balls to draft luck and let manning go

 

Which shouldn't be a surprise. Luck isn't going to distribute evenly.

 

Huh?

There was no way to know Bress would be better than Harrington during the draft or during the first couple of years. They were both given similar amount of time to succeed, yet one was yanked too soon and the other not soon enough. That's not skill, they were both wrong. The reason one guy drafted a HoF and the other drafted a loser is luck.

 

Luck is what fans of bad team use to justify their team's lack of success.

 

Overrating and underrating players is not luck.

 

And if very team did the coin flip exercise, the data would show what looks like 3-4 teams that are really good coin flippers and a similar number of teams that are really bad coin flippers, with a distribution of roughly "average" coin flippers in the middle.

 

So Ireland is just more skillful than Newsome?

 

I never said everything has to do with skill. I believe there is a cause and effect to every action and playing the lottery requires someone to actually take the time to purchase a ticket. The effect of this action is that eventually someone is going to win the lottery and many millions of people are going to lose.

It doesn't take luck to purchase a ticket, whether you win or lose. It takes the effort to actually take the time to purchase the ticket or to have the financial resources to have someone else purchase the ticket for you.

Many things require a specific skill level to be able to perform a task. Some things like playing the lottery require no skill, but it does require someone taking the action needed to ensure they have a ticket for the lottery if they want a chance to win. You obviously consider the winner lucky. I think anytime you have to take any type of action to succeed in any endeavor, (including playing the lottery), luck, good or bad has absolutely nothing to do with the eventual outcome.

 

Balls and a thorough evaluation to determine that Lucks skillset would give you the same production from the position for a longer period of time..no luck involved..

Bad evaluators think that Luck isn't as good as was hyped when he was coming out..

Stringers draft magazines over a team of talented draft evaluators..How do you identify the Intangible part of the game by looking at a magazine. ?how do you know what your locker room needs from a chemistry standpoint, how do you know what chemistry is?..... Human intuitiveness.

 

So if 5 million people all purchase a ticket, then all of them are equally skilled. But one of those 5MM will become rich, while the rest will become poorer. How do you explain such a discrepancy in outcome?

 

Brees wasn't yanked. what part of that are you missing. He started two more years after they drafted Rivers. He was given 5 years, 4 starting. The same as Harrington. Then he completely ripped his shoulder. When he wasn't looking so hot, they drafted another QB. Because QB is that important. When Brees started playing better, they kept him in as starter.

He had pins all around his shoulder. From his own doctor the foremost doctor for these injuries:

You are faced with that and you tell me, the Chargers made the wrong decision? They absolutely made the right decision at the time and did not resign Brees and they end up with Rivers a guy who has the same throwing ability as Brees. You can win championships with either guy.

 

I don't read magazines. Its 2014. You can crowd-source on the internet.

 

But hundreds of millions of people buy lottery tickets and don't win. The ones that do did the exact same thing. That is luck. Not sure how one can legitimately claim otherwise.

 

I never used the term skilled to refer to those individuals who purchase lottery tickets. That is your term. Perhaps you don't understand cause and effect and you would rather try to equate everything to the uneducated simplicity of something called LUCK.

You want to believe in luck, so be it. I simply don't believe anything that happens in life is related to this so called luck of yours. As I stated earlier, I have no desire to be lucky. I want only to be good at what I do and I never would want to rely on something as idiotic as luck to determine my existence. I am where I am today because of the work and effort I put forth in my life. It certainly isn't because I was lucky in any way.

 

I don't believe in luck, so it is very easy for me to claim that luck had nothing to do with it.

 

It took no great skill to know that Luck was the closest thing to a can't miss QB prospect the NFL has ever seen.

With Manning, he was old, injured, expensive and a lot of people didn't think he's ever come back to anything close to his previous level. It didn't take any special balls to let him go in favor of drafting Luck. It would have taken balls to do the opposite.

I don't think Stringer is talking about draft magazines. Nor is he suggesting that teams shouldn't interview players, etc. The "consensus" includes those kinds of factors, character concerns, etc. It is not just pure talent.

 

I don't equate everything to luck. I use science to determine what role luck and chance plays into outcomes. There are dozens of statistical tools and algorithms that can do a very good job of identifying these things.

I'm certain this was unintentional, but you just insulted yourself.

 

I get that you don't believe in it. That just seems ridiculous to me. But to each his own I guess.

Would be more comfortable if we called it "random chance" as opposed to "luck?" Or do you not believe in random chance either?

 

I appreciate that you may not agree with me. I really have no problem with you disagreeing with the fact that I view luck as some abstract term which merely tries to simplistically explain results which individuals can't explain by logical reasoning. To me cause and effect explains everything that occurs each and every day.

 

But clearly not everything is cause and effect. Lots of things happen that aren't "caused" by anything. If someone gets shot in their own living room by a stray bullet from a drive-by shooting directed to someone else, that person did nothing to cause that.


But you didn't answer my question: do you believe in "random chance?"

 

I think you are fighting a losing battle though to claim 'luck' does not exist.

 

Maybe in some positions, The difference is in the details of evaluation and the impact of your transactions..

Do you think a player like ray Lewis showed nothing in his personality that he would become the greatest Leader in sports when he was coming out of college?

Instead of debating this theory that you all have,illustrate to us how you all would implement your strategy to go up against a team of evaluators.

 

If someone gets shot in his own home by a stay bullet, this most certainly is related to cause and effect. The cause is someone had to fire a weapon to begin with. The effect is that the bullet had to end up somewhere. The person who ended up getting shot had to be in that exact spot in order to get shot by that stay bullet. The person who was shot was responsible for placing him or her self in that location prior to the bullet entering the living room. Obviously the person being shot had no intention of being shot, but because of cause and effect, that is exactly what happened in this case.

Random chance is merely a product of cause and effect. Because without cause and effect, there would no random chance in the first place.

 

Perhaps, but I have been fighting lost causes for much of my life. Besides all I said was that I don't believe in luck. If others want to believe in it, I can live with that.