Originally Posted by DaFace:
Clay always seems like he has at least a little bit of a point when the team is struggling. When Alex performs well, though, it becomes clear pretty quickly that he has no idea what he's talking about.
He just throws out a bunch of numbers most of the time and usually the numbers are damaging to those bashing him.
People be like. Alex is god on 3rd down. Clay post stats. People well. He looked off someone so he's good.
Originally Posted by Reerun_KC:
He just throws out a bunch of numbers most of the time and usually the numbers are damaging to those bashing him.
People be like. Alex is god on 3rd down. Clay post stats. People well. He looked off someone so he's good.
Same shit, different year.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What the fuck are you babbling on about?
I mean sure, if Clay wants to argue against positions that nobody's actually made, he's welcome to shout at walls until his face turns blue. Please do find me the "Alex is God on 3rd down" crowd. No hurry - I'll wait.
......
Okay, having dispensed with that particular brand of bullshit straw man, how 'bout you acknowledge the fact that what you're doing here is actually projecting Clay's bullshit on the people that disagree with him. His numbers aren't damaging - they're non-sequiturs. And that's when they aren't just completely inane stats he's cherry picked for the purposes of buttressing a point that nobody's bothered to dispute.
That's what he does. Year after year. He finds a stat and that's his stat du jour (and "the only stat that really matters when you're talking about {insert player here}") and then if said player improves/gets worse at it the following year, he just pretends like he never said it and moves onto a new stat that is NOW the most important stat ever.
He's the living embodiment of the old "figures don't lie, but liars do figure" saw. And he compounds it by knowing absolutely nothing about what he's seeing, so he has no context by which to use his stats - he just works backwards; finding the stats he wants to support the conclusion he reached when some twitter mob told him what to believe. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
What the **** are you babbling on about?
I mean sure, if Clay wants to argue against positions that nobody's actually made, he's welcome to shout at walls until his face turns blue. Please do find me the "Alex is God on 3rd down" crowd. No hurry - I'll wait.
......
Okay, having dispensed with that particular brand of bullshit straw man, how 'bout you acknowledge the fact that what you're doing here is actually projecting Clay's bullshit on the people that disagree with him. His numbers aren't damaging - they're non-sequiturs. And that's when they aren't just completely inane stats he's cherry picked for the purposes of buttressing a point that nobody's bothered to dispute.
That's what he does. Year after year. He finds a stat and that's his stat du jour (and "the only stat that really matters when you're talking about {insert player here}") and then if said player improves/gets worse at it the following year, he just pretends like he never said it and moves onto a new stat that is NOW the most important stat ever.
He's the living embodiment of the old "figures don't lie, but liars do figure" saw. And he compounds it by knowing absolutely nothing about what he's seeing, so he has no context by which to use his stats - he just works backwards; finding the stats he wants to support the conclusion he reached when some twitter mob told him what to believe.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
What the fuck are you babbling on about?
I mean sure, if Clay wants to argue against positions that nobody's actually made, he's welcome to shout at walls until his face turns blue. Please do find me the "Alex is God on 3rd down" crowd. No hurry - I'll wait.
......
Okay, having dispensed with that particular brand of bullshit straw man, how 'bout you acknowledge the fact that what you're doing here is actually projecting Clay's bullshit on the people that disagree with him. His numbers aren't damaging - they're non-sequiturs. And that's when they aren't just completely inane stats he's cherry picked for the purposes of buttressing a point that nobody's bothered to dispute.
That's what he does. Year after year. He finds a stat and that's his stat du jour (and "the only stat that really matters when you're talking about {insert player here}") and then if said player improves/gets worse at it the following year, he just pretends like he never said it and moves onto a new stat that is NOW the most important stat ever.
He's the living embodiment of the old "figures don't lie, but liars do figure" saw. And he compounds it by knowing absolutely nothing about what he's seeing, so he has no context by which to use his stats - he just works backwards; finding the stats he wants to support the conclusion he reached when some twitter mob told him what to believe.
Hey thanks for replying to my post. But in all honesty. I haven't read Anything you have posted in months. Might even be closer to a god knows when. I didn't even read any of this novel you replied with. But I want to reply to you so you at least felt like I was paying attention to you.
