You see Conan this is where we differ. When you say all situations have equal value and there is no need to break it down to get the basic idea. In my way of seeing things, all situations are not equal, need to be broken down and separated, and a basic idea does not fit a specific situation necessarily. Now you are going to go off on me but please give me a chance. I would be as interested as you to see the data and if you think it is that easy go for it. To me the basic idea is that every situation is different, that all first time starters are not equal, and that the overall strength of the team is just as important as who is QB. Can a fumbling, erratic, unpoised QB hurt a team. Hell yes, we saw it LY. Look at S. Carolina, LSU, UCLA, on and on. All I am saying is that I am not going to throw all first time starters in the same pot. I think if you would take on this quest and do the research yourself you might understand where I am coming from. It is easier said than done. You do not have to do it to prove a point to me. All I am saying is that I don't think it would be worth the the effort. Earlier I went back and recapped Matt Scott's individual stats for all the games he played in. Did you know he played in that many games. I didn't. I knew his stats for last season but not by game. I had to go online pull up the team schedule and go through each game individually. It took some time and that was relatively easy. To take on a task like you are suggesting is more than I care to take on at this time.
I never said that. You took the words out of context and quoted an overedited snippet of what I wrote that missed the full meanng of my post. Then you went on to explain how I dismiss relevant data and you don't. That's pushing it bud.
The basic idea of "first time starters" is meant to make researching the concept simple and a lot easier to research than to try to qualify every possible scenario from the start. It is not useless information because on the whole they can still be compared to experienced starters, and I think that is very significant. As a whole group, they turn the ball over more than any other time in their careers. As a group, their TD/int ratio is lower than the rest. That is significant.
But to think that first time starters don't have issues is naive. Maybe some don't but that information would be apparent too and it would distinguish a new QB from his peers. No. of fumbles, interceptions, per player on a weighted scale could reveal tons of useful information from a handicapping perspective... and so on.
I can tell you that first time starters are terrible by comparison to experienced QB's and I think it would be valuable informatioin to quantify so it can be proven beyond simple recollection of a number of standouts that come to mind. Impressions that I get more often than not in most cases. Maybe some schools are more prone than others to have more problems with their first time starters than others do. I can think of several examples of that too, but it would be nice to pin down who is who and have something more to compare them to perhaps to support what I already know. Or maybe to change my mind.
You absolutely misunderstood what I said. I never said all situations have equal value other than as a place to begin PERIOD! You took my words out of context then you ran with it then drawing an obvious difference that wasn't even obvious to anyone but you in your state of semi comprehension. You ignored alot of my full post. You took what I said out out of context.
You seen to take the first time starter concept a bit lightly in at least one instance that comes to mind and I'd like to know why. I'd like to see it quantified so I can understand perhaps what you understand from a statistical perspective... either that or to prove a point that I have good reason to suspect is very revealing about new QB's in general, that they are highly error prone. That they have bad habits that lead to interceptions, etc.
We do not disagree, you just didn't read what I wrote correctly and you shorted out and you went into yet another of your quick to judge, shoot from the hip rants that naturally included my lack of understanding... the usual.
So to reiterate, as a starting point, just the simple W/L, W/L ATS, QB rating and TD/Int ratio for ALL first year starters. Then go from there to break it down further looks a lot simpler than to ferret out the redshirts first, then the true freshmen etc. Even small minds, smaller than yours can understand a lot more work when he sees it.
Of course various scenarios do not have equal value. Do you think I would say that a true freshman who has never even seen a playbook is the same as redshirt freshman who's been learning the system for a year? Are you kidding me?
So here it is once again. This is what I actually did write, not your limited iterpretation of it:
"Record for first year starting QB's in September. SU and ATS both. Home and away. I would be curious to see where that comes down in a
statical analysis on its own merits regardless of any other factors that may be present just to make it simple.
Mitigating factors are another issue. Another possible stat would be their efficiency rating and TD/Int ratio in their first month or two." My very words.
Then in the next post:
You can always add the mitigating factors in after you get your baseline numbers.
"Such as redshirts vs true freshman, new OL vs 75% returning linemen or more, etc. but on the whole, all situations have equal value thus
no need to break it down to get thebasic idea. That can be done afterwards to get a clearer picture of the entire situation with various scenarios factored in (or not.)" My words exactly.
I never said that mitigating circumstances
didn't matter, I said that they were
another matter. For further analysis.
Had you read the entire post and responded to that, you would have seen that I meant disregarding the other factors relating to first year starters was only a beginning, not an end to gathering the data. But it is of some value anyway.
I would be perfectly happy to have one month of first time starter stats. September. That would be very revealing and useful because there happen to be 6 such QB's starting in this conference this season and I'm sure there are tendencies that cut across all lines, at the very least to compare one to another and to the norm. Then perhaps for the rest of the season, there will be a little more predictability.
Your conclusion was based only on a partial grasp of what I had written. It was taken out of context. To understand where I AM coming from, you need to read my posts thoroughly to the end and give ME a fair opportunity to explain what I am saying without going off yourself, taking what I write out of context and quoting snippits that miss the entire point.
I thought you could help, it seemed something up your alley. Maybe you will one day if you can grasp what I am saying in its full context top to bottom without the short circuited snippet of understanding and the rant that typically follows.
