It's fair to project that a pro could improve on his best season so far. But to project a players stat line based on the absolute ceiling of targets he's ever been given isn't statistically honest. There's no proof that he will be at the ceiling of targets again this season.
Oh, now I understand. When I project Vincent Jackson for more than 107 targets, that's statistically dishonest. But when you project Mike Wallace for more than 98 targets, that's perfectly acceptable because of the super-scientific statistical principle of the "3rd year breakout". A principal which is not only irrelevant to the discussion at hand (Wallace already broke out, so the question is how receivers who broke out in year 2 fare in year 3- and as I demonstrated, the answer is "not as well as you'd think"), but which has been pretty thoroughly debunked for
over a decade, now.
Many times, but not always. For every several cases that it does translate, you can find one in which it does not. It's not like Vjax's is a pro and Wallace a pop warner player. They're both professional receivers. They're both excellent players.
Right. Many times, but not always. Which is exactly what I was saying about multiple regressions and correlation coefficients and R^2 values explaining variance. So in other words, you quoted my post, cut out a bunch of sentences, and then "disagreed" with me by simply reiterating what I said in all those sentences you cut out.
Not only am I logical, but I'm entertaining. I do not apologize. Maybe others will not "abandon their contrary position," but those with an open mind will see that there's more than one way of looking at this correctly.
My mind is open. I've considered every single argument that you're making. I considered them long before you made them. They didn't sway me the first time, so I don't see why they'd do it the second time.
As are yours. However my assumptions regarding Vjax are based on his average production and targets, while yours are based on his career highs in production and targets.
First off, the difference is that I'm not putting my assumptions forward as "proofs", so there's nothing wrong with the fact that they're assumptions.Second off, you're presenting this as a negative, but that's based on yet another assumption- the assumption that predictions based off of career averages are necessarily better than predictions based on career highs. That's an assumption that's pretty easy to find counterexamples to- would you be better served projecting Brandon Lloyd off of his career averages, or his career highs? How about Dez Bryant?
If this were the case, Vjax could as easily regress to 40 catches for 900 yards and 5 TDs. A point that would be very hard to swallow. It works both ways. But you wholeheartedly believe in Vjax, and this is why you could never agree to such a regression, even though it's fully possible.
This is where you're wrong- I absolutely, positively, 100% agree that such a regression is possible. And not just a fringe possibility worth considering- that's a very real, realistic possibility which we have to account for. Doing projections is not simply taking last year's numbers and adding or subtracting 5% based on which direction we think the numbers will move. There's another term for that in the fantasy community- it's called chasing last year's numbers. Doing projections means recognizing that production will frequently swing wildly (either in a positive or negative direction), and predicting accordingly. I think that a lot of factors have aligned and VJax is in line for a big year... but projecting is a tremendously imprecise science, and it would not be the tiniest bit surprising if he was a complete bust this year. And the same holds true for Mike Wallace. I'm not starting from last year's numbers as a baseline and adding tiny tweaks here and there, I'm starting from scratch, using history as a baseline (WRs who are this talented, making this much, and in situations like this can be expected to produce like this), and building a projection from the ground up. I consider previous numbers, but I don't marry myself to them, because that's unrealistic- there's a ton of fluctuation. And the simple fact is that I'm going to be wrong a ton. It's the nature of the business. I'm at peace with that, and I have no problem admitting that. Do you?
I suppose we'll see. Did I present a scenario in which it's likely Vjax gets as many targets this year as in previous years? Yes I did. You tried briefly to dispute it, but that didn't last long. Targets seem to be the lynchpin in your argument for Vjax's clear superiority. You conceded that you based your projections on the absolute ceiling of Vjax's targets over the past several years. There's nothing to suggest that he garners that many targets this year, concerning personnel or otherwise.
There you go doing it again. Just because you say something doesn't make it true. There's plenty to suggest an increase in targets- an increase in the potency of the passing game, an increase in VJax's salary, worries about Gates' health. Will these reasons ultimately translate into more targets? Who knows, but it's not at all unreasonable to suggest that they might.
Seeing as you haven't conclusively proven this to be true (that I am wrong), be careful. I'm not incorrect in my hypothesizing, but I'm incorrect to deny that your position does not exist. It does exist, I've just shown that it's no lock to occur.
Dodds does not assert that he makes a significant leap. 75/1193/10 is higher than his career average, and would put him into WR1 territory, but if Wallace's production stays the same, Vjax, having a career year in every facet of his production still only outscores him by 1ppg according to the Dodds projections. In fact, according to the Dodds projections, even IF Wallace regresses to his specifications, Vjax outscores him by less than 1ppg. WHAT IF HE DOESN'T REGRESS? UPSIDE.
The bit about "perpetual cognitive dissonance" is nonsense. Click the [X] on the wikipedia page related to that subject. Play to your strengths, stick to football, not psychology.
I'm well aware of what cognitive dissonance is, I don't need to read the Wikipedia page. The fact that you think projecting VJax's targets to increase is "statistical dishonesty" while simultaneously projecting Wallace's targets to increase is textbook cognitive dissonance. The fact that you're coming up with all your justifications (VJax has been in the league 5 seasons! Wallace has only been in 2!) and ignoring all counterarguments (VJax played in DivII! Wallace played in the SEC!) just shows that your brain is latching on to convenient arguments to rationalize the dissonance. Which is exactly the behavior we'd expect to see.Also, I'd say it's rather presumptuous of you to tell me what my strengths are. The fact that you think you've got me all figured out is classic Illusion of Asymmetric Insight.
to say why V.Jax>Wallace
Check...and mate
