Spotting a Couple of Forum Football Fallacies

[Oldfan]

I think the problem with this argument, is that if a team has an elite offense and a lackluster defense, then adding a piece that makes the offense even better would in fact make the team as much better as adding a piece that increases the defense's quality in equal proportion. However, I think that adding another elite piece to an already elite unit, tends to only change the way the pieces of that pie are distributed rather than increasing the overall output of the unit. Therefore, it seems more likely that adding pieces to a lackluster defense is more likely to make a team better.

Let me make sure I understand. Let's say that the efficiency of our elite offense is rated at 35 while our lackluster offense is rated at 20 for a total team rating of 55.

You are saying that there is a limiting factor on growth at the 35 level. If that's right, is it possible for you to give an example of how that might happen? I can't come up with one on my own.

[Hubbs]

I think the problem with this argument, is that if a team has an elite offense and a lackluster defense, then adding a piece that makes the offense even better would in fact make the team as much better as adding a piece that increases the defense's quality in equal proportion. However, I think that adding another elite piece to an already elite unit, tends to only change the way the pieces of that pie are distributed rather than increasing the overall output of the unit. Therefore, it seems more likely that adding pieces to a lackluster defense is more likely to make a team better.

Yup. That's where I side as well.

[UK SKINS FAN '74]

Why are you able to spend 20 "points" upgrading your D while you could only spend 10 "points" upgrading your O? I believe the point of thread assumes that you have a given number go those points to upgrade your team and it really doesn't matter how you spend them. The reason being that you're going to be +20 somehow which improves you as an overall team.

Based off my previous posts with OF, my point was that there is greater headroom / scope to improve our defense, rather than our offense. Each unit has a maximum value of 50 in this instance, so if your defense is weaker to set off with (ie, only 25/50 against 35/50 for the offense) , you are more likely to improve overall as a combined by focusing on defense.

If the offense is at 35/50 to set off with, and can't reach perfection of 50/50, the best you can realistically improve upon to is 45/50. An outturn increase of +10.

However, on defense you are starting off at only 25/50 & can therefore strive to increase by a much greater amount to achieve the same 45/50 standard. An outturn increase of +20.

I think I may be alone on this standpoint so I'm not sure its making that much of a noise in this thread anyway.....even though I know what I'm banging on about..

[IHOPSkins]

.........."In our teams situation, our offense is better than the defense, therefore, getting a grade A receiver would only improve the team by say 2 points, whilst the grade A corner would upgrade it by 3."

Your deduction is reasonable only if our offense had maxed out on its potential.

No...its a valid point

I also contend that when you are near the top of performance...its harder to improve....IE adding an average player to an above average offense will not increase performance
BUT
Adding that same level of "Average Player" to a below average defense Will improve the situation

Its not just what you ADD to the mix....its a combination of what you add PLUS what you are replacing

Concentrate on the D

(I would also add that Special Teams are 1/3 of the game....but that's another topic)

Edit...should have read the whole thread....Point already made....oops

[Oldfan]

No...its a valid point

You didn't explain why you thought it was a valid point.

I also contend that when you are near the top of performance...its harder to improve....IE adding an average player to an above average offense will not increase performance.

That's correct, but that fact only makes it more likely that the draft will offer more chances to improve on the defense. It doesn't justify planning on drafting for defense -- which was the point made by my OP. Regardless of the odds against it, the draft still might offer better chances to improve your offense. Those opportunities should not be passed up.

[chipwhich]

The diminishing returns theme is playing over and over.

[IHOPSkins]

.....That's correct, but that fact only makes it more likely that the draft will offer more chances to improve on the defense. It doesn't justify planning on drafting for defense -- which was the point made by my OP. Regardless of the odds, the draft still might offer better chances to improve your offense.

Of course if the Draft Class is weighted for Offense you go with the flow

But last time I checked....there is the same amount of Offensive and Defensive players on every play....and by inference the same amount of Talent on both sides of the ball available during the draft

Given that we have scouted all talent.....if we can draft Equally Talented players for Both O and D....we should choose D....better chance of improvement

The diminishing returns theme is playing over and over.

Exactly

I defer to your concise explanation

[Mr. Nostril]

Let me make sure I understand. Let's say that the efficiency of our elite offense is rated at 35 while our lackluster offense is rated at 20 for a total team rating of 55.

You are saying that there is a limiting factor on growth at the 35 level. If that's right, is it possible for you to give an example of how that might happen? I can't come up with one on my own.

I can't give a practical version, as I don't know enough about the Xs and Os of football, but there's a limit built into this model, as a unit can't have a higher score than 50. So imagine, you have a choice between adding 3 offensive players who would normally have combined value of 16 or 3 defensive players who have the same value. Well, it would only make sense to take the defensive players since adding the offensive players would cap out the model and you wouldn't be able to access the full value of the players chosen.

It stands to reason from this that it works more like a singularity where as you add talent to a unit the value of that unit moves ever and ever closer to 50, but never actually reaches that level. So, the closer you are to the goal of a unit rated 50, the less value you get from adding more talent.

Look at it this way. If there was a defense with no players, it would have a score of zero. If you added 26 NFL defensive players at random (with respect to filling the proper roster spots) you would probably have a defense rated at lest 20, but if you replaced each of those 26 with someone better(with respect to salary cap concerns), you probably wouldn't have a defense rated at least 40. Building from bad to respectable probably requires less talent than from respectable to good, which itself probably requires less talent than building from good to elite. So, it probably makes more sense to add talent to your weaker units, not because some inherent value in having a balanced team, because talent added to the weaker units probably results in greater total value.

Of course, this is only a hypothesis that I'm asserting makes sense to me. In order to determine whether it's true or not someone would have to study what happened when teams tried to bolster already strong units vs when they tried to rebuild weak units. I'm just saying that the model presented doesn't entail that equal assets are equally valuable when you take into account to the context in which they're placed.

[Oldfan]

The diminishing returns theme is playing over and over.

Give me an example of one in this discussion.

[IHOPSkins]

Give me an example of one in this discussion.

Equal Talent Available.....go with D

You changed your argument by saying....If there is more talent in the draft on the offense.....
Well that might not be the case

Could be Equal....and if such.....Go D

ERGO

We should Draft D if

There is more talent available on D....Or Equal talent on D and O

Only IF there is an over abundance of talent on the O side...should we concentrate on O

I have spoken

[Oldfan]

...But last time I checked....there is the same amount of Offensive and Defensive players on every play....and by inference the same amount of Talent on both sides of the ball available during the draft.

That explanation isn't going to work.

Coin flips don't follow a 50/50 pattern: HTHTHTHT and neither will the the draft offer DODODODO. The randomness of chance can offer us better opportunities to improve on offense than on defense.

[IHOPSkins]

...... The randomness of chance can offer us better opportunities to improve on offense than on defense.

Lets say the draft is LOADED with Offensive talent.....but all this talent is picked before your selection at 32 overall....(since we won the Superbowl)....then on your board are 2 players rated the same........heck lets say the offensive player is rated BETTER then the defensive player.....you should still draft the defensive player because the slight advantage given to the offensive player will be MORE then offset by the OVERALL IMPROVEMENT....... shown by the formula below

1 = bad ......5 = great

O Draftee (3.1) - previous O starter (3.0) = 0.1 improvement

D Draftee (3.0) - previous D starter (2.0) = 1.0 improvement

1.0 > 0.1

0.9 overall improvement difference drafting D in this case

Heck I even allowed you that the offensive player replaced is ONLY average (3....on a 5 scale)

Again the point is made--------Its not only about what you get.....but ALSO what you replace

Do the math and draft D

[Oldfan]

...Of course, this is only a hypothesis that I'm asserting makes sense to me. In order to determine whether it's true or not someone would have to study what happened when teams tried to bolster already strong units vs when they tried to rebuild weak units. I'm just saying that the model presented doesn't entail that equal assets are equally valuable when you take into account to the context in which they're placed.

Intuitively, you're right. It is probably much easier to move from very bad to mediocre than it would be to move from mediocre to excellence regardless of whether we are talking about offense, defense or the whole team. That is especially true given the NFL rules aimed at producing parity.

But, I think you are missing the same point as some others. Even if you are right, it does not change the point made in my OP:

The truth is that, if you can draft a player who can significantly improve your team, it doesn't matter which side of the ball he plays on.

What it would change is the odds of finding players on the offense v. odds of finding players on the defense who would improve your team when your turn comes up to draft. Even if the odds diminish on finding offensive players, it still remains true that the team should take them when they represent significant improvement to the team.

---------- Post added December-22nd-2012 at 03:35 PM ----------

...Again the point is made--------Its not only about what you get.....but ALSO what you replace

Of course it is.

When I wrote about significant improvement, that factor was already in the calculations. I covered that point earlier, but I don't recall which post.

[UK SKINS FAN '74]

But, I think you are missing the same point as some others. Even if you are right, it does not change the point made in my OP:

The truth is that, if you can draft a player who can significantly improve your team, it doesn't matter which side of the ball he plays on.

The thing is OF, to me that point reads in a slightly different context when you add in the previous line from the OP ;

Our defense is weaker than our offense, therefore we should focus on defense in the draft.

The truth is that, if you can draft a player who can significantly improve your team, it doesn't matter which side of the ball he plays on.

[Oldfan]

The thing is OF, to me that point reads in a slightly different context when you add in the previous line from the OP ;

The previous line was a fallacy recommending a plan for drafting. Are you saying it didn't read that way to you?