Tim Tebow voted into the top 100 players in the NFL by other NFL players

When I say he sucks as a QB I'm talking about his skills to throw the ball right now. Run 1st QB just don't make it in the NFL.

 

Whether or not you agree with a certain player being on the list, that methodology doesn't seem like a very accurate way of gauging player's choices. The fact that they try to make a list of the top 100 players (as voted on by the players) when they only give a ballot of 20 spots for everyone to fill out seems dubious at best. Do they not think that players could fill out an honest assessment if the size of the ballot were increased?

I'm no statistician, but I would expect the most "accurate" list (which is difficult when you're talking opinions anyway) would be generated by having as many spots on the ballot as spots on the list that you're trying to create.

Of course, this leads me to ask: If CowboysFan is accurate in the way that the poll is done, who in their right mind would vote for John Kuhn (a FB) as a top 20 player in the league ?

 

It's how they did it last year.

450 players were asked to list their 1-20. Then the slots were weighted.

I'm guessing that Kuhn wasn't on a lot of ballots, but on the ones he was, he was placed near the top.

 

Heheh, I appreciate the effort to explain what you are talking about, but I already understood what you just covered Sorry about that.


Here's are the problems (which you were nice enough to actually list together):

You assumed the need for a coordinated effort. That need not be the case. Best way to explain it that I can come up with is to reference Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand". There's no coordinated effort amongst the populace to buy Widget X, yet Widget X ends up being the best seller.

Similarly, there's no coordinated effort to staunch the sales of Widget Y, yet Widget Y has very meager sales and is eventually taken off the market.

Same could be said of movies at the box office. Each person makes their own decision as to what to see, there is no "coordination" to speak of, yet one movie is a blockbuster while another movie fails.

The second error is that you are looking at a specific person as a counterweight to Tebow (Kuhn). This also is not the case.




Now, on the larger question of how accurate or representative this Top 100 list is, well, it's not something that I would put a lot of stock in other than to say that it shows that some decent number of NFL players have a higher opinion of Tebow than many people here do

 

Naming only 20 players kills the legitimacy of the balloting process: that's less than the number of All-Pro players, to put a vote in perspective. I can name 20 stellar players (Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Megatron, LeSean McCoy, Jared Allen, Ware, Patrick Willis, Larry Fitzgerald, Joe Thomas, Jake Long, Revis, Andre Johnson, AP, Ngata, Gronk, MJD, Babin, Ray Rice, Welker) and you'll be able to immediately say "what about __________?" "you forgot __________" "________ is definitely better than this one guy you included" and, because the ballot is so small, both of us will be correct because there just aren't as many voting places on each ballot as there should be.

If it were exclusive instead of inclusive, then yes.

 

Once again, bad examples. Invisible Hand has no bias, unlike player voters choosing just 20 players.

Widget sales are based on the determinants of demand and consumption.

Box office sales (like Top 40 music charts) are illegitimate to the Nth degree. Your argument here, if anything, argues that ranks are more happenstance than justifiable.

I wasn't "looking to a specific person as a counterweight". Instead, I was explaining that in order to punish Tebow on the ballot in an inclusive voting system there would have to be collusion and then used the example of voters picking Kuhn.

The last statement you used is the best synopsis of this thread that anyone could've given. Amen to that.

 

450, or about 30%, is way too few.

 

I appreciate it

 

Invisible Hand has plenty of bias. Everyone who exercises a choice introduces their biases.

And that is where you were mistaken. Person A has a bias against Tebow and leaves him off the list. Doesn't matter whom he names in Tebow's place. Person B, C, D, E, and F do the same thing. Does not matter that they didn't collude with each other. Does not matter that they each chose a different person in that 20th slot.

Thanks :beer::beer:

 

the sample size is more than enough. the problem is the methodology.

 

My friend, I'd argue about the methodology of this one no matter what.

 

Yes, he's on the list. But as I said, I still question the methodology.

 

Favoritism/partiality are elements of bias encompassed in the determinants of demand; however, bias, by definition, is unfair. Decisions made based on tastes and preferences are not biases unless, for example, there is a cultural bias like in the case of religious eating preferences.

I was disproving the concern that voters could, collectively, simultaneously punish Tebow by increasing a player's relative value to him. Statistically, the chances of 6 people choosing the same random player are close to zero. That sort of coincidence didn't occur, making your claim inferred claim

still incorrect.

 

Correct. Thus meaning the list is not legitimate. Thus meaning that your claim

where you essentially referenced the list as justification to praise Tebow's abilities, is incorrect.

 

That statement's purely observational. I could apply the same logic to you if you were arguing against the legitimacy of the list claiming that Tebow was a top 100 player and that, because players may not be willing to vote for him in their top 20 but he would definitely be included in, say, most ballots' their top 50. The methodology used for this 100 list is atrocious.