Every year we get wrapped up in the NFL draft. Every year draftniks gather and yearn for their team to pick their choice. Every year hundreds of thousands of words are generated by media outlets trying to assess who'll go at what spot. To what end though? What difference does it make?
Year after year the analysts get it wrong. OK the first couple of picks are often locked in (like last year when Andrew Luck and RG111 went 1 &2 as expected and did very nicely thank you for their new teams. But this is the exception. After the first couple of picks if you look back over the hundreds of draft scenarios envisaged you'll see incredibly low correlation between expected picks and actual ones. So why do we still insist on wading through so many of these pointless exercises in futility in the run up to the actual thing itself?
As for the draft itself? Well, it's a gamble every time. Just because players do well on one team doesn't mean they'll do well on another. people often cite Marino being passed until late in the 83 draft as crazy. But was it a the time for the teams who didn't pick him? Plus, what if he'd started his carer on a crappy team with poor o-line protection and poor coaching? There are so many ifs, buts and maybes to every draft story that you can't really second guess them.
Which leaves the last part of the draft that's so frustrating. The instant leap to judgement. How can you grade a draft as soon as it's happened? you don't know how those players are going to play out. They could be great, or they could be injured and have no career from an early stage. They could be undervalued and become a star or they could be overvalued and become a bust. you have to see at least 3-4 years of their career before you can know if they were a great pick or not.
So come on, let's stop pretending we can pre-pick, immediately judge and analyse these drafts. We can't. let's just welcome the new players to our teams and see how their careers unfold.
Friday, 26 April 2013
Friday, 19 April 2013
The knowledge we fail to save
I have been reading a fabulous book, 'Darwin's ghosts' http://www.amazon.co.uk/Darwins-Ghosts-Search-First-Evolutionists/dp/1408809087/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366382729&sr=1-1&keywords=darwins+ghosts by Rebecca Stott.
it should be highly commend to anyone with an interest in science and the history thereof. or to anyone who has a fascination with Darwin and his predecessors - those radical thinkers who eventually led us to evolutionary theory.
One has been struck most forcefully here by two things. Firstly the clarity and breadth of thinkers in times past (not for them specialisation in narrow areas of science but rather the natural philosophy of nature and all that encompasses). Secondly and perhaps more sadly and maddeningly is the overwhelming sense of how much knowledge has been sidelined or lost over the centuries.
many great thinkers work has been put to one side because it did not fit the accepted orthodoxy of the day. Established church/religions have suppressed that which may be perceived as a threat to their world view.
This is terrible! Any religion with a sound basis should be able to stand a rigorous scientific challenge otherwise that basis is not nearly as sound as implied. Also though, how can we justify the loss of so much intellectual endeavour, effort and work. Whether we agree or not, we owe it to scientists and researchers to save their works for posterity so people can make their own judgements fro as much acquired knowledge as human history could possibly offer.
Let us hope that in the age of open research, on line community and multi-platform access that it will become increasingly difficult to sideline any thinkers whether they are orthodox or otherwise.
it should be highly commend to anyone with an interest in science and the history thereof. or to anyone who has a fascination with Darwin and his predecessors - those radical thinkers who eventually led us to evolutionary theory.
One has been struck most forcefully here by two things. Firstly the clarity and breadth of thinkers in times past (not for them specialisation in narrow areas of science but rather the natural philosophy of nature and all that encompasses). Secondly and perhaps more sadly and maddeningly is the overwhelming sense of how much knowledge has been sidelined or lost over the centuries.
many great thinkers work has been put to one side because it did not fit the accepted orthodoxy of the day. Established church/religions have suppressed that which may be perceived as a threat to their world view.
This is terrible! Any religion with a sound basis should be able to stand a rigorous scientific challenge otherwise that basis is not nearly as sound as implied. Also though, how can we justify the loss of so much intellectual endeavour, effort and work. Whether we agree or not, we owe it to scientists and researchers to save their works for posterity so people can make their own judgements fro as much acquired knowledge as human history could possibly offer.
Let us hope that in the age of open research, on line community and multi-platform access that it will become increasingly difficult to sideline any thinkers whether they are orthodox or otherwise.
Friday, 12 April 2013
Always check the facts!
Following a friendly debate with a colleague on matters of historical/political interest one briefly basked in the warm glow of triumph. Do not read this incorrectly however, there was no sense of triumphalism or innate smugness. It was just pleasantly satisfactory (which may in itself be a superfluous tautology of expression) to have had a friendly debate with a layer of thought brought into the undercurrent of it.
However I was snapped out of my reverie when on replaying part of the conversation I realised that part of my argument had rested on an unsupported quote. The quote itself was innocuous enough but where was my rigour in checking it?
So off I wandered to check. Which is where my misfortune occurred - lo and behold it was an apocryphal quote. The substance of the argument still stood, the other facts were correct but a central plank of my debate was undermined.
In the spirit of intellectual honesty this as and is freely admitted to, which seems to have undermined my position on this argument considerably.
So an argument that one still feels should have been won undermined by a lack of rigour in the quote checking. let this be a warning to all - check your facts and particularly your quotes before using them!
However I was snapped out of my reverie when on replaying part of the conversation I realised that part of my argument had rested on an unsupported quote. The quote itself was innocuous enough but where was my rigour in checking it?
So off I wandered to check. Which is where my misfortune occurred - lo and behold it was an apocryphal quote. The substance of the argument still stood, the other facts were correct but a central plank of my debate was undermined.
In the spirit of intellectual honesty this as and is freely admitted to, which seems to have undermined my position on this argument considerably.
So an argument that one still feels should have been won undermined by a lack of rigour in the quote checking. let this be a warning to all - check your facts and particularly your quotes before using them!
Monday, 8 April 2013
The end of the Iron lady
Margaret Thatcher has passed away. Lots of news outlets will now be full of glowing tributes from former colleagues as well as opponents. is there anything more disheartening than watching people you know loathed someone like this be trotted out to pay tribute to a 'great opponent' or 'towering colossus of politics'?
It's not their fault - these are the conventions of politics. we are not supposed to say what we feel lest we cause any smidgen of offence.
I did not like her politics. I did not like her public persona. I did not like her approach to those in need and those who showed compassion for those in need. Saying this does not make me a bad person. I would have said it yesterday when she was alive and I'm saying it today now she's not - the opinions and experience don't change.
She WAS a towering figure i British politics. She WAS a genuine conviction politician. That was her weakness - you have to be able to work with others, to build a consensus, to manipulate coalition situations. Churchill knew this and did it as have many other leading political figures.
So RIP Maggie T, but i will not pretend you were not divisive or that I liked you because you have passed away now. In may ways I imagine she would not thank anyone who pretended otherwise anyway.
It's not their fault - these are the conventions of politics. we are not supposed to say what we feel lest we cause any smidgen of offence.
I did not like her politics. I did not like her public persona. I did not like her approach to those in need and those who showed compassion for those in need. Saying this does not make me a bad person. I would have said it yesterday when she was alive and I'm saying it today now she's not - the opinions and experience don't change.
She WAS a towering figure i British politics. She WAS a genuine conviction politician. That was her weakness - you have to be able to work with others, to build a consensus, to manipulate coalition situations. Churchill knew this and did it as have many other leading political figures.
So RIP Maggie T, but i will not pretend you were not divisive or that I liked you because you have passed away now. In may ways I imagine she would not thank anyone who pretended otherwise anyway.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)