The show will feature a panel of journalists and pundits that represent at least the left and right. Panelists, lead by a moderator, will discuss issues, giving everything from general remarks analysis, predictions, etc. Some of these remarks will be summarized at put on a large board–picture at table with the top row with the name and picture of each pundit per column. In the rows below will a list of questions or issues. In the pundits column we will see some of their comments and/or a summary of their comments.
One of the main effects of the show I’d like to see is the reputations of pundits becoming linked to the degree to which their analysis and comments are reasonable, logical and fair. Ultimately, the rewards should come in the form of improved reputation and status, while punishments should have the opposite effect–e.g., the reputations of those who make outrageous comments, lie, etc. will take a big hit.
One format I’d like to use on the show is to present at least two types of narratives or theories about an individual or situation. For example, with Trump, the great dealmaker who Washington hates because he’s crude outsider that has made them look foolish, might be one theory. The other theory is that Trump is a conman, who only cares about enriching himself. Pundits will all stake on their positions on each theory. As new information comes in, the pundits can adjust their position. In these reviews, the moderator can bring up previous comments made by the pundits–both positive and negative. One variation is the entire panel can also vote on whether an individual pundit is being reasonable, operating in good faith, etc. And these comments can also be put on the accountability board as well. Basically, the idea is to hold a pundit accountable for their public statements.
Thread for the upcoming draft. Here are some general thoughts, mostly about the Seahawks, Raiders, and Cowboys: Continue reading “2019 NFL Draft”
I’m pretty sure we discussed this before, but I can’t find the thread. Here’s Colin Cowherd’s best and worst list. I don’t agree with everything, but I do agree with most of his list.
In the recent Check This Out thread, we talked about the wealth tax. Here’s a really good, short video explaining the concept:
I’m interested in hearing the drawbacks to this proposals, because it sounds good to me.
Can any of you explain the football statistic, expected points (EP) and expected points added (EPA)? I read an explanation, but I’m still confused. Here’s the section where I get lost Continue reading “Expected Points Added in Football”
Thread for discussing general math questions.
In another thread, I asked you guys to help me define and describe NFL pro style offense. In this thread, I’m seeking your guys help again on a somewhat similar topic. I’ve been having football discussions about the styles of play that do well in playoffs versus those that do not. Normally, I would describe the former as teams that have an identity based on really good, physical defenses and run game, while I’d describe the latter by saying they are characterized by high-scoring, aggressive pass-centric offenses. (In the rest of the discussion, I’m going to use “D/R” to indicate the teams based on strong defense and run games and “P” for aggressive pass-centric offensive teams.) To make this more clear, I give specific examples. D/R teams would be 2013 Seahawks, 2015 Broncos, and almost all the Super Bowl winners in the 80s and 90s. The P teams would be 2007 Patriots, Greatest Show on Turf Rams, Run-and-shoot Oilers, Air Coryell Chargers, Marino’s Dolphins. I would also include Colts with Manning, Saints with Brees, Rodgers with Green Bay, and Roethlisberger in the last few years with the Steelers. Continue reading “Describing Football Styles That Excel In The Playoffs Versus Those That Do Not”
Thread for general discussion about the 2018-2019 NBA season. I want to start things off Nikola Jokic. Did either of you tell me to watch this guy? I feel like maybe Don recommend that I watch him. Anyway, I saw some highlights of his passing. Some of these passes are approaching, if not equivalent to Magic and Bird, which is really exciting for me. The guy seems to have some other skills, too. He’s making me more interested in watching the NBA, or at least watching him. Here’s some highlights:
I’m becoming a fan.
Dan Patrick presents Charles Barkley with several basketball players and asks him if he’s better than them. Here are some of the players; LeBron, Bird, Magic, Isiah, Duncan, Karl Malone (I think that’s it). Who do you think he said was better than him?
He says Magic, Duncan, and LeBron are better, but hesitates on Bird. That’s some disrespect right there. I can’t help but feel like he’s not remembering how good Bird was. He says that he’s probably a better rebounder than Bird. That’s reasonable, although I think Bird is a terrific rebounder, and if focused on that, his stats could be way better. He says he’s probably a better defender. Maybe. He says Bird is obviously a better shooter. Too bad, he didn’t move on to passing. I think Barkley is a really good passer, but he’s not better than Bird. I’m a little puzzled as to why someone would definitely choose Magic over Bird. I think they’re both pretty close, but I think you can make a better case for Bird over Magic.