Michael Sam Says He Is Gay; May Become First Publicly Gay Player in N.F.L.

Oh, name-calling. Way to mark your intellectual territory.

 

I don't know if I consider that guessing. Maybe it is, but if it is, it's in the sense that any prediction about the future is guessing. But depending on who it is, it could be very, very, very informed guessing.

Personally, I like to think of it more as making a judgement based on an unknown probability distribution with a fair number of samples. It's not like flipping a coin or playing roulette where you know exactly what the odds are. But you've got a fair number of samples and you use those to judge the probability that the player will be a good NFL player.

If you want to call any prediction about the future guessing, that's fine. But I don't think that predicting that Mike Trout has a better chance of succeeding in a future at-bat than I do is guessing (after all there's a chance he'll strike out and I'll walk), and I don't think that predictions about player success are really guessing either.

 

I don't agree that we are all so incapable of second-guessing those titans of their field, NFL scouts. Sports writers are watch dogs, like any other journalist. Many are fully capable of independently judging a player.

 

That's because, in part, you're uniquely aware of your horrible limitations against major league pitching vs. a large sample size of Trout's success. But predicting the success of two good minor league players who have never faced MLB pitching is another animal.

And that's what college players are facing. A couple of players can tear it up at that level with comparable success, wind up drafted one pick apart, and one could be a Hall of Famer at the next level while the other is called one of the biggest busts ever.

First of all, a very select few are capable. Certainly not many. They got their jobs because they can write sufficiently well enough and perhaps are seasoned at cultivating sources and breaking news. Nothing in their background typically translates to "talent evaluation" in larger measure than a typical fan.

Second, second-guessing is fine when it's limited to, "I'm not so sure they should have picked A when B was available . . . " But stating point-blank, "Player A was a terrible pick. He will be a bust. This draft deserves a D-minus grade" is just guessing.

 

And yet you offer nothing of substance to back up that belief.

 

What's he supposed to present outside of empirical evidence? And when did that become a requisite for expressing opinions here?

He could be wrong. I could be wrong. It's all good until people get snarky about it.

 

What backs up your other than this sports writers insistence on self-loathing, not to mention hero-worship of the executives we cover?

 

The more you bring in these other fantasies, the deeper you sink into the tar pit.

 

George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

How much deference do we owe their policies?

It was/is their job after all.

 

It is? Do tell.

 

Interesting.

Is there ever a point in this when you say: "They're not just guessing, and here's why," and then something factual follows?

I assume not. So I ask this: Say I want to get a post-draft publication analyzing this draft. Which one should I get? Why?

 

Brady was a late bloomer, and one of the increasingly rare NFL stars who actually played as a senior in college. He solidified the starting job several games into his senior season, and beating Alabama in the Orange Bowl is what put him on the map.