Re: Need some sack totals
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:55 pm
Not sure photocopying your autograph collection would qualify as "published".Veeshik_ya wrote:JohnTurney wrote:
What if mine already has been?
Professional Football Researchers Association Forum
PFRA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the history of professional football. Formed in 1979, PFRA members include many of the game's foremost historians and writers.
https://www.profootballresearchers.com/forum/
Need some sack totals
https://www.profootballresearchers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2696
Page 3 of 3
Re: Need some sack totals
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:20 pm
Ah, a touch of humor. "You're alright, LaRusso!"JohnTurney wrote:Not sure photocopying your autograph collection would qualify as "published".Veeshik_ya wrote:JohnTurney wrote:
What if mine already has been?
Re: Need some sack totals
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:50 am
If anybody wants the sack data, he/she can try to replicate the work that John and Nick have done. They put in the hard work and they're under no obligation to share it.Veeshik_ya wrote:I do in fact appreciate this response, not that you owe me one personally. But when you join an organization that purports to advance football research and you've compiled something significant, then to not put it out there some way, somehow, whether that involves profiting from it (nothing wrong with that, hope you do) or not, is doing a disservice to the spirit or cause of this group.NWebster wrote:I'll actually attempt to give a real answer here, maybe it'll satisfy you, maybe not - but frankly I have no need for all the adolescent sniping.Veeshik_ya wrote: . . . . After all, this is highly double top secret information. Wouldn't want it getting in the hands of that annoying general public.
John and I have, in fact, spent years collecting this info. Neither of us has any illusions of ever making any money off it or even recouping what we've spent in acquiring it. Moreover, neither of us is a web developer, or knows anything about that.
We do, however, want to ensure that it is published in a meaningful way so as not to create further confusion. For example - and there are millions of these little issues - the 1951 data I have for the Browns is from film and is therefore 100% complete (all assigned to individuals, none unassigned) but for the Rams from the same season the data is largely from play by plays and therefore there is a meaningful portion that's missing (not assigned to an individual). Just dumping the data out there absent that context could create the false impression that a particular Brown had more sacks than a particular Ram when that may not be the case.
We are working to compile and present the data in the proper context, but we've got day jobs and families too, frankly it's taking longer than i'd like too.
In the meantime - keep sniping at us if you'd like - but I can assure you there's no massive conspiracy here.
Your argument doesn't hold water. Bill James is a long-time member of SABR. Should he have given away his work for "the spirit or cause of the group?" Maybe all of the authors who are PFRA members should give away copies of their books, too?
Of course not. It's silly to argue that the sack data should be given out for free to PFRA members just because the researchers happen to belong to the PFRA.
Re: Need some sack totals
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:28 pm
They're under no obligation to do anything. It's a free country.
But they ARE showing bad form.
Your example of Bill James is off base for a couple reasons. First, you apparently didn't read what I wrote very carefully. I unequivocally support John and Nick's opportunity to profit from their work, if possible. Second, James is an industry now but it all started when he posted an ad offering some baseball stats for a few measly bucks. The windfall came later, but at the time he had no idea what would happen.
In other words, James did what he had to do to GET IT OUT THERE.
Which comes back to my original point:
When you join a group whose stated purpose is to advance football research and then choose not to make your research available to the group somehow, some way, its just bad form. We all learned something from the research of others. And the reason we did is because they—somehow, some way—MADE IT AVAILABLE.
Not once did I say they were under an obligation to put anything out there for free. I would gladly pay for the information, as would others. In fact, if I thought everything should be free why would I buy TJ Troup’s book (actually, got it as gift but was on my list to buy if I didn’t)?
You obviously have trouble with reading comprehension. Next time read twice before posting.
But they ARE showing bad form.
Your example of Bill James is off base for a couple reasons. First, you apparently didn't read what I wrote very carefully. I unequivocally support John and Nick's opportunity to profit from their work, if possible. Second, James is an industry now but it all started when he posted an ad offering some baseball stats for a few measly bucks. The windfall came later, but at the time he had no idea what would happen.
In other words, James did what he had to do to GET IT OUT THERE.
Which comes back to my original point:
When you join a group whose stated purpose is to advance football research and then choose not to make your research available to the group somehow, some way, its just bad form. We all learned something from the research of others. And the reason we did is because they—somehow, some way—MADE IT AVAILABLE.
Not once did I say they were under an obligation to put anything out there for free. I would gladly pay for the information, as would others. In fact, if I thought everything should be free why would I buy TJ Troup’s book (actually, got it as gift but was on my list to buy if I didn’t)?
You obviously have trouble with reading comprehension. Next time read twice before posting.
Re: Need some sack totals
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:24 pm
Are you the one who decides what is "bad form"?Veeshik_ya wrote:But they ARE showing bad form.
Like how you were sure that the original poster of this thread had "questions like this go unanswered?"
Or a comment like this to another member, "You obviously have trouble with reading comprehension. Next time read twice before posting"
Or all of your other uncalled for snipes, digs, rips, and general ugly comments?
Is that not "bad form". Or is there one standard for you and one for everyone else? If you would care to remember, all of your questions have been answered as to why a book has yet to be published. But it seems you come back again and again, not remembering what you were told.
Perhaps you could work on your own bad form before you accuse others of bad form ((+)).
Re: Need some sack totals
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:03 pm
Well, when my post clearly made no mention of putting anything out there for free but the person who replied to me says I did, wouldn't you deduce they might have problems with reading comprehension?JohnTurney wrote:Are you the one who decides what is "bad form"?Veeshik_ya wrote:But they ARE showing bad form.
Like how you were sure that the original poster of this thread had "questions like this go unanswered?"
Or a comment like this to another member, "You obviously have trouble with reading comprehension. Next time read twice before posting"
Or all of your other uncalled for snipes, digs, rips, and general ugly comments?
Is that not "bad form". Or is there one standard for you and one for everyone else? If you would care to remember, all of your questions have been answered as to why a book has yet to be published. But it seems you come back again and again, not remembering what you were told.
Perhaps you could work on your own bad form before you accuse others of bad form ((+)).
That said, sounds like I hit a nerve.
Re: Need some sack totals
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:03 pm
You've never NOT hit a nerve with. But I suspect you know that about yourself and revel in being obtuse.Veeshik_ya wrote:JohnTurney wrote:Well, when my post clearly made no mention of putting anything out there for free but the person who replied to me says I did, wouldn't you deduce they might have problems with reading comprehension?Veeshik_ya wrote:But they ARE showing bad form.
That said, sounds like I hit a nerve.
But, no, I would not deduce they have problems with reading comprehension. At least, no more than someone who repeatedly asks the same questions, even though he is given answers on those questions time and time again.
Re: Need some sack totals
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:06 pm
Irritating, obsessive, or juvenile...maybe. Obtuse? Never. 
Re: Need some sack totals
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:14 pm
Cross out "maybe". It's definitely Irritating, obsessive, and juvenile.Veeshik_ya wrote:Irritating, obsessive, or juvenile...maybe. Obtuse? Never.
Re: Need some sack totals
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:33 am
...and we are done with this thread.