Occam's Razor and Belioli

[TaxPlaya]

I've noticed a disturbing trend on this board to resort to violations of Occam's razor.

For those not familiar with the concept, it is basically the premise that, "given any situation with a question, the simplest answer is probably the correct one, all other things being equal."

You'd be surprised how often this comes in handy.

A few examples of applying Occam's razor to Belioli moves this offseason:

1. Letting Givens go. He isn't a #1 receiver, so we weren't going to pay him #1 money.

2. Letting McGinest go. He is entering his 13th year in the league and wanted top money. To hell with that. Let him be a players coach on a team without leaders.

3. Vinatraitor. Take him at his word. He wanted a team to "show him the love" so he left. When it comes down to it, he was an 85% kicker who didn't choke. Can we replace that? Sure.

4. Maroney #1. Best player on the board. Value, value, value.

5. Jackson. #1 type guy fell to us and we took him with a small trade. I'd bet if Matt Leinart fell to us at our #1 slot we would have taken him, too.

6. Temple Beth-El for Sully. Bust for bust. No significant money differences. We'll see if a change of scenery works out.

7. Thomas in 3rd. To replace Fauria.

8. Mills in 4th. To eventually replace Pass/Faulk.

9. Gostkowski early. We reached. Period. Maybe he will be ok, but this was a panic move over Vinatieri and lack of vet kickers.

No need to get into 4-3s, standard 2 TE sets, Jarvis Green/Dan Klecko switching positions, Patten signings, etc. If those things happen, great. But it's only because Belioli feel it is in the best interest of a winning football club.

Some of you people are nuts. Get back to work!

 

[PonyExpress]

Boy, and there I was befuddled and confused. Thanks for setting me straight, Taxplaya!

 

[TaxPlaya]

The whole point of Occam's Razor is that the solutions sound obvious, because they are the most simple explanations.

My point was many people on this board want to look for complex explanations when a simple one would suffice.

 

[Willie55]

The whole point of Occam's Razor is that the solutions sound obvious, because they are the most simple explanations.

My point was many people on this board want to look for complex explanations when a simple one would suffice.

So what's your simple answer to the queston "Do the Pats run enough slant routes ?"

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

The whole point of Occam's Razor is that the solutions sound obvious, because they are the most simple explanations.

My point was many people on this board want to look for complex explanations when a simple one would suffice.

First off, Occam's Razor sounds like an artifact card from the game "Magic the Gathering".

Second, applying Occam's Razor to the issue of why we come up with these ridiculous and complex possible reasons for all things Patriot, I submit that message boards without nuanced debate are quiet and boring. Every complex possibility, however unlikely, must be examined and debated to death.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled anti-Parsimony...

 

[spacecrime]

Number 9 is not an example of Occam's Razor. It is not the simplest solution, but rather a judgement forced by an unvalidated opinion (the opinion that Gostkowski wasn't worth a fourth round pick and therefore a reach).

Your opinion may be right, or not. but to say it is a reach is not the simplest solution, it is the solution required because you feel that Gostkowski wasn't worth a fourth round pick. Had you felt that Goskowski was worthy of a number one pick, you would have a different interpretation of the pick. Occam's Razor analysis needs to be removed from your judgements of a players worth. It needs to be based on observation, observation that can be observed by anyone, not a subjective judgement.

An Occam's Razor explanation for Goskowski would be the same as Maroney. Value, value, value. Value to the Pats, not to any other team.

I've noticed a disturbing trend on this board to resort to violations of Occam's razor.

For those not familiar with the concept, it is basically the premise that, "given any situation with a question, the simplest answer is probably the correct one, all other things being equal."

You'd be surprised how often this comes in handy.

A few examples of applying Occam's razor to Belioli moves this offseason:

1. Letting Givens go. He isn't a #1 receiver, so we weren't going to pay him #1 money.

2. Letting McGinest go. He is entering his 13th year in the league and wanted top money. To hell with that. Let him be a players coach on a team without leaders.

3. Vinatraitor. Take him at his word. He wanted a team to "show him the love" so he left. When it comes down to it, he was an 85% kicker who didn't choke. Can we replace that? Sure.

4. Maroney #1. Best player on the board. Value, value, value.

5. Jackson. #1 type guy fell to us and we took him with a small trade. I'd bet if Matt Leinart fell to us at our #1 slot we would have taken him, too.

6. Temple Beth-El for Sully. Bust for bust. No significant money differences. We'll see if a change of scenery works out.

7. Thomas in 3rd. To replace Fauria.

8. Mills in 4th. To eventually replace Pass/Faulk.

9. Gostkowski early. We reached. Period. Maybe he will be ok, but this was a panic move over Vinatieri and lack of vet kickers.

No need to get into 4-3s, standard 2 TE sets, Jarvis Green/Dan Klecko switching positions, Patten signings, etc. If those things happen, great. But it's only because Belioli feel it is in the best interest of a winning football club.

Some of you people are nuts. Get back to work!

 

[patsox23]

I nominate TaxPlaya as one of THE BEST newbies this board has seen in quite awhile. Here's another example:

Jarvis Green will play DL and not LB because he's an F-ing DL and not an LB.

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

The whole point of Occam's Razor is that the solutions sound obvious, because they are the most simple explanations.

First off, Occam's Razor sounds like an artifact card from the game "Magic the Gathering"

As a member of the Church of The Razor, I find both your posts mildly annoying. However, I'll just assume that one is not quite self-educated enough, and the other is probably 'dumbing down' his acquired knowledge, as that seems the most likely explanation, and be on my way with no hate or discontent. I would however like to point out that the man was born in Ockham, not Occam, for crying out loud. We (the Church) never have figured out the reason for the world accepting the misspelling of the name of one of our greatest philosophers.

 

[spacecrime]

Jarvis Green will play DL and not LB because he's an F-ing DL and not an LB.

He's pretty fast compared to the other DEs. Maybe BB is planning on making him a gunner.

 

[VJCPatriot]

And to continue examples of Occam's razor...

Laurence Maroney's jersey numbers is 39 because it is TIGHT.
Ty Law is hard to sign because the Postons are moneygrubbing buffoons.
Ron Borges is the antichrist.

That is all... and now back to your regularly scheduled football talk!

 

[patchick]

I'm all for this principle, but to claim that you're applying Occam's razor against a sea of complexity you have to lay out multiple theories and choose the simplest -- not just list your own opinions:

"To hell with that. Let him be a players coach on a team without leaders."

"When it comes down to it, he was an 85% kicker who didn't choke. Can we replace that? Sure."

"We reached. Period."


Also, if "Best player on the board. Value, value, value" counts as an Occam-certified complete explanation of a draft pick, surely it must be applied to every draft pick, no? Assuming that a college TE/H-back was drafted to replace a running back seems pretty convoluted in comparison.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Is this what's called an intellectual conversation?

 

[sieglo]

I'm all for this principle, but to claim that you're applying Occam's razor against a sea of complexity you have to lay out multiple theories and choose the simplest -- not just list your own opinions:

"To hell with that. Let him be a players coach on a team without leaders."

"When it comes down to it, he was an 85% kicker who didn't choke. Can we replace that? Sure."

"We reached. Period."


Also, if "Best player on the board. Value, value, value" counts as an Occam-certified complete explanation of a draft pick, surely it must be applied to every draft pick, no? Assuming that a college TE/H-back was drafted to replace a running back seems pretty convoluted in comparison.

This reminds me of that song "Isn't it ironic?" where whatsername the singer sings about a bunch of things that really aren't ironic at all.

 

[shakadave]

No need to get into 4-3s, standard 2 TE sets, Jarvis Green/Dan Klecko switching positions, Patten signings, etc. If those things happen, great. But it's only because Belioli feel it is in the best interest of a winning football club.

Often the simplest explanation is the best, but you're mis-using the idea here.

We can't say BB won't use a 4-3 because it's simpler to use just the 3-4. BB has decided it's better to complicate the defense (by using some of both formations, and others) to make it mentally tough on the opposing offense.

You can't say we shouldn't talk about 2 TE sets because that's more complicated than playing a standard 1 TE set. BB has decided it's more effective to mix in some 2 TE sets to exploit mismatches and generally put pressure on the opposing defense.

A Patten signing would in no way violate the Occam's Razor principle. We needed a wide receiver who knew the system, so we signed one. Duh!

It seems arbitrary that you use Occam's Razor as the rationale for badmouthing recent posts on this forum. Your point almost seems to be that this forum shouldn't bring up football strategies that go beyond the complexity of a typical high school football team.

P.S. Occam would look good at the Razor.

 

[patchick]

This reminds me of that song "Isn't it ironic?" where whatsername the singer sings about a bunch of things that really aren't ironic at all.

Oh man did that grate on my nerves. What she really meant was "doesn't it suck."

 

[dryheat44]

Oh man did that grate on my nerves. What she really meant was "doesn't it suck."

I like that even better than my title "What a co-incidence!".