Rumours and Stuff

[Poupou Escobar]

Last sentence is a crock of shit.

Just because someone was contracted at a higher value, doesn't "prove" they were/are a better player. A very myopic point of view re salary remuneration imo.

Learn to read you dopey little troll. I said his greater involvement proved he was better. And being better is why he got more pay.

 

[phantom eel]

But when you are contracted "up front", the size of your salary can in no way "prove" how much involvement you will have with your new club, and can in no way "prove" you will be a relatively better player during that contract than someone else signed for a smaller salary.

Your attempts to elevate Watmough's contribution to this club above Scott's smell of someone who might be a family relation of Watmough... there is no other apparent logic to your arguments. But keep on derping it up, taking threads off-topic with your inadequate trolling... lol.

 

[emjaycee]

But when you are contracted "up front", the size of your salary can in no way "prove" how much involvement you will have with your new club, and can in no way "prove" you will be a relatively better player during that contract than someone else signed for a smaller salary.

Your attempts to elevate Watmough's contribution to this club above Scott's smell of someone who might be a family relation of Watmough... there is no other apparent logic to your arguments. But keep on derping it up, taking threads off-topic with your inadequate trolling... lol.

Couldn't resist this but if Watmough and Pou are related Bart, wouldn't you know from Mrs Pou's Facebook photos or friends list?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

But when you are contracted "up front", the size of your salary can in no way "prove" how much involvement you will have with your new club, and can in no way "prove" you will be a relatively better player during that contract than someone else signed for a smaller salary.

Agreed, which is why I never said the salary proved the performance. I said the performance proved the quality of the player. Watmough was a better player than Scott (proven by the performances), which is the only reason I believe he was earning more.

If Scott is better value than Watmough (and I reckon he is) it's because he has missed fewer games due to injury. Not because he's a better player.

 

[phantom eel]

Agreed, which is why I never said the salary proved the performance. I said the performance proved the quality of the player. Watmough was a better player than Scott (proven by the performances), which is the only reason I believe he was earning more.

Oh.... but you kind of did link salary to being a better player, proven by performance - see your quote below.

But Watmough got paid more because he's a better player, which was proven by the fact he contributed more on the field.

How does that not say that salary proved performance, when you've said that higher salary is because someone is a better player, which is "proven" by higher contribution on the field (performance)?

A = B = C
... yet A not= C ?

#poulogic

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Agreed, which is why I never said the salary proved the performance. I said the performance proved the quality of the player. Watmough was a better player than Scott (proven by the performances), which is the only reason I believe he was earning more.

If Scott is better value than Watmough (and I reckon he is) it's because he has missed fewer games due to injury. Not because he's a better player.

Choc was a better player in his prime but for our club I think Scott was better, and not just value-wise. Scott's contribution isn't adequately covered by stats IMO. His defense cut off opportunities for opposing teams but was also inspiring. Choc was a workhorse with us. You need them too, and no doubt his toughness inspired others, but I don't think it was on the same level as Scott's.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Oh.... but you kind of did link salary to being a better player, proven by performance - see your quote below.


How does that not say that salary proved performance, when you've said that higher salary is because someone is a better player, which is "proven" by higher contribution on the field (performance)?

A = B = C
... yet A not= C ?

#poulogic

You're missing cause and effect in the logic chain. In fact you're completely missing it. Performance -> pay, not the other way around.

 

[phantom eel]

But you claimed "Watmough got paid more because he's a better player, which was proven by the fact he contributed more on the field."

He's = implies present tense (you still consider him to be a better player)?
(Otherwise you would have used "because he was".)
Better Player = proven by contribution?

The order of your sentence/claims as quoted does not support the logic chain that you are now claiming...

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Choc was a better player in his prime but for our club I think Scott was better, and not just value-wise. Scott's contribution isn't adequately covered by stats IMO. His defense cut off opportunities for opposing teams but was also inspiring. Choc was a workhorse with us. You need them too, and no doubt his toughness inspired others, but I don't think it was on the same level as Scott's.

Of course it wasn't. Scott's defence is phenomenal (in the middle at least), but Watmough's was very good. The difference is Watmough's attack was good while Scott's has been poor.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

But you claimed "Watmough got paid more because he's a better player, which was proven by the fact he contributed more on the field."

He's = implies present tense (you still consider him to be a better player)?
(Otherwise you would have used "because he was".)
Better Player = proven by contribution?

The order of your sentence/claims as quoted does not support the logic chain that you are now claiming...

It certainly does. If you need an equation try this:

A = ability
B = performance
C = remuneration

Essentially A=B, or close enough to it, and A (as shown by B) leads to C.

Obviously Watmough is no longer a better player than anyone because he is a retired former player. Actually I'm sure he's still better than some players, maybe even some first graders, but I doubt he will ever take the field again.

 

[phantom eel]

Watmough was at his peak at Manly.

Despite signing for high figures, he didn't produce terribly good form for us imo - in attack or defence. He was playing busted, and good on him for trying, but it just wasn't there for him anymore and attempts to justify his contribution (based on his signing salary and previous performance) are pretty pointless.

I wish Watmough well, but his contribution to Parra was minimal.

 

[phantom eel]

It certainly does. If you need an equation try this:

A = ability
B = performance
C = remuneration

Essentially A=B, or close enough to it, and A (as shown by B) leads to C.

Well if A=B (or close enough to it), then you don't need B to "show" A, and the inference that - in their present state - A or B leads to C is debatable.

Past A or B definitely results in C... but you're trying to say Watmough's contribution to us while he was here is greater than Scott's contribution to us while he's been here. As usual, you're attempting to prove one concept with elements from a different concept altogether.

#poulogic

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Watmough was at his peak at Manly.

Despite signing for high figures, he didn't produce terribly good form for us imo - in attack or defence. He was playing busted, and good on him for trying, but it just wasn't there for him anymore and attempts to justify his contribution (based on his signing salary and previous performance) are pretty pointless.

I wish Watmough well, but his contribution to Parra was minimal.

His performances at Parra were proven by his statistics.

If you disagree with NRL coaches that stats are relevant and useful there's no convincing you. But at least I have some support for my opinion.

 

[phantom eel]

Lol, if you call a slanted view of selected stats as "support" for your opinion (which you stated as "fact").

Watmough was busted, retirement the best option. Scott has not been busted, and his greater contribution has been self-evident to the regular observer. QED.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Well if A=B (or close enough to it), then you don't need B to "show" A

Wrong.

Performances are that part of ability that we can measure. It's like how we don't know how good Watmough would be if he was playing this year because he isn't. You can only tell how good a player is by watching his performances. That's why A isn't exactly B.

and the inference that - in their present state - A or B leads to C is debatable.

Obviously supply and demand lead to C. But demand is informed by A (determined based on B).

Past A or B definitely results in C...

Tangentially, yes. Expected future performance (let's call it D) is what actually leads to C, and D is strongly based on B.

but you're trying to say Watmough's contribution to us while he was here is greater than Scott's contribution to us while he's been here.

Absolutely. The only way Scott has outperformed Watmough has been through missing less games to injury.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Lol, if you call a slanted view of selected stats as "support" for your opinion (which you stated as "fact").

Watmough was busted, retirement the best option. Scott has not been busted, and his greater contribution has been self-evident to the regular observer. QED.

That's because nobody notices what a player doesn't do. I'm sure most of you were surprised when I showed how little Scott does in attack. But we have all been impressed with our defence this year (our first year without Sandow since 2011) and we have seen Scott do some very good things there. He ran down Tom Trbojevic FFS! It skews our opinion of his overall game.

Similarly, the casual fan (or 'regular observer', as you put it) probably remembers nothing else about Watmough than the wayward passes he threw against the Titans that time. Or their belief that he was a direct replacement for their hero Jarryd Hayne.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Of course it wasn't. Scott's defence is phenomenal (in the middle at least), but Watmough's was very good. The difference is Watmough's attack was good while Scott's has been poor.

But was Scott's attack poor because he was bad at taking the ball forward or because other players were a bit better at it and so were doing it more often? Metres per carry might be the best measure here. Anyway my suspicion is that during their time with us the combined ability of attack and defence was in Scott's favour.

 

[yy_cheng]

isn't it A ^ 2 = B ^ 2 + C ^ 2

 

[yy_cheng]

poo, you weren't watching when watmoigh thought he was a 5/8th?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

poo, you weren't watching when watmoigh thought he was a 5/8th?

What's the most passes you reckon he threw in a game last year? I know the answer. How many games do you reckon he threw more than two passes? know the answer to that as well, but I'm keen to see your perception.