i didnt wanna draft him for the same reason, his write-up needed to be done justice and i didnt think i was up to the challenge. otoh, he needed to be taken and people need to read those threads to see what the bar for bad posting is. no one has ever been worse.
Like Geoff said, it's impossible to sum up Not Lolo's awfulness in a single write-up or post. It was a sustained level of mind-numbing idiocy that happened over very long periods of posting in multiple threads. And he never showed any even remote signs of improvement.
I would just recommend reading the Chipper .400 thread for a taste.
Based on the posts ITT he kept this level of idiocy up for like months at a time. Hadn't even heard of him before he got drafted but the more I learn/read the more I think he should have been in consideration for #1 overall.
He was already considered a terrible poster. Nominated for a bad poster award here and here and here and especially here and came 4th in the competition. I note that he also defended himself in the nominations thread, an obvious AIDS tell. He finished 4th in the event behind Not Lolo, and some undrafted.
That, my friends.
Was not even the beginning.
Take a deep breath.
Originally Posted by MyTurn2Raise
disregarding the offensive PI, clear TD by NFL rules on the last TD.
See the nfl rulebook pg 39.
Simultaneous catch doesn't apply if the Jennings had control first. While you and I and Websters would definite Jennings as control, we have to go by the NFL rulebook's rules of control.
See Article 3 subsection A, B, and C on pg 39.
Jennings does not fulfill subsection C. Indeed, at one point during the bodies rolling, Tate has more control. Freeze frame when Tate's body/butt hits the ground. At that point, Jennings is the one trying to rip the ball out of Tate's two hands. Good body positioning by Jennings gave him leverage to get more of the ball again. However, Tate's two hands stay wrapped on the ball. Don't buy the freeze frames circling the internet showing #14 of Seattle's loose hand and acting like that is Tate's.
Jennings never establishes control as control is defined in NFL rulebook. Since there is no control established first, the simultaneous catch rules do, indeed, apply.
It's silly rules, IMO, but that is a TD catch. Tell the talking heads on tv to read the rules on "control" as defined by the NFL rather than what they think "control" means.
will how does Jennings ever have control if it's clear that at some point on the way down, Tate was dictating how the ball was moving? Watch the few frames before and after Tate's body/butt hit the ground. Tate is the one moving the ball as Jennings tries to reset his body to leverage the ball out of Tate's hands. Tate's two hands never part from being wrapped on the ball from there.
300 posts later, it was still going on
Originally Posted by MyTurn2Raise
I've seen the replay hundreds of times from many angles.
Still cannot see where Jennings secures the ball and Tate's left hand doesn't have a lock on the ball.
Let's see if I can explain this in more ways.
What if this was a basketball rebound. Tate going straight up with his left hand with inside position and Jennings jumping up higher behind reaching up and reach over. Jennings gets two hands on outside, but Tate has hand in middle. Would any of you say Jennings would have secured the basketball at any point from the top to coming down? Why is it much different with a smaller ball that Tate has a stronger grip upon?
Now, try to physically mimic the body positioning of those players. It seems we all agree Tate did not secure the ball on his own, so we won't address that. But, look at Jennings. He reaches out and up for the ball. He gets his hands on it as Tate gets his left hand. While trying to secure the ball, we see Jennings have to bend over. It's almost as though his legs are kicking out behind him and his upper body is pulled forward by the force of Tate pulling the ball down. Is that considered securing the ball? Continue with Jennings fall. Get to the bottom. At one point, he's reaching outside of his right shoulder to bring the ball back to his body. Again, when is this ball ever secure?
People say Jennings pulled the ball to his chest. Never happened. Not close. Tate's left hand keeps it from happening.
At no point, can someone say Jennings secured the ball and changed possession. At the top of the jump, Tate has his left hand gripping the ball stronger than any hand for Jennings. Tate's left hand stays on that ball throughout the play. When they hit the bottom, the ball is away from both bodies and their arms/hands are interlocked around it. The rest is just wrestling.
Clear simultaneous possession.
That aspect of the play was called correctly.
Now, clearly a missed offensive PI. Some obvious blunders earlier in the game. But, that is the correct usage of the simultaneous catch rule. It doesn't have to be 50/50. The rule still applies to 60/40 spots when no one player has secured and controlled the ball. Watch Jennings body in the air and you can see it move due to Tate having more force on the ball due to his left hand having secured it stronger than Jennings' two hands.
700 posts later. It was still going on.
Originally Posted by MyTurn2Raise
or, my point is that Tate actually stabilized the ball first which is evident from the back angle replay. In case you missed it, that is Tate's left hand catching and gripping the ball while Jennings' right hand is struggling. Watch the start of that catch closely. What stopped the ball so Jennings can have his hands slide/bounce across the top to get a grip? Was it magic? That doesn't sound right, especially when we can see it's Tate's left hand. That same left hand never leaves the ball throughout the play. It prevents Jennings' two hands from pulling the ball into Jennings' chest.
Jennings has to establish control first (not merely touch the ball first). The actual video from the play shows it's Tate's left hand that comes closest to establishing control first. Neither player established control by any definition of control I've seen.
Watch the replay. Get over what you thought you saw in the first angle or two shown on tv. Use all the angles. If anything had control first, it was Tate's left hand.
The truth shall set you free
The AIDS could not be contained. It spilled into multiple threads.
Originally Posted by MyTurn2Raise
has to establish control
look up control
why not look at a back view and see Tate's left hand has possession as early as Jennings' right hand? I posted it. Tate's left hand on the ball while Jennings has some right finger tips and has to later readjust his left hand as it has no grip. When it comes to control... how about Jennings being pulled along by Tate's pull down. If you look at the back side of the play, it's clear the ball was pinned between Jennings' right hand and Tate's left hand. Neither establishes "control." That's the key word at play. Control. It doesn't have to be an actual tie. There is nothing in rules about 2 hands, or more control, or to touch it first. Jennings' has to display control. He didn't. Simultaneous catch rules apply. Goes to the Seahawks.
It's an optical illusion from the front view. Have to piece both views together. If you look at the back, it's Tate's left hand firmly on the ball while Jennings is barely touching. If Jennings isn't there, Tate catches it easy.
Watch Tate's left hand. Piece it together with other views and you realize it's the strongest force controlling the ball.
What is your explanation for what slows down the ball before Jennings gets his right hand on top? Magic?
Even the sacred bad p0sters thread was not safe.
Originally Posted by MyTurn2Raise
I understand your point, but you guys lash out at anyone who questions the consensus you've established despite ample evidence your position is at least tenuous.
It's just bully behavior.
For example, how many posts are just "oh man, MT2R" rather than reading the rules, watching the alternative video angles, and explaining Tate's left hand gripping the ball from the top to the bottom in this recent Seahawks/Packers ending. It's lazy and insulting.
Frankly, I wear it as a badge of honor that most of you don't like me. The right people, in my mind, don't like me. I attract the winners of the forum. My posting filters through the noise and gets to the real quality people who I'd spend my valuable free time with.
Your point is 100% wrong, btw. I acknowledge everyone else to the point that I actually respond to them. But, good try, again, with your little insults. You're the much better man for insulting others and projecting character flaws on them rather than address the points they bring up. I address nearly everyone's points. Because I actually value others (shocking concept). I don't dismiss them as people. I counter the points in their posts.
Remember how many blown games there were in 2 years of playoffs, which is essentially one week of NFL season at the highest levels? Remember how that addressed your point and then some when the best of the real officials could have so many blunders and game-altering ones. Instead of stick with that point, you decided to call me a condescending douche in not so many words. Far out....
So there we have it, parhaps the greatest display of concentrated AIDS of our times which was carried out by a poster that was already considered awful.
One of Bdidd's harshest critics wrote this,
Originally Posted by Riverman
myturn2AIDS really belongs in the thread title at this point, he just blew right by bdiddle
I think this post sums up Not Lolo in all his glory:
Originally Posted by Not Lolo
My argument centers on the idea that predictive models that are based on mathematical purity and don’t take some other key ideas into account is seriously flawed in complex adaptive systems like baseball.
I believe in Multi disciplinary approach. Some of the key ideas:
1. You need a solid historical background:
A. To understand the style of play of the game and how it has evolved from it's roots. The lack of understanding of the dead ball era around here makes all your cute past era comparisons incomplete at best.
B. Also to understand the players in the context of their time, not only ours. Babe Ruth had more impact on baseball then Bonds did in this context. Stats aside for a moment, Ruth was larger, because you didn't need a bunch of sabre stat guys to post cute novel numbers to show he was some statistical GOAT. Ruth's impact on the game was so obvious to even the most casual fan that only the most basic stats were needed for his greatness to shine when he played.
It is not even clear to the average guy at a sports bar that Bonds is a GOAT candidate! "Good player you bet but the GOAT? No way!" They would probably say. That is not the case for Jordan, Wilt, Gretzky, Ruth etc. Bonds is probably thought more of like AAron a very good player of his era not the GOAT.
Here's a hint: If you need a bunch of new metrics to show someone is actually the GOAT there may be something wrong with your model.
2. You need to understand the skills involved in baseball well enough to judge them.
I spent a ton of time with Charley Lau as a kid. You don't need to become a intern under a mlb hitting coach to understand hitting. But the ignorance of the pure skill that guys like Brett, Gwynn and Ichiro possess around here clearly shows why a one viewpoint perspective on baseball is so shallow. It shows a ignorance to the basic fundamentals of the game.
3. Sabermetrics and Probability Theory.
Sabermetrics is the analysis of baseball through objective evidence, especially baseball statistics. I believe in the art and science of Sabermetrics. It is one of many tools that can be used to understand the game. Same for probability theory but you need to know it limits as well as its strengths.
Humility is a huge problem around here with the "flat earth" crowd. You need to know the edge of your own competency in a given area especially when using numbers. Some of the posters around here post sabre stats like they are Moses coming down the mountain with the tablets from the burning bush. Yet hang on with stubborn certainty that Thay3er's blind guy has a shot at hitting .400 in a 500 at bat mlb season in 2010 conditions. Stupidly holding on to the casino model which does not apply to a complex system like baseball with all there might, because probability theory says it must be possible.
4. Complexity science
Understanding baseball is a Complex adaptive system which is a special case of a complex system. Baseball is complex in that it is diverse and made up of multiple interconnected elements and adaptive in that the actors (players) have the capacity to change and learn from experience and adapt there actions accordingly. This is way different from a closed system that all the probability crowd likes to use as examples to why I am wrong about blind guys hitting .400 in mlb.
Complexity science is not a single theory it encompasses more than one theoretical framework and is highly interdisciplinary, seeking the answers to some fundamental questions about living, adaptable, changeable systems like baseball and markets.
If you understand the main ideas of all the disciplines, you are, by definition, a person in possession of many tools. You are therefore unlikely to commit the shallow mistakes made by others, especially those who are more limited in their understanding of the game of baseball looking at it from one lens.
Somehow none of us were able to ignore him and these word bombs that said nothing
his oot 'ask me about prison' thread is pretty awesome, but his complete failure to accept any responsibility for having like a milk gallon container of GHB was absurd. of course he just 'got a bad prosecutor' or whatever.
I still don't think Not Lolo was a gimmick or self-conscious troll. The sad thing is, a lot of baseball fans probably believe this stuff -- they just don't find SE and decide to argue about it non-stop.
I think he was an old guy who sincerely thought he was teaching us kids a lesson.