[hiaspire]

You say "you" a lot there as if talking to someone directly. Are you addressing me?

Stats are often worshiped here as if there is nothing else that matters nearly so much and no other perspectives really welcomed. Many arrogantly call others in the game morons if they don't follow that same reverence for the awe-inspiring power of the numeric conclusions and their undeniable answers. That contempt/disrespect does get under my skin sometimes (as I'm sure I do to others), and I'll certainly argue the other side of issues where I think the statistical evidence is entirely overblown in comparison to ignored obvious risk factors that point the another way that also need to be considered for a reasonable conclusion IMO. Different perspectives often lead to different conclusions argued back and fourth on message boards. That's a good thing I think, although I'm probably in the minority here on that amongst the craving for a spreadsheet full of all the answers we'd ever need.

I like your stated approach to it better there, though, where you also seem to cast some doubt on the importance of such conclusions yourself by calling everything "random". I asked if you were talking about me in confusion because in some ways you are sounding a similar message as myself in between the opening and concluding disagreements otherwise.

Now I won't go nearly as far as what you state in labeling everything as such random chance, but I would think if someone really believes that luck plays that important of a role in everything then logically you would think they also wouldn't put as much value into meaning of calculated predictions otherwise if pure luck is so significant. What you refer to as unpredictable luck there I'd probably point to other real human elements that might have contributed at least partially to those statistically unpredicted outcomes in some cases, which to me provide better justifications than just writing it off as just dumb luck with no further examination. Certainly luck exists, but so do other things we maybe can't add on a calculator but can consider logically anyway.

You mention some things should stay out of a rational arguement. Let's take the most important thing I've mentioned in that regard here. Should INJURIES?? Would it be rational to ignore those in only looking at numbers exclusively? I would call that irrational. Most of what I am saying, in response to a question about numbers alone predicting the value for prospects, is that if you don't at least consider a player's health during the time those numbers were put up then a statistical conclusion is likely to be very flawed if missing such a critical consideration.

Do you disagree? If you have a stud prospect who has a not-so-serious but nagging injury he plays through, should that be entirely ignored in valuing him as a prospect by the lesser numbers alone and putting him equally alongside lesser talents who had healthy seasons of similar stats? If another player is just gettting back from surgery and slowly working his way back into the grove, should those numbers be treated with the same meaning with no regard to the situation for how that impacts his calculated overall value?

Now you certainly can't always put a number on such human considerations, but to make the most logical conclusions overall I would think that shouldn't be utterly ignored either. The best lists, as mentioned by others, probably start with the numberic analysis and then have some adjustments in there for those human situations and common sense. To take that entirely out only creates huge mistakes in those specific cases by design IMO if you are going to extremely under-value a very valuable prospect otherwise for a momentary situation.

If the questions is can you rank prospects with numbers alone and do just as good as anybody else, then the answer IMO is a clear no unless you ALSO consider the context surrounding those numbers in such cases. But the other lists being compared to make those kinds of human adjustments for very logical reasons while also paying attention to performance.

And I certainly don't disagree that there are excellent mathematical tools if that is the charge. I have always said that the best conclusions need to have BOTH perspectives included to see the complete picture of a player. I stress inclusion, not isolation to only one method providing everything needed as pondered here.