19 posts
  • 1 / 2
  • 1
  • 2
 by Hacksaw_64
7 years 2 months ago
 Total posts:   2686  
 Joined:  Sep 08 2015
United States of America   Inglewood, CA
Moderator

lies.png


Numbers without perspective.


This is why trusting your eyes and first hand experience is often light years better than reading a stat line.

Way too many reporters"experts" make this mistake imo. They report on stats lines without actually even watching the tape.

The stat game, fantasy football and the emergence of PFF has changed how we view or mis-view the game.

There's a ton of misinformation and bad source data from the start.

Just a brief example because I don't have the time to go into detail into this now.

PFF gives every OL a graded performance the day after a game. Without knowing there blocking assignments..

First I question there staffs ability to actually watch all of that tape on every single play on every single NFL lineman backwards forwards and slo mo and then grade and post results in 12 hours...

Then be able to do it without knowing the play call or assignments?

Impossible. Preposterous. False data.

Then every hack reporter uses PFF as there source data to write articles on the games they never actually watched...Plus add in there given agendas...

Rediculous



Be advised. trust your eyes.

Or Ryan Tannehill is clearly better than Andrew Luck, Matt Ryan, Carr, Prescott and Mariota and should be an instant first ballot HoF candidate...

 by moklerman
7 years 2 months ago
 Total posts:   7680  
 Joined:  Apr 17 2015
United States of America   Bakersfield, CA
Hall of Fame

I agree that the lesson is to use all avenues of information to help form your "opinion". With your Tannehill example, I think it could work the other way too. He isn't the greatest or better than some of the other names, but the numbers do indicate he may not be as bad as people think. The numbers point to that possibility and if one is so inclined, perhaps reason to investigate further than what his reputation is.

Even then, it becomes difficult at times to actually know what's going on. Fans are burdened with that lack of information in most cases. We really don't know if the receiver ran the wrong route, read the coverage differently than the QB, the QB made a bad read or just didn't see a defender, or a million other things.

So, stats are generally where we have to start to give us a relative glimpse of what's going on. If one player has 40 TD's and the other has 17 TD's, you sort of have to assume it's relative. But it generally isn't. Since there isn't a true common ground though, you have to accept the difference to a large degree.

I'm sure there are many QB's who would be as successful as Brady if they'd been playing in NE under the same exact circumstances.

 by ramsrams
7 years 2 months ago
 Total posts:   1176  
 Joined:  Feb 06 2016
Canada   Mississauga, ON
Pro Bowl

The only value in statistics is knowing how to value statistics.

 by PARAM
7 years 2 months ago
 Total posts:   12185  
 Joined:  Jul 15 2015
Barbados   Just far enough North of Philadelphia
Hall of Fame

ramsrams wrote:The only value in statistics is knowing how to value statistics.


Absolutely!! And it varies from sport to sport. I believe with MLB, statistics tell a much better story than NFL football. Just so many variables with football. For QB play.....did the OL block well? Did the receivers run good routes? Did they get open? What was the situation and how did the defense defend it? That's all before the individual effort of the the QB.....did he call the proper protection, make the right read, execute a good throw?

Cumulative stats indicate some things but collectively paint a better picture. Incomplete but better.

 by aeneas1
7 years 2 months ago
 Total posts:   16894  
 Joined:  Sep 13 2015
United States of America   Norcal
Hall of Fame

well if you ask fisher statistics certainly don't tell the truth... according to him ranking dead last in just about every meaningful offensive measurable was meaningless, instead the rams offense had indeed improved, and had continued to improve.
Jeff Fisher wrote:You can take the 32nd in the league and write all you want about it," Fisher said. "But this offense is improving.

in other news, kind of a straw man article.

 by dieterbrock
7 years 2 months ago
 Total posts:   11512  
 Joined:  Mar 31 2015
United States of America   New Jersey
Hall of Fame

I think they absolutely tell truth, in fact its not debatable. Fact is that Tannehill has thrown for the 3rd highest total of passing yards in a players 1st 4 seasons. That is truly a fact.
Now the interpretation of stats/factual information? That is a whole nuther conversation.

 by TomSlick
7 years 2 months ago
 Total posts:   2907  
 Joined:  Jun 01 2015
Italy   Many of us know the feeling of the universe conspiring to bring car and driver together.
Superstar

My statistics tell me I'm a middle-aged, slow white guy, who has lost in the neighborhood of 20 steps and Mexican Jumping Beans clear more air than I can. Yeah, I think stats are pretty accurate.

 by Elvis
7 years 2 months ago
 Total posts:   38377  
 Joined:  Mar 28 2015
United States of America   Los Angeles
Administrator

Stats may not tell the whole story but that doesn't mean they don't tell any of the story.

And though the eye ball test is a good one, sometimes my eyeballs tell me the better team lost, yet they still get the L...

 by Rams the Legends live on
7 years 2 months ago
 Total posts:   1987  
 Joined:  Aug 26 2015
United States of America   Colorado Springs
Pro Bowl

I tend to like stats more in life than I do the eye ball test. As stats are usually less emotion driven than the eye. However not always the case.

As the eye pertains to football usually every Monday we can find out how folks feel about this as some post or opining is made how the Ref's missed a call or made a bad one. So in a imperfect world with imperfect people seeking perfection. Football has added the challenge of instant replay to be a check and balance against the eye.

The eye ball also fails every team at some point and some teams worse than others. The eye also ends up costing teams millions of dollars. The way the eye does this is draft picks. Teams will draft a player based upon what the have seen and sometimes the eye is accurate and sometimes horribly wrong.

Stats don't fair much better at times. Because even like the framing of your question " Do statistics actually tell the truth about football?"

The question seeks a definitive from the subjective. So the answer for each will of course be subjective based upon the prism of each.

If something is a absolute truth, I would say the eye and the statistic bear witness to each other. For example if I jump out of a window absent a parachute a rope or some kind of security device. The stats say I am gonna go splat and anyone watching is gonna see me go splat.

The eye and the stat can also bear witness in football and when it does that person usually ends up in the hall of fame. However stats can oft be misleading because they can be used subjectively from a emotional standpoint. They can be used to affirm or deny based upon the preconceived notion of the user.

So in the end I myself tend to like stats as they usually are less emotional than the eye. However there is no denying that stats can be used to make a emotional argument.

So leads me to believe as in this case the case of your question seeking absolute, such as the truth is. Seeking it from amongst the subjective. It leads me to conclude that stats and the eye are both nothing more than a tool. An a tool is only as good as the hands that wield it. Some hands can make a master piece while other hands can make a mess with both using the same tool.

 by ramsrams
7 years 2 months ago
 Total posts:   1176  
 Joined:  Feb 06 2016
Canada   Mississauga, ON
Pro Bowl

Great post Legend!

I think its fair to say one of the beautiful things about sport is that the statistically best team doesn't always win. If not influenenced by incompetent officiating, there's just something up-lifting about an underdog playing above their heads on a particular day.

As far as the eyeball test goes, when it comes to the Rams sometimes, its not like my eyes deceive me, its just that most of the rest of you are wrong. :D

Hey, don't know how you can be a fan of a team without bias. Its bias just making that choice.

And I am a bit of a stats nerd. For example, back in the day, I couldn't wait to read the two week old game summaries in "The Sporting News". Jim Bertelson had 11 carries for 34 yards. It meant something, not sure what, but something.

It's certainly not my intention to denigrate statistics. I do have an understanding of the subject. Regression to the mean means a bigger number, half the time, for example. That's not generally understood by people who didn't have the opportunity to study the subject like I was lucky enough to have.

Though I can't think of any " a Rabbi, a Priest, and a Statistician walk into a bar" jokes right now!

What are the chances of that? :lol:

  • 1 / 2
  • 1
  • 2
19 posts Mar 28 2024