-
Welcome!
Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!
Or simply create a new Huddle account.
Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!
You're David Tepper, how do you structure a deal/offer to get Ben Johnson's attention?
-
-
-
-
Topics
-
-
-
-
Posts
-
"There's three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli Some years back, a rather dimwitted Steeler fan tried to trash talk me with the following quote: "Kordell set a record on your field with a bunch of backups. I wish we could play the Panthers every week" (Side Note: If you remember seeing Panthers mascot Sir Purr dive on a live ball, this was the game where that happened. As I recall, that incident resulted in his "coordinator" having to seek other employment) A legitimate record was indeed set that day when Stewart ran for an 80 yard touchdown from scrimmage (at the time, the longest rushing touchdown ever by a quarterback). The "bunch of backups" line was also true because the Steelers came into the game already banged up and lost additional players to injury during the first half. So yes, what he said was technically true. "Numbers don't lie, but liars use numbers." - Anonymous Even so, I still remember the exact quote primarily because it was such a hilariously awful take Why? Well because what was omitted from this… dazzlingly brilliant analysis… was the fact that Stewart ended the contest by throwing a game losing interception to Chad Cota in the end zone. It was his second pick of the day, but undoubtedly the more devastating of the two. Trash talking after a loss isn't all that bright to begin with, but even worse when you lose like that. Hence, my response to his pitiful attempt at flexing: "Well if you did (play us every week), you'd be 0-16" Obviously that's a story from pretty long ago (almost thirty years) but I think of that guy every time somebody comes at me with this sort of argument… "But...stats". "Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable." - Mark Twain Of late, I'm seeing a lot of folks argue about and against Bryce Young based on stats. It's funny, because at no point have I suggested that Bryce is or should be our franchise guy, but my reasoning behind that isn't based in statistics. Apparently, it's not enough for some folks that you come to the same conclusion. You also have to get there via the same path I've said a number of times that football is far too complicated a game to count on pure stats as a primary analytical tool. Posted some examples of why earlier that I'll repeat here in a format of statements vs rebuttal questions. Starting with... Statement: Quarterback X has lousy completion percentage. Question: Okay, but how good are his receivers? Statement: Quarterback X hasn’t thrown for more than 200 yards in a single game this year. Question: Does his team have a run heavy scheme or a phenomenally effective run game? Statement: Quarterback X has thrown for 3000 yards this season. Question: How many of those yards came after the catch? Statement: Quarterback X didn't throw a pass further than ten yards last game. Question: But did he put the ball in good spots for his receivers to catch it and run for good gains? And so on... Truth be told, there are lots more scenarios you could throw in here, but the underlying point is that simple stat lines don’t paint a complete picture. One of the better illustrations of that being the stat line Jerome Bettis once put up in a playoff game: 5 carries, -1 yard, 3 touchdowns "He understood that three bad shots could be overcome by one...phenomenal one." - The Legend of Bagger Vance The team dependent aspect of the game isn't the only pitfall to stat-driven analysis though. There's also a game dependent aspect. Specifically, timing. Sometimes it's not just about what happened but when it happened. The Stewart story is a good illustration. Had he thrown a pick earlier in the game it certainly would have been bad, but doing it on what turned out to be the final play of the game made it devastating. If you were to look back at the game stats without understanding the context of that play, you won’t understand the full impact. The above quote above from fictional golf guru Bagger Vance points out something similar. In football, you can have a lousy performance on offense (or a strong performance on defense) get totally turned around on you because of a single big play. It's not at all unusual for a great statistical performance to be part of a loss that happened because somebody choked at a crucial moment. Likewise, there are numerous games every year where the stats might look like bat sh-t but you still come away with a win. We call it "winning ugly" but it's still winning. And I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us will take a butt ugly win over even the most aesthetically pleasing loss. "So I'm ugly. So what? I never saw anyone hit with his face." - Yogi Berra Hell, Barry Sanders made a career out of that sort of oddball principle. He's almost universally recognized as one of the best runningbacks in NFL history, yet there were games where he might be tackled behind the line of scrimmage multiple times (lousy blocking) only to turn around and break off a run of 60, 70, 80 yards or more on a single play. Still, nobody would be silly enough to use those plays as an argument to downgrade Sanders’ obvious greatness. Would they? Well yeah, they would. In fact, I've heard more than one person suggest that this was a knock on him; typically within the context of trying to argue that other backs were better. Again though, this ignores context because Sanders never exactly had a great offensive line blocking for him. But hey, that doesn't really matter. You know, because...stats. Right? "Statistics are no substitute for judgment." - Henry Clay One of the things that used to infuriate me most about the corporate world was that a fair number of supervisors and management types really had no clue how to accurately evaluate employee performance. And even a good number of those who did understand were too lazy to actually put forth the needed effort. So what did they rely on? I could repeat the word, but if I have to at this point, you're probably not paying attention. If there wasn't a chart or a spreadsheet to consult, they couldn't (or wouldn’t)- make their own judgments. The most common argument in favor of this approach tended to be that numbers were impartial. The more accurate take though is that without looking at the big picture, stats are incomplete. Bottom line though: If you genuinely think just looking at a stat line tells you enough to make a true and proper judgment, that’s your choice. If you really wanna try and persuade me of something though, my likely response will be to quote a former head coach of ours... "Stats are for losers." - John Fox -
-
There was a brief time where many in the fanbase considered if we should seek his services after the dumpster fire that was the Matt Rhule experience had us completely downbad. Such is the result of living with the Tepper's as owners.
-
-
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.