50% of the time, it works every time

[Mr. Scot]

"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.

Even so, I still remember the exact quote primarily because it was such a hilariously awful take

"Numbers don't lie, but liars use numbers."
- Anonymous

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.

Sometimesitw a crutch for football fans too

Bottom Line: 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

Edited 59 minutes ago by Mr. Scot

[CRA]

  
 

Sincerely, 

The Bryce reality checkers (who don’t go around making a billion new Bryce threads) 

 

[Basbear]

me-

[mrcompletely11]

15 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

"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.

Even so, I still remember the exact quote primarily because it was such a hilariously awful take

"Numbers don't lie, but liars use numbers."
- Anonymous

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.

Sometimesitw a crutch for football fans too

Bottom Line: 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

the meds, get back on them please

[cranky]

Stats can be used to perpetrate a lie, or stats can be used to discern the truth. Just because some people use them to prove a false doesn't mean they can't also show the truth.

My son plays HS baseball. He's played it since he was 8. Between rec ball and school ball, I've been through numberous coaches. Some coaches use only the eye test to evaluate players - I can always tell who they are because the teams look the part but usually aren't that good. Others use a combination of the eye test and stats. They are usually playing for a title.

One of my favorite movies is Moneyball. I think that pretty much sums me up lol.

[Mr. Scot]

35 minutes ago, CRA said:

  Sincerely, 

The Bryce reality checkers (who don’t go around making a billion new Bryce threads) 

This is a Bryce thread?

You know it's okay to say an argument is too complex for you. I wouldn't think any less. 

[Mr. Scot]

30 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

the meds, get back on them please

Thanks for your usual level of contribution

[mrcompletely11]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Thanks for your usual level of contribution

Tell us more about how fitterer was actually a good gm.  

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Tell us more about how fitterer was actually a good gm.  

Post an at least halfway intelligent response and I'll consider it

(not holding my breath though)

[CRA]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

This is a Bryce thread?

You know it's okay to say an argument is too complex for you. I wouldn't think any less. 

lol….it’s literally just you posting a reply to the Bryce stuff in the Shough thread boss.   But hey, now we have another thread.  Maybe you aren’t as complex as you think you are being….

[mrcompletely11]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Post an at least halfway intelligent response and I'll consider it

(not holding my breath though)

Nah we got the receipts.   Keep rambling though this is kindof awesome,  sad but awesome 

[Mr. Scot]

35 minutes ago, cranky said:

Stats can be used to perpetrate a lie, or stats can be used to discern the truth. Just because some people use them to prove a false doesn't mean they can't also show the truth.

My son plays HS baseball. He's played it since he was 8. Between rec ball and school ball, I've been through numberous coaches. Some coaches use only the eye test to evaluate players - I can always tell who they are because the teams look the part but usually aren't that good. Others use a combination of the eye test and stats. They are usually playing for a title.

One of my favorite movies is Moneyball. I think that pretty much sums me up lol.

Baseball is waqaayy better suited to statistical analysis than football.

If a hitter hits a home run, it's pretty much his own effort though the point goes to the team as a whole.

For a team to score a touchdown (let's say via pass) the center has to make a good snap, he and the rest of the line have to block well enough to keep the defense from getting to the quarterback, the quarterback has to throw a good pass, the receiver has to run the correct route and catch the ball, the other potential targets have to effectively play their roles, and so on and so on and so on... 

Any single one of those things going wrong can short circuit the whole thing, and even if it's all done right the defense might still stop it.

Individual stats just don't paint a complete picture. There are too many variables.

To get an accurate picture that way requires looking at things from several different angles, something most folks are either ill equipped or unwilling to do.

I don't bother with all that. I just watch the game and go by what I know.