: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:51 am  

Wadski wrote:

Do you need a new prescription for your glasses?

Yes.

: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:44 am  

Ivor C&G Scarf wrote:

Yes.

the game stats are up on the leeds board. which makes for interesting reading. shows leeds meter gains were far bigger than hudds and you guys made a lot more tackles.

: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:07 am  

No surprise Leeds made more total metres given how much more ball they had. The metres per carry stats though show we made more yards per carry than Leeds.

Stats are easily twisted to try and make a point, aren't they.

: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:30 am  

Danril wrote:

No surprise Leeds made more total metres given how much more ball they had. The metres per carry stats though show we made more yards per carry than Leeds.

Stats are easily twisted to try and make a point, aren't they.

no not really. they are cold hard facts about what players do in a game.

: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:36 am  

But they do not tell the whole story, do they, which provides the opportunity for people to use them in a misleading fashion.

20 errors by us, where did those errors occur? What was the tackle number when the errors occured? Not all the information is there to provide a full insight into what the stats mean.

So in essence, you're wrong.

: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:46 am  

Danril wrote:

But they do not tell the whole story, do they, which provides the opportunity for people to use them in a misleading fashion.

20 errors by us, where did those errors occur? What was the tackle number when the errors occured? Not all the information is there to provide a full insight into what the stats mean.

So in essence, you're wrong.

no im not

i take your point to an extent but in regards to tackles made, yards made, number of carries it gives you a good idea of who's pulling their weight, who's not?

so for the info im after im right.

: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:52 am  

The post I made, and which you disagreed with, was that stats are easily twisted to try and make a point. This also holds true for things like tackles made, yards made etc because again you don't have all the salient information. Was a particular player only on the field for 60mins and another one on for 80mins, for example. That would clearly affect the stats, so unless you have all of the information the stats can be misleading.


Metres per carry is just as useful a statistical tool than total metres, if not more so, but you only chose to highlight one to make a particular point. Thus being misleading with your stats. EOS.

: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:00 am  

Danril wrote:

The post I made, and which you disagreed with, was that stats are easily twisted to try and make a point. This also holds true for things like tackles made, yards made etc because again you don't have all the salient information. Was a particular player only on the field for 60mins and another one on for 80mins, for example. That would clearly affect the stats, so unless you have all of the information the stats can be misleading.


Metres per carry is just as useful a statistical tool than total metres, if not more so, but you only chose to highlight one to make a particular point. Thus being misleading with your stats. EOS.

you would have to be thick not to take those things into account with the info you have. i did watch the game the stats are from.

i find the stats are a good indication of how a player is going. what i disagreed with was that i was using them in such a way as you suggested.

: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:20 am  

Unless you provide all the information then you are misleading with your stats. That was what you did. EOS.

: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:24 am  

Danril wrote:

Unless you provide all the information then you are misleading with your stats. That was what you did. EOS.

no i didnt, i said the stats were up on the leeds board and they were interesting to me. you read into it what you wanted. thats your problem not mine