Lies, damn lies and statistics

[Jacks Fur Coat]

See sig.

[chook 56]

I remember Webke and Joel Clinton talking on the footy show years back.
Clinton was talking about how Webke laughed at him for looking at the stats from the previous week while in the kangaroo camp together.
It was along the lines of you can have 15 hit ups for 100m,2 errors,20+ tackles and 2 missed tackles and think you had a good game but if both your errors were when your coming off your own end of the field or trying to push a pass and both your missed tackles led to 2 try's then all of a sudden they don't look so good.
I don't read stats that much because they are miss leading in a lot of ways. Like someone said earlier watching the game you can see who is playing well and doing there job on the field.

True.

Stats can give you an idea into some of the basics, but like any figures, don't necessarily tell you want you want to know.
I sometimes wonder if MOM awards are given on stats alone. I've seen some downright puzzling MOM's in my time.

[Guest]

I dont know what this thread is meant to prove? Stats show precisely what they are meant to. where it says missed tackles, it reflects precisely that. it doesnt include bad reads etc because thats not what the statisticians have defined missed tackles to reflect. Of course stats dont tell the whole picture. Thats why games are often won and lost even where statistically things might look even or in favour of the losing team. For example, stats may reflect a higher percentage of ball with one team which would suggest that you would be winning but as a matter of fact, the other team were mere efficient with the ball they had and managed to come up with the points in more limited opportunities than the other team. Its as simple as that. Should we disregard stats? No - clearly there is relevance in how many carries/possessions/tackles/MTs/breaks/tries an individual/team makes but that of itself doesnt make them conclusive. I dont think anyone ever said that they were meant to be. They are merely a more concrete way of demonstrating/deducing/measuring performance that is a bit more precise than "gee he went alright" or "that bloke runs pretty hard" or "he seems to get pretty involved". Pretty hard to gauge performance on that...

[Guest]

I remember Webke and Joel Clinton talking on the footy show years back.
Clinton was talking about how Webke laughed at him for looking at the stats from the previous week while in the kangaroo camp together.
It was along the lines of you can have 15 hit ups for 100m,2 errors,20+ tackles and 2 missed tackles and think you had a good game but if both your errors were when your coming off your own end of the field or trying to push a pass and both your missed tackles led to 2 try's then all of a sudden they don't look so good.
I don't read stats that much because they are miss leading in a lot of ways. Like someone said earlier watching the game you can see who is playing well and doing there job on the field.

That doesnt make the stats wrong - you still made 2 errors. The error column isnt categorised into where on the field the error was made or how important it was and even if it did, it would water down its value because it would be harder to compare. I dont see how that example waters down the insights that that stat provides. Sure, coaches still go to the game to actually see how the guys are going and dont just sit behind a computer watching the numbers move but isnt that the point - that you watch the game and then look at the stats to provide a measurable gauge on performance?

[Guest]

That doesnt make the stats wrong - you still made 2 errors. The error column isnt categorised into where on the field the error was made or how important it was and even if it did, it would water down its value because it would be harder to compare. I dont see how that example waters down the insights that that stat provides. Sure, coaches still go to the game to actually see how the guys are going and dont just sit behind a computer watching the numbers move but isnt that the point - that you watch the game and then look at the stats to provide a measurable gauge on performance?

But a lot of people on here like to use stats to back up there opinions or arguments.
I'm not saying stats are wrong in any way, I'm saying they are miss leading sometimes.

[Waylander]

That doesnt make the stats wrong - you still made 2 errors. The error column isnt categorised into where on the field the error was made or how important it was and even if it did, it would water down its value because it would be harder to compare. I dont see how that example waters down the insights that that stat provides. Sure, coaches still go to the game to actually see how the guys are going and dont just sit behind a computer watching the numbers move but isnt that the point - that you watch the game and then look at the stats to provide a measurable gauge on performance?

Not really trying to "prove" anything Roz, but I was really intrigued when I looked at this weeks stats. I couldn't be bothered looking through last weeks game threads, but at least one poster had mentioned that none of our forwards had made 100m against the Raiders, and that was a good indication of how we'd been smashed up the middle. Then lo and behold, this week we flog the Dogs and again no-one in the pack made 100m. It just got me wondering how meaningful these measures are when looked at just like that, against an arbitrary figure that people just seem to accept as an acceptable number, but in fact in means bugger-all on it's own.

[Guest]

78% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Chook.

[Guest]

Not really trying to "prove" anything Roz, but I was really intrigued when I looked at this weeks stats. I couldn't be bothered looking through last weeks game threads, but at least one poster had mentioned that none of our forwards had made 100m against the Raiders, and that was a good indication of how we'd been smashed up the middle. Then lo and behold, this week we flog the Dogs and again no-one in the pack made 100m. It just got me wondering how meaningful these measures are when looked at just like that, against an arbitrary figure that people just seem to accept as an acceptable number, but in fact in means bugger-all on it's own.

While I accept what you are getting at I actually disagree. See you have isolated one stat and attributed our performance this and last week to this one comparable. Comparing the games in my head, the reason why our forward metres may not have been as high as what some expected, we also scored 38 points which is a lot so i think you will find that this game was not really played up the middle at all. Our outside men got a lot more of the ball and we did most of the damage on the edges and out wide because the dogs basically gave way in the 2nd half and it became a completely open game. All Im saying is that a stat should not be used in isolation and should be complemented by watching the game and also marrying in other stats from the game to get a better picture. We made an absurd amount of linebreaks as well against the dogs. At a guess I bet you will also notice that few of our players made 25+ tackles. Does that mean they were all lazy? No because if you consider the fact that we had most of the running, it explains why a lot of guys didnt have to make heaps of tackles one after the other or the load was spread around in the team far more evenly this week.

What it comes down to is not the statistics themselves but how you understand, apply and interpret them. The stats dont lie or confuse or anything else. They paint a picutre which when understood in their context, provides a reasonable basis for assessing performance

[Chookies74]

Time played also impacts the ability to get to 100m. We scored 6 tries, plus a penalty, that's at least 10 to 15 minutes of game time that wasn't played.

[player 1]

Another statistic from the dogs match: 5 all penalty count.

We didn't need the referees' help (which Souths got 10-5, but not enough eh?).

Still makes you wonder, if we don't win the penalty count in a contest like that where we so comprehensively dominated and destroyed our opponents, will we ever? Wouldn't the dogs have been just a little tempted, losing all over the park the way they were, to slow down the ruck or stand offside?

Nope.

Just an observation. No need for the usual JFK conspiracy accusation posts from the usual suspects.