Misapplication Of Stats

I think the viewer needs to take the information and apply it how they see fit. If you don't know Brees plays in a dome when the stat comes on the screen, you've got bigger things to worry about in this discussion.

Isn't worth mentioning because he plays in a dome? Um...Okay then.

that is

Stats are not differentiated based on where a player plays. Peyton Manning Played in a Dome from 1998-2011.

are not predictive.

Also, trying to predict a single performance from even a large sample size, is not valid.

Statistics only matter when taking large sample sizes and mapping them to trends or probabilities.

As somebody said before, if you don't understand what you are being fed, and what significance it has, then its more of a listener issue.

If the TV is throwing out a stat that only has a few data points, as the listener you should feel free to disregard it.

Lies, damn lies, etc.

Plus, usually there's at least a moderate correlation between the overall offensive/defensive rankings of teams and their won-loss records. That doesn't always play out (Giants had a crappy run offense in 2011 and look what happened there), but it usually does.

The more important caveat about Brees' yardage record is the era he plays in. If he played in the 70's he wouldn't be an all-time yardage leader. Heck, even starting his career a few years after Peyton has made a huge difference.

Like yesterday, in the first quarter of the Ravens game, they said that: "Tucker has never missed an extra point"

They cursed him after saying that!

Lost.

That word does not mean what you think it means.

In comment 14139096 Mad Mike said:

Quote:

That word does not mean what you think it means.

This. For example,

PFF saying Flowers had a good game (hypothetically, don't know if this ever happened) does not indicate that he'll play well next game.

But 6 games into a year, pointing out that a D is ranked #1 is usually a good indication that they are a good defense. Doesn't guarantee that they'll shut out that particular opponent, but it still has value.

Highlighting someone's career stats (is Breese a relative of Freese?) has little value as a predictive stat, but that's not the intention of it at all.

It's a descriptive stat. What is there to predict? Also, these stats are not meant for PhDs in statistics at MIT. They're meant for Bubba in bumfuck, Alabama to understand.

would be where they give a history of a team beating another team years ago with completely different rosters.

Where all the stadiums have different dimensions

hate the stats that are so ridiculously specific. Tom Brady has never lost to a QB that is 14 years younger than him on the 3rd Sunday of a month that contains 30 days.

(news, political speeches, commercials, etc.) broadcast on TV?

Frankly, despite the misapplication of stats, and the utterances of Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith, sports data is probably the most reliable data on TV.

In comment 14139174 bc0312 said:

Quote:

hate the stats that are so ridiculously specific. Tom Brady has never lost to a QB that is 14 years younger than him on the 3rd Sunday of a month that contains 30 days.

I agree, this kind of parsing is truly ridiculous. Bill James and others have railed against it for making dubious Hall of fame arguments, (ie, the only second baseman to win at least four gold gloves with a career .280+ BA and at least 300 HRs not in the hall of fame. And increasingly you are seeing this misuse of stats in politics as well.

Like when people use yards per catch to show that someone is catching deep passes.. no Depth of target or Air yards shows if a WR is getting deep passes.. not yards per catch..

Discussing offense or defense rankings after 6 games is not different than saying their defense is good so far..

In comment 14139208 FranchiseQB said:

Quote:

In comment 14139174 bc0312 said: Quote: hate the stats that are so ridiculously specific. Tom Brady has never lost to a QB that is 14 years younger than him on the 3rd Sunday of a month that contains 30 days. I agree, this kind of parsing is truly ridiculous. Bill James and others have railed against it for making dubious Hall of fame arguments, (ie, the only second baseman to win at least four gold gloves with a career .280+ BA and at least 300 HRs not in the hall of fame. And increasingly you are seeing this misuse of stats in politics as well.

Yes.. I ignore anyone that bring up these kinds of qualifying stats to praise a player.. unless they can say why .280+ BA is important vs 0.29 or 0.27..