Quote:
Originally Posted by wingmaker
LOL at Squiggs. I will make fun of you for spending your time looking at stats while I spend my time writing longwinded posts about why you are wrong.
Stats give you information about events that happen in games. Over time, you can look at patterns at what the data is showing and compare it to wins and losses, special teams events, how the play of certain players lines up with team performance, etc. It is a way of understanding what is happening in games on a granular level that balances out the "eye test".
You don't want to do that, don't do it. No need to dump on people who do.
|
I never once made fun of someone for spending time on stats. I even said he obviously doesn't need my permission to spend his time however he wants. I also said I've taken multiple advanced statistics classes, so I'm well versed in how they work. I didn't know spending five minutes typing a reply was long winded. I learned something new today.
My argument on this topic is there isn't a pattern of predictability from these measures. If you are saying you need more data to make up a bigger pattern, I can buy that. However, when you present one game, four game, and/or 17 game outputs that show the exact opposite of what you set out to prove, then the output is flawed. Why show it for one, four, or seventeen games if you need more data? Why not present it for 50, 60, 82 games? You might get more people on your side if you can show it's a greater predictor or indicator. Instead it gets presented showing opposite of the intention, and that's explained by it's luck/you need more data/you don't understand.