PRE-GAME Round 20 - Broncos vs Cowboys

[WASSHHH]

Hi huge! I literally do this for a living. As an experienced practitioner in my field I can tell you it's a rookie mistake to rely on statistics to the point you discard common sense when the numbers suggest otherwise. Sometimes they're too narrow a metric to explain the situation, other times they might just be flat out incorrect. My co-worker was recently awarded his doctoral thesis by showing the way a particular set of numbers was being interpreted and applied was not really appropriate given just that situation-while incredibly accurate our measurements were so narrowly focused they provided a misleading outcome when used to try and explain a broader situation. I've seen a fair few people come into the field with the misguided conception that numbers don't lie, especially ones coming from machines with lasers and enough algorithms to send Bill Gates into paroxysms of joy, but with experience one comes to understand they need to be treated like lawyers. Even if they don't lie, they might not be telling you what they think you are. Look very closely at what is being measured and consider how broadly you're trying to apply it.

You truly never know who you’re talking to on the internet!
But don’t worry, you’ll still be wrong!

 

[Thelmus]

Or, as someone once said, "“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamp post; more for support than illumination”

Of course if you are talking about the broncos 2020 stats, then they might be using them the way dog uses a lamp post. Us bronco supporters being the metaphorical lamp post.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

Or, as someone once said, "“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamp post; more for support than illumination”

Or, as another famous person said:

 

[Super Freak]

 

[Twbapony]

 

[Huge]

Hi huge! I literally do this for a living. As an experienced practitioner in my field I can tell you it's a rookie mistake to rely on statistics to the point you discard common sense when the numbers suggest otherwise. Sometimes they're too narrow a metric to explain the situation, other times they might just be flat out incorrect. My co-worker was recently awarded his doctoral thesis by showing the way a particular set of numbers was being interpreted and applied was not really appropriate given just that situation-while incredibly accurate our measurements were so narrowly focused they provided a misleading outcome when used to try and explain a broader situation. I've seen a fair few people come into the field with the misguided conception that numbers don't lie, especially ones coming from machines with lasers and enough algorithms to send Bill Gates into paroxysms of joy, but with experience one comes to understand they need to be treated like lawyers. Even if they don't lie, they might not be telling you what you think they are. Look very closely at what is being measured and consider how broadly you're trying to apply it.

Superb. Nothing I've ever written suggests I disagree with you. Never once have I suggested that statistics alone are the most important metric.

Some years ago Steve Price was considered the premier prop and unsurprisingly the stats reflected that. In fact the top ten props *judgement had the best stats.

What I found surprising was the number two prop in that list WASN'T viewed as a premium prop by many on here. It made me wonder why.

That's when I realized human bias was at work in the subjective appraisals. With DB the bias is so skewed that otherwise rational people simply cannot give appropriate acknowledgement to solid evidence.

 

[winslow_wong]

The greatest team of all time in rugby league history.

 

[Unbreakable]

Superb. Nothing I've ever written suggests I disagree with you. Never once have I suggested that statistics alone are the most important metric.

...

You based your entire argument about Haas being a good defender earlier in the season by using his tackles per game and tackle efficiency statistics, when it was glaringly obvious to most other people on here that he's actually quite poor defensively.

The statistics on that occasion mislead you, as they have on a number of occasions this year (Boyd, Croft, etc).

There's no statistics that can measure the force used in tackles, whether the player made the first contact in the tackle, what the average play the ball speed of the opposition is when the player is involved in the tackle, whether a defensive error from the player lead to a line-break or try, etc. These are all variables that aren't factored in to the statistics, which is what @abashii was referencing. The stats don't lie, but on occasion they don't tell the full story.

 

[Gaz]

Hi huge! I literally do this for a living. As an experienced practitioner in my field I can tell you it's a rookie mistake to rely on statistics to the point you discard common sense when the numbers suggest otherwise. Sometimes they're too narrow a metric to explain the situation, other times they might just be flat out incorrect. My co-worker was recently awarded his doctoral thesis by showing the way a particular set of numbers was being interpreted and applied was not really appropriate given just that situation-while incredibly accurate our measurements were so narrowly focused they provided a misleading outcome when used to try and explain a broader situation. I've seen a fair few people come into the field with the misguided conception that numbers don't lie, especially ones coming from machines with lasers and enough algorithms to send Bill Gates into paroxysms of joy, but with experience one comes to understand they need to be treated like lawyers. Even if they don't lie, they might not be telling you what you think they are. Look very closely at what is being measured and consider how broadly you're trying to apply it.

Wow!

 

[Huge]

...

You based your entire argument about Haas being a good defender earlier in the season by using his tackles per game and tackle efficiency statistics, when it was glaringly obvious to most other people on here that he's actually quite poor defensively.

The statistics on that occasion mislead you, as they have on a number of occasions this year (Boyd, Croft, etc).

There's no statistics that can measure the force used in tackles, whether the player made the first contact in the tackle, what the average play the ball speed of the opposition is when the player is involved in the tackle, whether a defensive error from the player lead to a line-break or try, etc. These are all variables that aren't factored in to the statistics, which is what @abashii was referencing. The stats don't lie, but on occasion they don't tell the full story.

? Haas?
Need evidence of that.

 

[rnabokov]

When Dearden puts Riki through a hole to score the match winning try, I'll listen to this, and look forward to next year.

 

[Unbreakable]

? Haas?
Need evidence of that.

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

 

[vertigo]

Taumalolo and McGuire back for this makes it a tougher match up than I was expecting.

Problem for them is their halves suck, complete rocks and diamonds in attack and defence.

 

[Huge]

Exhibit A:

View attachment 10018

Exhibit B:

View attachment 10019

Selective!! Way to forget context.

I believe we were discussing a SINGLE ASPECT. The discussion was not about all the facets of prop play. You might note the reference to offensive play there?

Total tosser post. As I said, when it comes to tackling the only thing that's important is making the tackle successfully. Very very selective. That in no way contains the inference that OTHER aspects of prop play are unimportant.

 

[WASSHHH]

Selective!! Way to forget context.

I believe we were discussing a SINGLE ASPECT. The discussion was not about all the facets of prop play. You might note the reference to offensive play there?

Total tosser post. As I said, when it comes to tackling the only thing that's important is making the tackle successfully. Very very selective. That in no way contains the inference that OTHER aspects of prop play are unimportant.

Absolute word-vomit

 

[Unbreakable]

Selective!! Way to forget context.

I believe we were discussing a SINGLE ASPECT. The discussion was not about all the facets of prop play. You might note the reference to offensive play there?

Total tosser post. As I said, when it comes to tackling the only thing that's important is making the tackle successfully. Very very selective. That in no way contains the inference that OTHER aspects of prop play are unimportant.

Direct quotation, in case you're having trouble seeing it -

Me, referencing you: This week on 'Huge thinks tackle efficiency is the only thing that matters as it pertains to someone being good defensively'!

You, quoting me: Yes, it is the only thing that matters. Only a dope would think otherwise.

That is the textbook definition of what you claimed to have never done a few hours ago.

Never once have I suggested that statistics alone are the most important metric.

 

[ostin86]

I dont know why you lot bother.

 

[Petch67]

Hi huge! I literally do this for a living. As an experienced practitioner in my field I can tell you it's a rookie mistake to rely on statistics to the point you discard common sense when the numbers suggest otherwise. Sometimes they're too narrow a metric to explain the situation, other times they might just be flat out incorrect. My co-worker was recently awarded his doctoral thesis by showing the way a particular set of numbers was being interpreted and applied was not really appropriate given just that situation-while incredibly accurate our measurements were so narrowly focused they provided a misleading outcome when used to try and explain a broader situation. I've seen a fair few people come into the field with the misguided conception that numbers don't lie, especially ones coming from machines with lasers and enough algorithms to send Bill Gates into paroxysms of joy, but with experience one comes to understand they need to be treated like lawyers. Even if they don't lie, they might not be telling you what you think they are. Look very closely at what is being measured and consider how broadly you're trying to apply it.

You may be an experienced practitioner mate but you cant argue with a self proclaimed expert