PDA

View Full Version : See I can make up stats too!



LoyalSoldier
01-10-2006, 10:22 PM
We can't let the media guys come up with all these little stats completely by themselves! I mean we need to have some fun too! I mean look how easy it is to come up with some stat that has a nice ring to it.



Denver is 11-3 against Defending AFC and NFC Champions under Mikey including two wins against the Pats and also the superbowl win against the Packers. One loss came from Chragers when we rested our starters in the final game of the 1996 season, the Rams in 2000, and Baltimore in 2001.

Brady is 1-3 against the Broncos with that one coming from a backup QB
^(Hey if you can say our win earlier this year was crap because you had players out we can say it too.)

Denver is 24-15 all time against the Pats.

Other than division rivals Denver has scored more points on the Pats than any other team with 926.

Jake Plummer has more hair than Brady




So now can we stop hearing the 15-1 stat!

Ravage!!!
01-10-2006, 11:00 PM
great post... nice job

PatrickdaDookie
01-10-2006, 11:06 PM
CP for that first stat. =P

Southstander
01-10-2006, 11:23 PM
We have won our Last 3 home palyoff games
also they are more Letters in Plummers last name then Bradys

RI_Patsfan
01-10-2006, 11:27 PM
We have won our Last 3 home palyoff games
also they are more Letters in Plummers last name then Bradys

But can you win a palyoff game without Elway?
And can Jake win a palyoff game?

Southstander
01-11-2006, 12:32 AM
How many did you win with out Brady?

Archimedes Owl
01-11-2006, 01:11 AM
But can you win a palyoff game without Elway?
And can Jake win a palyoff game?
Jake won a playoff game with the Cardinals.

If that's not a sign of greatness, I don't know what is.

BroncoManiac_69
01-11-2006, 01:22 AM
But can you win a palyoff game without Elway?
And can Jake win a palyoff game?

This thread was intended as a humorous view of the infamous stat information we are constantly bombarded with.

Get a clue :duh:

LoyalSoldier
01-11-2006, 01:27 AM
Here is an artical I remembed seeing before so I thought this would be a good one to post here.


Three kinds of liars

There are three kinds of liars:

1. liars,
2. damn liars,
3. people who lie with statistics.

I write a lot of material that makes use of statistics, so I've heard this old quote (which you'll note that I altered slightly) many times. But I'm here to tell you that statistics do not lie. Statistics cannot lie. Statistics are nothing more than recorded observations. That's all. People, on the other hand, can and do lie. And they often use statistics as an aid, which is why the "damn lies" quote is so popular. I thoroughly approve of heavy doses of skepticism when reading through statistical material (or anything else, for that matter), but there's no reason to throw out the good with the bad. What I'd like to do in this article is to make you aware of some of the ways people can mislead you -- sometimes intentionally and sometimes not -- using statistics. Armed with this knowledge, you can distinguish the damn liars from the people who (while they may be boring and even a bit geeky) are legitimately attempting to convey useful information through the use of numbers.

Like a drunk uses a lamp post

My favorite quote about statistics (I wish I could remember where I read this):
"The problem arises when people use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support instead of illumination."


This is by far the most important thing to keep in mind when reading through a statistical study. Illumination means looking at all available evidence to help answer a question. Support means finding and citing particular statistics that support a point that's already been decided upon by the author.

If, when reading through an article, you get the idea that the author had made up his/her mind on the issue before ever looking at the numbers, you should proceed with extreme skepticism. If statistics are not brought in until after a conclusion has been drawn, there is a good chance that you're getting the truth but not the whole truth.

For example, suppose I was trying to sell you on the theory that RBs who get a lot of carries one season are likely to get hurt the following year. I could rant and rave for a few paragraphs about how the human body simply isn't made to withstand the punishment that workhorse NFL backs get, and that they are therefore more susceptible to future injury. Then, to drive home the point, I'd produce this:


"Over the last two years, 17 RBs have gotten 275 or more carries. 11 of those 17 missed time due to injury the following season. 6 of the 17 suffered serious season-ending and/or career threatening injuries the next year."

Pretty convincing, huh? (It's true, by the way). But I've misled you in several ways:

1. It was technically 17 different RBs, but some of them had 275+ carries twice. So I was actually looking at 22 pairs of seasons. But 11 of 17 sounds more convincing than 11 of 22. And of course, I didn't show you the data, making it extremely difficult for you to check it out for yourself.

2. I haven't told you what percentage of all RBs get injured. In fact, it turns out that 11 of 22 is a very typical injury rate among RBs (see this article for more details). So my stat above actually shows that RBs who carried the ball a lot in one year got injured at roughly the same rate as other RBs. It directly contradicts the point I was making.

3. Why did I choose 275 as a cutoff instead of 300 or 250 or some other number? Well, if I choose 300 as my cutoff, I lose several of my injured players (Robert Edwards, Olandis Gary, Dorsey Levens, Stephen Davis). If I choose 250 as my cutoff, I let in too many extra healthy players. 275 was chosen specifically because it best serves my point. What's more, I chose 275 after looking at the data. This technique is called multiple endpoints (here is a more extensive article about multiple endpoints).

4. Why did I look at just two years? Why not three or four or five? In situations like this, more data is almost always better. But I chose not to use more data. Why? Because more data, in this case, might have hurt my argument.

If you don't have to tell the whole story, you can cook up a stat or two that will support almost any point you want to make. If you want to honestly answer a question using statistics, you have to look at all available evidence. Or, failing that, at least acknowledge that more could be done.

Greatness by association


"In the last 15 years, the only RBs to amass 1000 rushing yards, 700 receiving yards, and 9 TDs in a season are Marshall Faulk and Tiki Barber."

It's true. And it sure makes Tiki look good. Think of all the truly great RBs that have come and gone in 15 years, but none of them (except Faulk) could do what Tiki did last year.

There's really nothing wrong with this comment, as long as you recognize it for what it is: essentially meaningless trivia. Did Barber have a fine season last year? Yes. But this blurb somehow implies that it was a truly special season, which it wasn't.

Again, notice that the cutoffs (15, 1000, 700, 9) are specifically crafted to allow Tiki in while keeping others out.

1. Roger Craig did it 16 years ago.
2. If you reduce the 700 receiving yards to 600, you let in James Brooks, Ricky Watters, Charlie Garner, and three different Thurman Thomas seasons.
3. If you only require 1700 total yards (not specifically 1000 and 700) along with the 9 TDs, then the feat has been accomplished 55 times in the last 15 years.

The important thing to realize is that you can put almost anyone in a class with elite players if you choose just the right categories and just the right cutoffs.

Ed McCaffrey?

"The only WRs with at least 1000 yards and 7 TDs each of the last three seasons are Randy Moss, Cris Carter, and Ed McCaffrey."

Ed McCaffrey is a very good WR, but he's not in a class with Moss and Carter as the above quote implies. Tinker with the cutoffs a little, and you'll get guys that are actually more comparable to McCaffrey. Make it two years, 1000 yards, and 6 TDs, and now you've just added Jimmy Smith, Tim Brown, Isaac Bruce, Marvin Harrison, Amani Toomer, and Muhsin Muhammad to the list. Doesn't sound quite so impressive anymore, but by setting cutoffs so that McCaffrey is in the middle, rather than at the bottom, of the list, we get a more realistic assessment of McCaffrey's achievements.

Keenan McCardell?

"The only players with 60 receptions and 850 yards in each of the last 5 seasons are Jimmy Smith, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, and Keenan McCardell."

Hell, if I get a little creative, I can even make Kevin Faulk look good:

"The only players under 25 years old last year who led their team in rushing and had over 450 yards receiving were Edgerrin James, Ahman Green, and Kevin Faulk."

My dad can beat up your sister
Another common ploy for making a player look good is to selectively compare his accomplishments to those of several other players at the same time.

"Last year, Tyrone Wheatley had more rushing yards than Ricky Williams, more rushing TDs than Robert Smith, and more receiving yards than Emmitt Smith."

The key is to select backs who were better than Wheatley last year, but then pick the weakest part of each of their games before comparing with Wheatley. Robert Smith had a great year last year, but only had seven rushing TDs. That's his weakest link. Ricky Williams' yardage total was suppressed by an injury. Emmitt Smith had only 79 receiving yards.

It also doesn't hurt that Williams and Emmitt have a great deal of name recognition. If you're not paying close attention, you might read that and think, "wow, I didn't realize Wheatley is right up there with all those great backs," which is the intended effect.

Correlation and causation

This one is made up, but you've heard things like it many times before:

"The Cowboys are 63-1 when Emmitt Smith carries the ball 25 or more times."

First, note that you're only getting half the story. What's the Cowboys' record when Emmitt doesn't get 25 carries? But that's not the main issue here.

The author of the (fictitious) quote above is trying to convince you that giving Emmitt a lot of carries helps the Cowboys win. In pictures:

Emmitt gets lots of carries ========> Cowboys win

But isn't it possible that that arrow might be pointing the wrong direction? Maybe what's actually happening is that, whenever the Cowboys have the game wrapped up, they give Emmitt a lot of carries at the end to kill the clock. That is,

Cowboys win =======> Emmitt gets a lot of carries

Which is it? I don't know, but the above quote doesn't give you any information. In short, just because two things (like Cowboy wins and big Emmitt games) are related -- even strongly related -- does not necessarily mean that one causes the other.

LoyalSoldier
01-11-2006, 01:48 AM
(cont)

The classic (non-football) example of this is that ice cream sales are correlated with violent crime. It's a fact. In months where ice cream sales are high, violent crime rates are also high. When ice cream sales are down, violent crime is down. Does this mean that ice cream causes crime? Maybe, but probably not. The more likely explanation is that some other factor (like maybe the weather) is a factor in causing both.

To bring this back to football, suppose I produced irrefutable evidence that players who changed teams were more likely to have their numbers drop than players who didn't (I don't know if this is true or not, but suppose it is). Does this mean that changing teams hurts a player's stats? Maybe, but maybe not. Ask yourself if there might be another factor at work affecting both. Age might be such a factor. Maybe players who switch teams are more likely to be old and players whose numbers drop are also more likely to be old. It's possible that this bias is what's causing the correlation and that the team-switching has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Another example: suppose it were true that players with high salaries are more likely to be injured than players with low salaries (I don't know if this is true or not, but suppose it is). Does this mean that Eric Moulds and his new contract should be avoided? Maybe, but probably not. More plausible, I think, is that quarterbacks are more likely to have high salaries and quarterbacks are more likely to get injured. That's probably where the correlation is coming from.

Wrapup

These are just a few of the ways that statistics can become damn lies. Often, the misuse of statistics is much more subtle than in the examples I've shown above. But if you keep your eyes peeled, you'll spot some of these techniques at work.

I wish I could say I'd never perpetrated a damn lie, but I can't. I wish I could say I'll never do it again, but I probably will. Like all human beings, I have biases -- some that I'm aware of and some that I'm not -- and these can creep in to the work I do. What I can say is that I've never knowingly told you a damn lie. And the best way to make sure that I never tell you one in the future is to let you know how to spot them and invite you to question everything I do and my reasons for doing it.

SWEBRONCO
01-11-2006, 01:51 AM
Hiya!
This is the first time I send something in here so please feel free to comment my opinion. Ive been to one american footballgame ever. It was back in 85/86 remembered as the silver season. The broncos lost in the final minute to the seahawks, I think missing a field goal. But they were already through to the playoffs. It was one of the most intense experiences I have ever had. But beeing an exchange student from Sweden I had to go back home later that year, so I lost contact with my new favourite sport. However I started following the broncos a couple of years ago via internet and television so I feel I can have a say about this upcomming showdown with the pats. Actually I think the broncos and pats are similar in many ways. The coaches are both at the highest level, two defenses that are among the best, both teams play well in cold weather. But since they have Brady who constantly finds ways to win, Jake will have to perform like he never has before. If we are to win this one it will take something special out of Plummer, he cant rely to heavy on Bell/Anderson, since the pats will be extremely hard to run against. Our gameplan should start with alot of passing just to calm their linebackers and secondary down a bit. And we need to score very early. Al Wilson is my main concern at the moment. I hope his injury doesnt slow him down to much.
Allright then....Go Broncos Go
All the best from Sweden

bcbronc
01-11-2006, 02:08 AM
Hiya!
This is the first time I send something in here so please feel free to comment my opinion. Ive been to one american footballgame ever. It was back in 85/86 remembered as the silver season. The broncos lost in the final minute to the seahawks, I think missing a field goal. But they were already through to the playoffs. It was one of the most intense experiences I have ever had. But beeing an exchange student from Sweden I had to go back home later that year, so I lost contact with my new favourite sport. However I started following the broncos a couple of years ago via internet and television so I feel I can have a say about this upcomming showdown with the pats. Actually I think the broncos and pats are similar in many ways. The coaches are both at the highest level, two defenses that are among the best, both teams play well in cold weather. But since they have Brady who constantly finds ways to win, Jake will have to perform like he never has before. If we are to win this one it will take something special out of Plummer, he cant rely to heavy on Bell/Anderson, since the pats will be extremely hard to run against. Our gameplan should start with alot of passing just to calm their linebackers and secondary down a bit. And we need to score very early. Al Wilson is my main concern at the moment. I hope his injury doesnt slow him down to much.
Allright then....Go Broncos Go
All the best from Sweden


nice post. i agree with your points. and i like sweden. half my favorite hockey team is from there.

welcome to the boards.

:beer:

LoyalSoldier
01-11-2006, 10:36 PM
Hiya!
This is the first time I send something in here so please feel free to comment my opinion. Ive been to one american footballgame ever. It was back in 85/86 remembered as the silver season. The broncos lost in the final minute to the seahawks, I think missing a field goal. But they were already through to the playoffs. It was one of the most intense experiences I have ever had. But beeing an exchange student from Sweden I had to go back home later that year, so I lost contact with my new favourite sport. However I started following the broncos a couple of years ago via internet and television so I feel I can have a say about this upcomming showdown with the pats. Actually I think the broncos and pats are similar in many ways. The coaches are both at the highest level, two defenses that are among the best, both teams play well in cold weather. But since they have Brady who constantly finds ways to win, Jake will have to perform like he never has before. If we are to win this one it will take something special out of Plummer, he cant rely to heavy on Bell/Anderson, since the pats will be extremely hard to run against. Our gameplan should start with alot of passing just to calm their linebackers and secondary down a bit. And we need to score very early. Al Wilson is my main concern at the moment. I hope his injury doesnt slow him down to much.
Allright then....Go Broncos Go
All the best from Sweden

Welcome to the boards. Always glad to have new people here. Even if they aren't Broncos fans. :beer:

Archimedes Owl
01-11-2006, 10:49 PM
Welcome to the boards. Always glad to have new people here. Even if they aren't Broncos fans. :beer:
He said, "Go Broncos Go".

I'm pretty sure that fans usually root for the Broncos.

RI_Patsfan
01-11-2006, 10:56 PM
Hiya!
This is the first time I send something in here so please feel free to comment my opinion. Ive been to one american footballgame ever. It was back in 85/86 remembered as the silver season. The broncos lost in the final minute to the seahawks, I think missing a field goal. But they were already through to the playoffs. It was one of the most intense experiences I have ever had. But beeing an exchange student from Sweden I had to go back home later that year, so I lost contact with my new favourite sport. However I started following the broncos a couple of years ago via internet and television so I feel I can have a say about this upcomming showdown with the pats. Actually I think the broncos and pats are similar in many ways. The coaches are both at the highest level, two defenses that are among the best, both teams play well in cold weather. But since they have Brady who constantly finds ways to win, Jake will have to perform like he never has before. If we are to win this one it will take something special out of Plummer, he cant rely to heavy on Bell/Anderson, since the pats will be extremely hard to run against. Our gameplan should start with alot of passing just to calm their linebackers and secondary down a bit. And we need to score very early. Al Wilson is my main concern at the moment. I hope his injury doesnt slow him down to much.
Allright then....Go Broncos Go
All the best from Sweden

Very smart post. Scoring early is extremely important in this game.

LoyalSoldier
01-11-2006, 11:28 PM
He said, "Go Broncos Go".

I'm pretty sure that fans usually root for the Broncos.

Wasn't talking about him. lol

bcbronc
01-11-2006, 11:32 PM
Very smart post. Scoring early is extremely important in this game.


especially for the pats. they cant allow the broncos to get the lead and just milk the clock. its obviously important for the broncos too, but with the game at mile high, its more so for the pats.