Stats are evil
 

come on... it is a very simple question.. You got a set of stats in from of you.
What does YAC have to do with running the ball? Who keeps count of broken tackles?

Stats are evil
 

I know where you are going..

Dillon vs. Allen..

And it\'s not a matter of who\'s better..It\'s a matter of..who\'s GREATER?

And there\'s a huge difference between the two...

And I find it important when comparing rushing stats to know who got more yards after contact (yac)..and TD\'s and to included how many games have been played to acheive that average would be helpful too..

You didn\'t provide enough info for me to judge who is better in my opinion...so..I can\'t answer...

[Edited on 24/3/2005 by shadowdrinker]

Stats are evil
 

...I thought you were referring to Yards After the Catch... my bad...

..and I see you read my post on the other thread before I deleted it... but forget those names for now, let\'s just deal with the stats in front of us...

...here you have agreed /proved that a simple set of averages cannot determine which player is the better football player, even though clearly RB X has better \"stats\"...

so let me give you some more information:

Both players started 16 games.
RB \"X\" 100 yds per game 4.5 yds per carry 10 TDs 200 YAC
RB \"Y\" 80 yds per game 3.5 yds per carry 8 TDs 20 YAC


..so I would ask again, who\'s the better RB?

Stats are evil
 

From the info alone..And I\'m sure I\'m not alone..I would take RB X...200 yac is pretty impressive compared to 20...infact, every catagory is favored toward X..So, on paper ..He is superior..

Stats are evil
 

How many times did the guy averaging 100 yards a game play the Saints. If he played them twice and the other guy played the steelers and patriots twice I\'d say the guy with the worse stats -- see how stats can be misleading

Stats are evil
 

The word STATS is a palindrome!

It is spelt the same backwards as forwards!

It has the SAME meaning backwards and forwards!

It sums up this thread and everyones opinions on it.

I guess what I\'m saying is that the title \" Stats are evil \" Is very accurate because NO matter how hard you try to change the word and it\'s meaning It\'s still comes out the SAME, Forwards or Backwards, as everyone\'s opinions in this thread will remain.

Stats are evil
 

That\'s the best post I\'ve seen yet on the matter StallworthFN, well done.

Stats are evil
 

How many times did the guy averaging 100 yards a game play the Saints. If he played them twice and the other guy played the steelers and patriots twice I\'d say the guy with the worse stats -- see how stats can be misleading [/quote:d474056073]

No..that info wasn\'t included in the original comparison...

only fromthe ifo provided..tell me why I should believe X is better than Y?

Stats are evil
 

No..that info wasn\'t included in the original comparison...

only fromthe ifo provided..tell me why I should believe X is better than Y? [/quote:567a6407a5]

That was my point -- you cannot tell who is better -- the statement over a 16 game schedule doesn\'t mean he played 16 games -- could have played 1 game (against the saints) while the other played all 16. Thats why baseball has a minimum number of bats, starts etc when determining who is on the leader board. But to be honest and fair - 8/10 times X would be better than Y

Stats are evil
 

No..your doing it again...

With only these numbers...

In a full 16 game season:
RB \"X\" averages 100 yds per game and 4.5 yards per carry.
RB \"Y\" averages 80 yds per game and 3.5 yards per carry.


And NOTHING ELSE...nameless, faceless players... no scenarios..only the numbers...

Why should I believe that Y is better than X?