Stats are evil
 

I thought this was a pretty decent topic until it got out of hand. Oh well, lets try this again in a civil manner shall we?


Stats can be totally misleading.

CB's-Two CB's, one is a shut-down stud and the other is a B-player. For 16 games they rarely throw the SDCB's way. Stats could easily show the other CB is better than the Shut-down CB.

LB-Keith Brooking on one side, Colby Bockwoldt on the other. Teams don't run at Brooking, majority of runs are right at the rookie. He gets run over frequently but still makes the tackles, 5 or 6 yards downfield.
Stats could easily show Bockwoldt better than Brooking.

DT-One DT may get double and triple teamed EVERY game, the other gets one-on-one attention. Stats would easily show the wrong DT as the more productive.

QB-If a team is always behind, it forces the QB to play catch up all game. If they are WAY behind the defense will give him the underneath all day. At the end of the day he has over 300 yards passing. The other QB simply plays an efficient smart game and ends up with 200 yards passing, but leads his team to a convincing victory. Stats could easily show the wrong QB is better.

RB-One has an awesome line, the other a terrible line. One gets hit 4 yards behind the line all day, the other isn't touched until he's 3 yards past the line all day. Stats could easily show the wrong RB is the best.

WR-One gets double/triple covered on every play. The other gets minimal attention. Stats could easily show that Peerless Price was better than Eric Moulds. Or a QB could lock onto one WR all game, and miss the wide open 2nd and 3rd options every game. Stats could easily show one WR vastly better than the others.

FB-Stats could easily show that Terrell Smith is nowhere near being even a decent FB.

Stats can be informative, IF all factors are considered. Too frequently they are mis-used to help prove a point or defend an agenda. Stats are for wussy's.

Stats are evil
 

Hmmmm... I see that this isn\'t out of hand already... ;)

I agree that stats need context. In some cases, such as the ones Danno mentions (and probably others), without context they can be very misleading.

I noted this before, and I\'ll note it again: in Statistics there is a common problem known as Simpson\'s Paradox (after the guy who formalized it, not those loveable TV characters). This paradox says that for any body of data, there is some sub-set of the data where the opposite regularity holds. For example, if good QB\'s tend to have passer ratings over 58 ( :cool: ), then there is some set of data that shows that the best QB has a passer rating of 40, if you cut the data up the right way. This means, that if you don\'t know the context or make realistic cuts of the data, you may get a completely misleading answer - such as in the cases Danno points out.

Thus, stats without context are useless.

However, are stats useless? Certainly not. It is informative that T-buck was our leading tackler last year. This, while inconclusive on its own, points us to some interesting problems. Victor Riley, lead the team in false starts; that is evidence of his concentration problems. Charles Grant - 78 tackles - wasn\'t as bad against the run as people made out. Brooks: lead the league in red-zone turn overs - much hay was made out of this.

At any rate, stats are the kind of things that evidence our other claims, and without them, we\'d be hard pressed to make any progress in some discussions.

Stats are for studs. :P

Stats are evil
 

The last post on the thread that got out of hand was mine and pretty much mimiced the combination of your 2 posts. I agree with Danno that stats can be totally misleading. however I can say this -- a player with great stats is usually a great player its the opposite that doesn\'t hold true -- a player with average stats doesn\'t mean he is an average player. Thus when we discuss Joe Horn I have to say he is a great player -- and his stats prove it (remember he is the one who gets the double team or best defender). That said are there receivers with worse stats that I think are better than Joe - yes -- as I stated in my last post - If I got to pick any receiver would Joe be in the top 3 -- no -- would he be in the top 5 - no -- would he be in the top 10 - definitely.

Stats are evil
 

That\'s what I\'m talking about Danno. Stats can be misleading. One should never use stats alone to determine who\'s better than who. That last thread got out of hand because I used one person with an opposing view as an example. I wasn\'t calling anyone out. I was just trying to see what other people think about this debate.

Maybe this thread will allow us to discuss the issue in a civil manner. Maybe this thread won\'t mutate into some sort of crazy show of manhood. To shadowdrinker I offer this :peace: and this :eck13:

Stats are evil
 

Ahh....but it\'s that very theory that could prove that Joe is NOT as good of a player as his stats indicate. Because we scored like, what, 24 point in the first quarter this entire season. As a result, we were forced to play from behind almost every single game. There was less running and more throwing Also, a lot of Joe\'s yards came from late game stat padding when the game was out of reach, and not when the game was in the balance.

Stats are evil
 

Also, AB has tunnel vision for Joe, and has for years, but carry on all.

Stats are evil
 

You can bet your :eck13: this one better not turn into another crazy show of manhood as you put it! :no_no:

Stats are evil
 

As much as I STRONGLY disagree with Joe Horn being a top 5 receiver in the NFL. I cannot let some of this BS slide without commenting on it.

Some folks want to make these claims to discredit Joe Horn:

1. Aaron Brooks has tunnel vision for Horn.
2. Joe\'s \"stats\" come in garbage time.

That sounds just like some of the crap that is said about Aaron Brooks. And it\'s really foolish to suggest things like that.

First of all, does Joe catch anymore balls in \"garbage\" time than Randy Moss? Or what about Mushin\' Muhamad? The point is ... teams aren\'t letting Joe Horn catch the ball. In fact, defenses are playing the pass becasue they KNOW we have to pass. If anything ... that puts the WHOLE offesne at a disadvantage. Some of you guys need to think things through before you post stuff!

Secondly: Brooks doesn\'t throw the ball to Joe Horn anymore than what other QBs throw to their number 1 receivers. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. In fact, AB distributes the ball to all of his receivers just as well as any QB. That\'s a fact and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

Joe Horn is a very good receiver and I\'m not going to make things up just to discredit him. Still -- he\'s not a top 5 receiver in my humble opinion.

Stats are evil
 

I\'m cool JOESAM, I\'m cool... :cool:

Stats are evil
 

Don\'t see just what you want to see.

I said \"a lot\" of Joe\'s stats are the result of late-game padding. I didn\'t say the majority of or most of. I think that, on a competitive team going into the playoffs, Joe is a borderline 1,000-yard reciever. On an underachieving, constantly playing from behind team, he\'s a 1,300-yard reciever. See...all about context.

Stats are evil
 

So, the same would be true for Randy Moss (Vikings 8-8) and Mushin Muhammad (Panthers 7-9) too?

Come on man, let\'s go down the list of WRs in the NFL?

See .. context!! :D

Stats are evil
 

If it\'s a fact, prove to me it\'s true. Prove to us all this amazing fact is true. The only FACT is that the NFL changed the rules regarding DBs covering receivers, and that benefitted the whole league. What we know is a FACT, is we had a top shelf running game in 2003 and Joe Horn posted his worst numbers as a Saint. So since what you claim to be a fact I will bet is not, you prove your \"fact.\" Noone else laid claim to their statement as FACT, so step up big boy. Prove us wrong. I am going by my own observation, and the observation of others, and the observation of someone I know as a season ticket holder and as unbiased as they come. So prove your FACT. I doubt very seriously you can.

Stats are evil
 

U seem to be contradicting your own point on the context issue.

By context that means that each team\'s situation should be viewed differently and independently. What does Mushlin Muhammed or Randy Moss have to do with the Saints??

He\'s put up great numbers almost every year he\'s been with the Saints. However every year he\'s put up those numbers we\'ve been losing or playing from behind for the majority of those games. That\'s just the facts. I\'ve watched the games and you have.

[Edited on 24/3/2005 by GoldenTomb]

Stats are evil
 

And just to refute this statement: http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/...3646&Submit=Go Bottom of the page. 153 balls thrown to Joe.

http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/...3514&Submit=Go 139 thrown at Harrison.

Wow and 115 thrown at Wayne http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/...5477&Submit=Go

And 102 at Stokley http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/...4755&Submit=Go

Stallworth got 106 his way http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/...5899&Submit=Go

and poor Pathon got 67 http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/...5899&Submit=Go

Wanna change your \"facts\" again?

[Edited on 24/3/2005 by saintswhodi]

Stats are evil
 

Here\'s a few FACTS for you saintwhodi. Here are the stats for four other teams top 3 WRs. Read \'em and weep. ]

What does it tell you? Now, you made the statement that Brooks locks on to Joe Horn. Is that just the way you feell and you have NOTHING to back it up with or do you have some evidence. I\'m all ears..

Saints:
Joe Horn - 94 catches
Donte\' Stallworth- 58 catches
Jerome Pathon - 34 catches

Panthers:
Muhammad- 93 catches
Colbert - 47 catches
Proehl - 34 catches

Seahawks:
Darrell Jackson 87
Bobby Engram 36
Koren Robinson 31

Broncos:
Smith 79
Lelie 54
Putzier 36

Stats are evil
 

I posted some facts before you. You do know COMPLETIONS do not say how many times a ball was THROWN AT someone right? Of course you don\'t or you wouldn\'t be posting that foolishness. Read the stats I posted right before yours and please learn what stats actually back up what you are saying. That was just poor.

Stats are evil
 

I wouldn\'t say that catches matter when you\'re determining how many times a WR was thrown to.

A sure way to squash this would be to determine percentage of passes to each reciever mathematically.

Stats are evil
 

Passes thrown to:
1 Chad Johnson Cin 170
2 Laveranues Coles Was 168
3 Muhsin Muhammad Car 160
4 Derrick Mason Ten 158
5 Darrell Jackson Sea 156
6 Joe Horn NO 153
7 Eric Moulds Buf 152
8t Isaac Bruce StL 148
8t Tony Gonzalez KC 148

Joe Horn ranks right there with other number 1 receivers in the NFL. And that\'s taken from you\'re own stat source,

Your problem is that you try and only show part of the picture, saintwhodi. You\'re never going to get over on me and I doubt you\'ll get over on too many folks here by posting only part of what you want us to see.



Calling names?


[Edited on 24/3/2005 by JOESAM2002]

Stats are evil
 

To follow up with GT, let me squash those silly stats.

Did anyoen say Delhomme didn\'t have tunnel vision for Muhammed? Could it be that his number one receiver Steve Smtih going down could affect that?

Koren Robinson was suspended 4 games for drug issues, suspended another game for violating team rules, only started 8 and only played in 10 of 16 games. Nice call on that one.


So basically you are saying Smith catching 25 more passes than Lelie is the same as Joe catching 36 more catches than Stallworth? This is unreal. And so you understand, COMPLETIONS do not show THROWS AT a player, but I posted those stats for you from the best offense in the league. So your stats were false and proved nothign at all. Why should I have expected different? :o

Stats are evil
 

I am actually becoming amused. I think everyone on this thread agrees stats can be used to support any side. I am fairly certain no one is really trying to say that Horn is a top 5 receiver (I certainly do not - maybe top 10) -- so what is the argument -- I really can\'t find it - but to add fuel to the fire -- and to prove a point about stats can be used any which way -- to those who say Horn picked up all those yards at garbage time, AB tunnel vision etc. 1) a couple of years back we had a potent offense -- Horn still produced those types of numbers -- Horn has been producing those numbers consistently since he has been in New Orleans. 2) Maybe the reason why AB has tunnel vision is because he is a great receiver -- I mean why have tunnel vision for a mediocre receiver -- of course your go to receiver is your bets one 3) during garbage time the defensive line goes wild and just rushes the QB meaning less time to throw less time to get open 4) How many times was Horn thorwn out -- well what the heck does that prove -- someone compared completions to Harrison and completions to Horn and someone responded well how many times was Harrison thrown to etc. What does that prove -- Maybe AB overthrew Horn all the time -- not his fault -- the real stat necessary which is unavailable is how many catachable balls ere thrown Harrison\'s way versus Horn. I would guess that a higher ratio of Harrisons thrown to were catchable versus Horns.

Stats are evil
 

Here we go again... ;)

sw :duel: gumbo

Stats are evil
 

So basically what you are saying is your stats made no sense and so you found some that did. Okay I can dig that. But let\'s look at those. Chad Johnson had basically a rookie QB starting. I wonder if he is gonna lock onto his best receiver in his first season as an NFL starter? Already discussed Muhammed. Mason had Volek starting first time in the NFL, again I wonder if he is gonna look for his number one? Ya think? But he also threw 144 balls Drew Bennett\'s way. :o No tunnel vision. :o :o Already shot down Darrel Jackson. I don\'t know why you would post players who had LESS balls thrown their way than Joe, but since you did Gonzales had 148 but Kennison had 106 thrown his way and Morton had 79, and he was hurt for several games. Still less tunnel vision than AB. Lee Evans was a rookie receiver for Buffalo at the number two spot. I wonder if Moulds would get more balls.

I often wondered if you actually understood football Gumbo, but it\'s clear you don\'t even understand what you are saying yourself. You post stats that don\'t even prove your point, piggy back the ones I used to prove you wrong, and still don\'t understand those. Classic.

[Edited on 24/3/2005 by saintswhodi]

Stats are evil
 

Here\'s the bottom line. Aaron Brooks attempted the 3rd most passes in the NFL. And depsite that fact, Brooks locked on to Joe Horn no more than other QBs locked on to their number one receiver. Maybe, just maybe, that\'s why those guys are called freakin\' NUMBER ONE receivers.

Here\'s the facts.

Passes Attempted:
1 Trent Green KC 556
2 Daunte Culpepper Min 548
3 Aaron Brooks NO 542
4 Brett Favre GB 540
5 Jake Delhomme Car 533
6 Jake Plummer Den 521
7 Kerry Collins Oak 513
8 Peyton Manning Ind 497
9 Vinny Testaverde Dal 495
10 Joey Harrington Det 489
11 Marc Bulger StL 485
12t Tom Brady NE 474
12t Matt Hasselbeck Sea 474
14 Donovan McNabb Phi 469


Passes thrown to:
1 Chad Johnson Cin 170
2 Laveranues Coles Was 168
3 Muhsin Muhammad Car 160
4 Derrick Mason Ten 158
5 Darrell Jackson Sea 156
6 Joe Horn NO 153
7 Eric Moulds Buf 152
8t Isaac Bruce StL 148
8t Tony Gonzalez KC 148

[Edited on 24/3/2005 by GumboBC]

Stats are evil
 

Gumbo against me is more like :greenchainsaw: It\'s almost too easy. How do you not know which stats willback up your own argument? That\'s just awful. :P

Stats are evil
 

Yeah okay Gumbo. Whatever. :pokechop:

Stats are evil
 

lol... sw kills with a smiling face... that guy is eVvvViLLLlLL!!!!
:EVILLE:

Stats are evil
 

Damn it! Keep it civil or it\'s locked too!!!!!

Stats are evil
 

JoeSam -- Point taken. I\'ll calm my butt down. I know saintwhodi is only joking but we don\'t want to give the casual reader of this site the wrong idea and discourage them from posting. So, your point is taken. Hey, guys ... Joe is the only real modertor here (well, JKool seems to be trying) and we need to listen to him. Not that anyone doesn\'t but I know Joe has a difficult job.

saintwhodi --

If anyone really wants to know how much Brooks locks on to Horn, there is a simple formula.

1. Take the number of pass attempts by the QB and factor in the amount of passes thrown to his number one receiver. That will give you the % of passes thrown to Joe Horn. You can do that for the number 2 and 3 receiveres too.

I don\'t care to take the time to do it, but it\'s pretty evident from looking at the stats I posted that Brooks is right in line with other QBs.

Stats are evil
 

I was just joking around, looking for an argument. No problemo. I still disagree with this statement, as Peyton Manning\'s stats to his receivers will bear out, and he is the standard for QBs. But it\'s all good.

Stats are evil
 

Wow, I had no idea how prophetic that statement would be.

Stats are evil
 

Maybe there are three things that will set people off, Brooks, Horn, and those pesky little stats. :smile_argue:

Stats are evil
 

Let me try to explain my position on this matter...

Stats...They are simplay a number...they tell how much production was gained in specific catagories...normally, The higher those numbers, the better the player...

Hear and determination, and all that unseen stuff of course is unnotable, but..it is in a way..comparable..let me explain..

Sullivan did not go to the Pro Bowl..this may come a quite a shock to many who adhere to the idea that \'\'talent\'\' is all that matters...and Horn did infact go to the Pro Bowl...

Does this mean Horn has more talent than Sully/..not exactly..but, it would be a fair assumption...

Stats do not tell the entire story, but..without heart, and desire, you won\'t see players putting up good stats to begin with...

A player won\'t lazily make his way into a Pro Bowl...a player won\'t accidentally get 1000 yards rushing...and it\'s not a mistake to say..The players who get more yards, infact wanted it more than other players...even if only for a week, month, or however long...

As long as His numbers are better that day..He was the better player that day...whether He had more Heart, more luck, whatever it is...the number can\'t be expected to tell you everything...It\'s only a tool to make estimations...and most of the time, it is very effective at making those estimations..otherwise, they would be disregarded by Coaches and Players..and I can assure you, they are not...

Stats are evil
 

Great point Shadow, that pretty much sums it all up. Horn has more talent than Sully. We can all agree on that.

Stats are evil
 

So the next time we play carolina, and they decide to quadruple cover Horn all day, and Talman Gardner catches 8 balls, 4 TD\'s only because he is completely uncovered, I guess you\'d consider Gardner a better player than Horn?
I don\'t agree with that at all. It doesn\'t make sense to me.

Stats are evil
 

I think that might be a tad on the extreme side there Danno.

That\'s a myopic view of statistical data. You\'re right in saying that they do not tell the whole story.

But then, they also provide convincing evidence too. Darren Howard had more sacks than Charles Grant and Will Smith despite being injured and playing in fewer games than both, and also lining up inside at DT on numerous ocassions, where those other two did not. Therefore, Howard is a better DE (certainly a more productive one) than Grant and Smith.

People on this board with argue that - based on what other than pure opinion?

Stats are evil
 

People on this board with argue that - based on what other than pure opinion? [/quote:f3c2f30cfd]

That\'s the key...That\'s the only real variable in any Football discusson..Personal Opinion...

Some will side this way, other\'s that way..doesn\'t matter...cuz all are wrong beneath my mighty fortress of ...oh..nevermind..

Stats are evil
 

Thats not just myopic, it others-opic too. ;)
Just because I use an extreme example to illustrate a point doesn\'t make the point invalid.
Saying that player X is better than Player Y just because of his stats that day is shortsighted (or myopic if you will).

Yes, I had to look it up. :(

[Edited on 24/3/2005 by Danno]

Stats are evil
 

\'\'Saying that player X is better than Player Y just because of his stats that day is shortsighted\'\'


True, IF the scenario is completly uncircumstantial...which Football is not...

If a player performs better than anyone else on his team that day..He is the best player that day, Heck..He might even get a gameball..

If Horn gets 150 yards, 2 td\'s...and Deuce gets in turn, 150 yards 2 td\'s...who is the better player?...circumstances will determine ..but can only be defined through personal opinion....


Would you rather have a guy who is 2 inches taller, or a guy who is 2/10 faster?..what variable would define your choice...how He plays against certain scenarios?..His Age?..his weight?...

When it comes right down to it..Stats are infact very telling..and can be used to determine many things that remain unseen to the eyes...but..in the end..It all comes down to Personal opinion...

Stats are evil
 

..it is a shame that the usual suspects come threads like this one, which could be very interesting to discuss, and destroy them with the same old tired AB stuff.


..Anyway, in an attempt to bring some good discussion back:

Say you have 2 RBs...
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.

Who is the better RB?

Stats are evil
 

There woukd have to be more specific info provided..

Like how many games have they played?..how many td\'s?..receiving yards...yac?...broken tackles...