kingkerna wrote:
Blue Sombrero wrote:
kingkerna wrote:
Paul Bower, the person that a lot of people here have in their best team has the following stats:
Games Played: 59
Games Lost: 38
Percentage of Games Lost: 66.10%
Percentage of Games Won:33.90
Games Carlton Played since first playing PB:107
Games Lost: 58.5
Games Won: 48.5
Percentage of Games Lost: 54.67
Percentage of Games Won: 45.33
Carlton's Record without PB playing:
Games Played: 48
Games Lost: 20.5
Games Won: 27.5
Percentage of Games Lost: 42.71
Percentage of Games Won: 57.29
These stats don't lie, spin this anyway you like, he is overrated and when he plays we have a greater chance of losing and when he doesn't play we have a greater chance of winning.
Put those same stats on Murphy and Gibbs over their entire careers and you'll find they're useless as well. And Scotland and Simpson while you're at it.
If you want to make stats say something, it's pretty easy to find a way. Just find the biggest losing streak you can find and then prove every player in the team was a dud. Bower may not be the best player on the list but when he is fit, confident and backing himself, he does contribute a lot. Tonight he played in the forward fifty for most of the game. It isn't where he has played his best footy for us. He's just a kid. He'll either make it or he won't.
Simmo apparently went 4 weeks in a row with no possessions at all. Feed that into a stats machine and see how it comes out.
"Lies, lies and bloody statistics" (Don't know who said it first)
I dare you to do it on Murphy and Gibbs, do some research before spouting a garbage response. Simmo went three games without a touch, big deal, this isn't about him, nor is it about tonight in isolation. Overrate PB at your own risk.
Murphy and Gibbs played in sides that didn't win a game for two or three years. Feed that into your stats.
And as for spouting a garbage response, saying Bower will either make it or he won't is hardly overrating him.
My point is, if you want to make stats prove something, it is easy to find a way to do it.
Did you break down the games he played in by team and position on the ladder? Nup.
Did you break down the games according to the other players included in the back six on the day? Nup
Did you break down the games on whether the forwards kicked straight or not? Nup.
Did you analyse his minutes per game in winning and losing games? Nup.
The basic tenet of using statistics to prove a point and deflect criticism is to have the broadest possible base with the most factors considered. You should try it sometime.
And thanks to KK for the enlightenment.
