Poupou Escobar
Post Whore
- Messages
- 96,227
Can't afford Optus Vision
Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Can't afford Optus Vision
What would I have to gain by only looking at the NRL's official stats? Champion Data is the stats provider of yesteryear. They are the Blockbuster of rugby league statistics.
Not all stats suit all arguments. That's how we know those arguments are bullshit.
lol so which year did champion data start recording incorrect stats?
lol I didn't say they were incorrect, I said they were unreliable. LEARN TO READ LOL. We would only know whether or not they are correct by tallying the stats and comparing. The reason I no longer use them is as I said; we can't rely on them remaining available. They've pulled them before. They could do it again.
So it doesn’t make my claim on Ipaps tackles / missed tackles to be false.
It depends which stats you're using. Since merkins were discussing Guymer's 12 missed tackles they are obviously going off the official stats. You need to get on board.
Yeah... proof you do select your stats to suit your pre-conceived argument, not the other way around (as you tried to suggest)!
Except the arguments aren’t preconceived. They are based on the data. The stats and video I quote are the ones I deem most relevant. If there are others that you think are more relevant, you are free to share them.
Lol. You're a contrarian, who assumes what others must think before/regardless of whether they even post it, and then argue against that. In other letters... a t.r.o.l.l.
Selective data, sure.
*dream are
And I am also free to point out that you aren't as "honestly logical" as you like to put across.
Only when they're wrong. Some of you are wrong quite often and others almost never.
That's because I know what data matters and what doesn't. Kicking metres is meaningless for a player who doesn't kick. Data from a single game means far less than data across a season or a career, because the single game is more likely to be the outlier than a larger sample, etc. You shouldn't need to be an expert to know this stuff. You should know which data is most relevant and you weight that higher than the least relevant data, which is just noise. It's not some dark conspiracy to cook the books. And if it's that easy and you disagree, then you have access to the same data set to support your own counterargument. Just parroting contradictions without support evidence means nothing.
Except you haven't supported this assertion with any facts. Not even selective ones. You just reply "nO iT iSn'T" to everything I post.
*to you
Not everything, only to contrarian assertions offered with a week single selective stat well after the observable events where it's obvious you're just bored/escapism trolling.
This is because the stats (if the sample is big enough) represent a large number of observable events, over a period of time. Not just the ones we remember from the most recent game, or the ones that, due to their context within the drama of the game, have been given more meaning than they warrant.
Yes, we all know what stats are.... But the point is they don't invalidate anyone's observation or opinion about individual observable events themselves - particularly as as events are happening in a single game day threads, or soon after when people are talking about said single game.
Stats certainly lend weight where there is a difference of opinion. Two people might well see things differently but if the stats support one person’s observation then he’s likely the one who saw things (or just remembers them) correctly. In that case, conflicting opinions are at best not supported by the evidence, and at worst they are wrong. I myself am sometimes surprised by stats from a single game. I watch for entertainment, and the drama of it all prevents my lizard brain from making objective assessments. Same as anyone else. So if the stats don’t match what I thought I saw, it’s not the (objective) stats that are wrong. An emotion-free rewatch usually proves everything the stats say happened, happened.
TL | DR ... You always think you're right and other merkins on the forums are wrong, and for some reason that is more important to you than anything else during your escapism/down time?
There’s a few posters here who I agree with nearly every time, so you’re wrong again.
Lol.
Trust me, your opinion isn't important... but it's just hard to avoid when it's shoved down us merkins' throats in every thread here, ad nauseum.
