Quote: trys'r'us "So, basically, you're admitting that you can't counter any of the points I've made and are attempting to move away from the subject of the debate to avoid having to engage with what I post. I'll take that as a compliment and a sign that you aren't capable of providing a worthwhile argument in opposition.
It's a shame because I'd like to have the debate, but it obviously isn't going to come to fruition.'"
Not at all. I was simply a bit bored of the conversation if i'm been honest. It's the Berrigan thread not the statistics thread and i've had this debate so many times over the years its unbelievable. Anyway, i'll respond as you say you want a debate.
Quote: trys'r'us "The debate around them gives absolutely no context. What gives context is knowing exactly what they are measuring, how they are collected and how they are analysed, and that still doesn't help a great deal as, without wanting to repeat what Kosh said, there are so many variables in place that it is impossible to measure anything accurately and for it to have a consistent meaning.'"
My understanding of what your talking about here is methodology and how this can skew results or not. I wouldnt call this context. I'd call context the analysis/interpretation of results to understand what they mean and what they should be used for. You'd be surprised at the board meetings where i've taken statistical reports how much value and context is derived from the debate. The debate answers the 'so what' question which is what i would call the context.
Quote: trys'r'us "
I did try to get that sort of debate started with my first couple of posts on this thread, but you didn't seem interested in getting involved. And then berrigans bitch decided to add nothing of worth.'"
I was interested in a debate about Berrigan and whether he has been value for money. From an early stage it was clear that our views were polarised and we weren't going to progress the debate. You didnt want to entertain the stats other than rubbishing them yet at the same time you wanted me to quantify my belief that Berro had been average. How?
Quote: trys'r'us "
I'll just take the two examples you mention there, stripping the first of any sort of statistical value and providing a little context for the second, but still nothing like the full pitcure.
Berrigan might have only one assist. He might not have. What's an assist, in the context of these statistics? Does Berrigan getting out of dummy half, drawing a marker and the A defender, before putting O'Meley through the gap created count as an assist? That was 30m out from the line and resulted in O'Meley giving a pass to Horne to score under the sticks. Is an assist only the final pass/kick in a try scoring move? Is Berrigan giving a pass from dummy half, 5m out, to Yeaman running an unders line an assist, therefore? Would make a 95m break from your own line, only to be tackled inches short, count as an assist if the dummy half at the next play dived straight over? Would getting a quick play on the halfway line, which lead to a break in the 'black hole' and subsequently a try count as an assist? Would fumbling the ball (backwards? Who knows, it may be a poor decision by the referee) that was picked up by a team mate and then grounded count as an assist?
I think you can see where I'm going with that.
On Houghton making more tackles, I'll leave out what defines a tackle for now (a key piece of information, but it would only result in a huge amount of writing that would probably be ignored anyway). What I will say is that Houghton is targeted in defence by every team. Every chance the opposition gets, they run at him. At him, not round him. Why? Because he doesn't have the ability to tackle high, round the ball, and put in the work in the collision to work the carrier onto their back for a slow play. He tackles low, round the ankles and as a result, usually ends up at the bottom of the ruck, allowing a quick play often against an unset line and unset markers. This is also one of the main reasons he makes so many marker tackles because, as happens with Radford as well, teams target their tackles to scoot against. That means the next play is kept tight around the ruck and they make their tackles when they are running back to meet the rest of the line which hasn't had chance to move up due to the quick play and the scoot.
'"
What youve done here is have a written debate to add context and challenge the methodology. I fully get this. The context around Berrigan and Houghton is what i was wanting a debate about in the 1st place.
Quote: trys'r'us "
As I said before, I don't give a sh[sizei[/sizet who the players are, I'm purely debating the worth of the statistics. And as for fearing statistics (and I really don't like bringing up external, unprovable [on here, at least] factors that sound arrogant, more than anything), I've spent a hell of a lot of time working with statistics. They formed a large part of my degree, particularly quantitative methods modules, and the collection, analysis and interpretation of statistics at a (fairly) complex level forms a large part of my job. I'm not against the use of statistics, it's vital in many, many areas and is of huge importance to our civilisation, but I am very much against shoddy statistics being presented as evidence and given credence. There's not much I dislike more.'"
I'm not a fan of the external factors that may sound arrogant either so i'm not going to counter this point if thats ok.
