First!

Statistics suck! they're just for geeks and anoraks who've never gotten their knees dirty in their lives.

Like mini skirts. Can show a lot but cover the most important bits

........and you're left none the wiser.

And your rebuttal please Mr Burns.

Stats are obviously useful to complement what you see with your own eyes.

Sometimes they are manipulated to contradict what we have seen with our own eyes

Hence why they should be read with a reasonable amount of scepticism.

Statistics, in themselves, aren't a problem. I make a living through causal inference. "Arteta has completed 97% of his passes" doesn't necessarily imply he's a world class passer. But if someone's saying "Arteta keeps passing to the opposition", then this statistic becomes relevant. You're dealing with human behaviour and so trying to base predictions on past data is very difficult.

But I mainly use it for putting things into context. Quite often we don't watch other teams are closely (or regularly), and so seeing how the stats of our boys stack up helps to us to see what's considered 'normal' for the league and where we are very different.

Biggus wrote:

Statistics suck! they're just for geeks and anoraks who've never gotten their knees dirty in their lives.

What the hell are you talking about?

When in fact sophisticated statisticians are coveted in practically every field.

The real question is whether we're capable of understanding the numbers. Not whether statistics as a discipline works.

Klaus wrote:

Biggus wrote:

Statistics suck! they're just for geeks and anoraks who've never gotten their knees dirty in their lives.

What the hell are you talking about?

What are the particular words you don't understand Klaus?

Just wondering if you're really that fucking stupid or if you're trolling on purpose. What kind of basis do you have to make generalisations about people based on their knowledge or acceptance of statistics?

Hit a bit of a raw nerve have I?

As raw as a Catholic's mortal sin.

I told you, I'm not a Catholic.
Are you an Anorak?

I don't know. I suppose I am, although not in this context. Been getting my knees dirty my whole life though and I'm proud of that background. Rational arguments have nothing to do with where you come from or your willingness to work hard, that's the beauty of them. They're either rational or they're not. And there are plenty of rational arguments to be found in statistics, just like in many other things that might not be broad or simple enough to appeal to the general public. Quoting Mark Twain doesn't change that.

Well raw data is just that- Raw data.
When you have to compile them it requires human input (GM's "sophisticated" statisticians) then all the personal prejudice misunderstanding and mistakes come into it.
Did the player fail to control a pass because he's useless or because it came at him with pace from close range? All the data says was he failed to control the pass......
Banduan asked a good question, whats the difference between a cross and a pass to someone in the center?
Whats the difference between a half chance a decent chance and a good chance?
That would depend on so many diverse things such as weather and the "type of game" it was........

The statisticians have their opinions you have yours and I have mine, anyone can call on any statistic to prove any point they want, in football the only statistic that counts are the goals scored.