"Stats are for losers"

[TomCat88]

I'll be the first to say that sports stats used to determine the winner of one sporting event are not good. It's a losing proposition. But the term 'stats are for losers' isn't meant for that. I don't know where the term originated but Bob Petrino, Sr.* used it a lot and that was back in the 1970s. What he meant by it was that the losing team always goes to the stat sheet to find something it did well and then blames losing on too many turnovers or too many penalties.

Now people use that term whenever someone uses a stat to support their claim that a team is good at something. They can't refute the claim, so they say 'stats are for losers'.

Stats, or statistics, are engrained in our lives. When you check the weather forecast, you're using a stat. Weather forecasts are based off models that take previous weather patterns and then determine the probability of precipitation, the temp, etc. The Vegas books use stats and all kinds of other data to determine their opening lines. Vegas' goal isn't to predict a winner or be as close as possible to the spread and O/U, it's goal is to get the same amount of money/people betting on both sides of the ticket. So their use of stats isn't the same as say predicting weather or the spread of a virus or the impact on traffic of a new subdivision.

When it comes to sports, stats are nearly useless for individual games. If you took Stats 216 at MSU, you probably know this. If you take 10 previous games and try to use those stats to determine the outcome of one game, the degree of confidence is low. If you use those previous 10 games and try to determine the outcome of the next 10 games collectively, the degree of confidence is higher.

The other thing is that the people who say, 'stats are for losers' use stats. I don't think anyone that has ever followed sports closely can say they never use stats or refer to stats when discussing sports. Personally, I think stats reinforce the argument that someone's past performance was good or great or bad or whatever. Most MLB HOF plaques include some stats of the inductee's achievements.

*I wish someone*, like they did for Bob Green, would compile a list of Bob Petrino, Sr. quotes and stories. In his own way, Petrino was absolutely hilarious. Some of the stories his ex-players tell me are gut busters. Roy Pace was the sports editor for the Helena IR for about 30 years. He told me that after a CC playoff game in Helena, Petrino emerged from his office and stated, very officially, something to the effect, "The press conference will begin in about ten minutes." Pace said, "I was the only standing outside his door." Ten minutes later Petrino emerged again and Pace interviewed him, one-on-one and that was that.

[onceacat]

I'm surprised that people still believe this old saw in the age of "Moneyball".

Maybe it's because you don't need to look at the stat sheet to know that NDSU or Ohio State is really good. Or maybe it's because so many people don't understand that some stats (yards per play or points per drive) have a lot more significance than other stats (points per game or yards per game).

Or maybe its because people like Old Griz give truth to the phrase 'Figures don't lie, but liars figure'.

[MrGoodKat]

Football stats are almost always being used in conjunction with fandom. We care about stats because we care about a particular team, positively or negatively. Even stronger than they: we want to be right about whatever claims or predictions we've made previously. So inescapably, we want the stats to say something; we have a conclusion that we emotionally desire to be true. This leads fans to really emphasize or tailor certain stats, while ignoring others (saying things like "stats are for losers"). Fans can do a better or worse job mitigating their bias, but it's never totally going away.

I also think that sometimes people who say "stats are for losers" are just reacting against their overemphasis. Some people who really love/value stats completely dismiss the human elements of sports.

[OldGriz]

I'm surprised that people still believe this old saw in the age of "Moneyball".

Maybe it's because you don't need to look at the stat sheet to know that NDSU or Ohio State is really good. Or maybe it's because so many people don't understand that some stats (yards per play or points per drive) have a lot more significance than other stats (points per game or yards per game).

Or maybe its because people like Old Griz give truth to the phrase 'Figures don't lie, but liars figure'.

This is funny because I’m not a stats zealot and I get criticized by so many here who say I’m too much of an “eyeball test” guy. I only pull out stats when guys here ask me too. I agree that stats are for losers. The stat that matters is 10-0.

[onceacat]

Football stats are almost always being used in conjunction with fandom. We care about stats because we care about a particular team, positively or negatively. Even stronger than they: we want to be right about whatever claims or predictions we've made previously. So inescapably, we want the stats to say something; we have a conclusion that we emotionally desire to be true. This leads fans to really emphasize or tailor certain stats, while ignoring others (saying things like "stats are for losers"). Fans can do a better or worse job mitigating their bias, but it's never totally going away.

I also think that sometimes people who say "stats are for losers" are just reacting against their overemphasis. Some people who really love/value stats completely dismiss the human elements of sports.

Yeah, its always best to avoid motivated reasoning...even if doing so 100% is impossible.

I usually find that it makes sense to pick stats or set benchmarks BEFORE knowing the outcome in order to make sure you aren't cherry picking.

[onceacat]

I'm surprised that people still believe this old saw in the age of "Moneyball".

Maybe it's because you don't need to look at the stat sheet to know that NDSU or Ohio State is really good. Or maybe it's because so many people don't understand that some stats (yards per play or points per drive) have a lot more significance than other stats (points per game or yards per game).

Or maybe its because people like Old Griz give truth to the phrase 'Figures don't lie, but liars figure'.

This is funny because I’m not a stats zealot and I get criticized by so many here who say I’m too much of an “eyeball test” guy. I only pull out stats when guys here ask me too. I agree that stats are for losers. The stat that matters is 10-0.

I didn't suggest you were a 'Stats Zealot'...I suggested that you were a liar who like to use figures.

Like "If you eliminate the Cats toughest game and the Panda's easiest game, then their strength of schedules look similar."

Well, yes. If you eliminate the toughest game for the team with a substantially more difficult schedule...and you eliminate the easiest game for the team with the substantially weaker schedule, then the overall strength of schedule will converge.

If you were an 'eye test' guy, then the substantially stronger performances of the Cats against the same teams would be more important to you.

Your 'eye test' suggests that the team that went down to the wire with EWU was better than the team that beat EWU by 50 in 3 quarters?

Or comparing the score of CP or Weber or ISU?

So you aren't an 'eye test' guy either.

[BelligerentBobcat]

[iaafan]

Remember when Bobby Hauck cried like a baby after MSU beat UM in 2003. He was all butt-hurt because the Griz dominated the stats and lost. Said the game was gift. But when they win and someone says something similar, he says stats are for losers and those are 'empty stats' etc. So you can't really blame UM fans for being the way they are.

[OldGriz]

I'm surprised that people still believe this old saw in the age of "Moneyball".

Maybe it's because you don't need to look at the stat sheet to know that NDSU or Ohio State is really good. Or maybe it's because so many people don't understand that some stats (yards per play or points per drive) have a lot more significance than other stats (points per game or yards per game).

Or maybe its because people like Old Griz give truth to the phrase 'Figures don't lie, but liars figure'.

This is funny because I’m not a stats zealot and I get criticized by so many here who say I’m too much of an “eyeball test” guy. I only pull out stats when guys here ask me too. I agree that stats are for losers. The stat that matters is 10-0.

I didn't suggest you were a 'Stats Zealot'...I suggested that you were a liar who like to use figures.

Like "If you eliminate the Cats toughest game and the Panda's easiest game, then their strength of schedules look similar."

Well, yes. If you eliminate the toughest game for the team with a substantially more difficult schedule...and you eliminate the easiest game for the team with the substantially weaker schedule, then the overall strength of schedule will converge.

If you were an 'eye test' guy, then the substantially stronger performances of the Cats against the same teams would be more important to you.

Your 'eye test' suggests that the team that went down to the wire with EWU was better than the team that beat EWU by 50 in 3 quarters?

Or comparing the score of CP or Weber or ISU?

So you aren't an 'eye test' guy either.

You don’t know what you are talking about, you are misattributing, and your use of invective is lazy.

[grizzh8r]

Remember when Bobby Hauck cried like a baby after MSU beat UM in 2003. He was all butt-hurt because the Griz dominated the stats and lost. Said the game was gift. But when they win and someone says something similar, he says stats are for losers and those are 'empty stats' etc. So you can't really blame UM fans for being the way they are.

Yep, he and the majority of the gris fanbase deserve each other. Overinflated sense of self when winning and a victim complex when losing.

[saintcat40]

What was the quote from PlayerRep a few years ago? Someone had it in their tagline here for awhile. It was something like, “it isn’t about the losses, but the record of the teams that you lost to.” Anyone remember? I thought it was a perfect depiction of that delusional fanbase.

[onceacat]

I'm surprised that people still believe this old saw in the age of "Moneyball".

Maybe it's because you don't need to look at the stat sheet to know that NDSU or Ohio State is really good. Or maybe it's because so many people don't understand that some stats (yards per play or points per drive) have a lot more significance than other stats (points per game or yards per game).

Or maybe its because people like Old Griz give truth to the phrase 'Figures don't lie, but liars figure'.

This is funny because I’m not a stats zealot and I get criticized by so many here who say I’m too much of an “eyeball test” guy. I only pull out stats when guys here ask me too. I agree that stats are for losers. The stat that matters is 10-0.

I didn't suggest you were a 'Stats Zealot'...I suggested that you were a liar who like to use figures.

Like "If you eliminate the Cats toughest game and the Panda's easiest game, then their strength of schedules look similar."

Well, yes. If you eliminate the toughest game for the team with a substantially more difficult schedule...and you eliminate the easiest game for the team with the substantially weaker schedule, then the overall strength of schedule will converge.

If you were an 'eye test' guy, then the substantially stronger performances of the Cats against the same teams would be more important to you.

Your 'eye test' suggests that the team that went down to the wire with EWU was better than the team that beat EWU by 50 in 3 quarters?

Or comparing the score of CP or Weber or ISU?

So you aren't an 'eye test' guy either.

You don’t know what you are talking about, you are misattributing, and your use of invective is lazy.

Where's the invective?

I'm just pointing out 1) How dishonest you are with stats (i.e. "If you ignore MSUs toughest and UMs easiest game, the schedules are pretty similar") and 2) How your 'eyeball test' somehow doesn't see that in the similar conference schedule, Cats are outscoring the Pandas by almost 10 points/game WHILE ALSO holding teams to 15 fewer points than the Pandas.

So you aren't a stats guy. And you aren't an eye test guy.

It sounds like you are just a homer who looks at the world through dark pink glasses.

Is this how you operate in court?

[onceacat]

I'm surprised that people still believe this old saw in the age of "Moneyball".

Maybe it's because you don't need to look at the stat sheet to know that NDSU or Ohio State is really good. Or maybe it's because so many people don't understand that some stats (yards per play or points per drive) have a lot more significance than other stats (points per game or yards per game).

Or maybe its because people like Old Griz give truth to the phrase 'Figures don't lie, but liars figure'.

This is funny because I’m not a stats zealot and I get criticized by so many here who say I’m too much of an “eyeball test” guy. I only pull out stats when guys here ask me too. I agree that stats are for losers. The stat that matters is 10-0.

I didn't suggest you were a 'Stats Zealot'...I suggested that you were a liar who like to use figures.

Like "If you eliminate the Cats toughest game and the Panda's easiest game, then their strength of schedules look similar."

Well, yes. If you eliminate the toughest game for the team with a substantially more difficult schedule...and you eliminate the easiest game for the team with the substantially weaker schedule, then the overall strength of schedule will converge.

If you were an 'eye test' guy, then the substantially stronger performances of the Cats against the same teams would be more important to you.

Your 'eye test' suggests that the team that went down to the wire with EWU was better than the team that beat EWU by 50 in 3 quarters?

Or comparing the score of CP or Weber or ISU?

So you aren't an 'eye test' guy either.

You don’t know what you are talking about, you are misattributing, and your use of invective is lazy.

This is funny from a guy who made the claim that UM has scored more points in conference than the Cats, then posted a link that proved himself wrong.

OK Boomer.

[OldGriz]

I'm surprised that people still believe this old saw in the age of "Moneyball".

Maybe it's because you don't need to look at the stat sheet to know that NDSU or Ohio State is really good. Or maybe it's because so many people don't understand that some stats (yards per play or points per drive) have a lot more significance than other stats (points per game or yards per game).

Or maybe its because people like Old Griz give truth to the phrase 'Figures don't lie, but liars figure'.

This is funny because I’m not a stats zealot and I get criticized by so many here who say I’m too much of an “eyeball test” guy. I only pull out stats when guys here ask me too. I agree that stats are for losers. The stat that matters is 10-0.

I didn't suggest you were a 'Stats Zealot'...I suggested that you were a liar who like to use figures.

Like "If you eliminate the Cats toughest game and the Panda's easiest game, then their strength of schedules look similar."

Well, yes. If you eliminate the toughest game for the team with a substantially more difficult schedule...and you eliminate the easiest game for the team with the substantially weaker schedule, then the overall strength of schedule will converge.

If you were an 'eye test' guy, then the substantially stronger performances of the Cats against the same teams would be more important to you.

Your 'eye test' suggests that the team that went down to the wire with EWU was better than the team that beat EWU by 50 in 3 quarters?

Or comparing the score of CP or Weber or ISU?

So you aren't an 'eye test' guy either.

You don’t know what you are talking about, you are misattributing, and your use of invective is lazy.

Where's the invective?

I'm just pointing out 1) How dishonest you are with stats (i.e. "If you ignore MSUs toughest and UMs easiest game, the schedules are pretty similar") and 2) How your 'eyeball test' somehow doesn't see that in the similar conference schedule, Cats are outscoring the Pandas by almost 10 points/game WHILE ALSO holding teams to 15 fewer points than the Pandas.

So you aren't a stats guy. And you aren't an eye test guy.

It sounds like you are just a homer who looks at the world through dark pink glasses.

Is this how you operate in court?

The invective is the use of the label “liar,” especially when based on total misattribution (when did I ever say “If you ignore MSUs toughest and UMs easiest games, the schedules are pretty similar”?).

You are a lazy clown.

[onceacat]

I'm surprised that people still believe this old saw in the age of "Moneyball".

Maybe it's because you don't need to look at the stat sheet to know that NDSU or Ohio State is really good. Or maybe it's because so many people don't understand that some stats (yards per play or points per drive) have a lot more significance than other stats (points per game or yards per game).

Or maybe its because people like Old Griz give truth to the phrase 'Figures don't lie, but liars figure'.

This is funny because I’m not a stats zealot and I get criticized by so many here who say I’m too much of an “eyeball test” guy. I only pull out stats when guys here ask me too. I agree that stats are for losers. The stat that matters is 10-0.

I didn't suggest you were a 'Stats Zealot'...I suggested that you were a liar who like to use figures.

Like "If you eliminate the Cats toughest game and the Panda's easiest game, then their strength of schedules look similar."

Well, yes. If you eliminate the toughest game for the team with a substantially more difficult schedule...and you eliminate the easiest game for the team with the substantially weaker schedule, then the overall strength of schedule will converge.

If you were an 'eye test' guy, then the substantially stronger performances of the Cats against the same teams would be more important to you.

Your 'eye test' suggests that the team that went down to the wire with EWU was better than the team that beat EWU by 50 in 3 quarters?

Or comparing the score of CP or Weber or ISU?

So you aren't an 'eye test' guy either.

You don’t know what you are talking about, you are misattributing, and your use of invective is lazy.

Where's the invective?

I'm just pointing out 1) How dishonest you are with stats (i.e. "If you ignore MSUs toughest and UMs easiest game, the schedules are pretty similar") and 2) How your 'eyeball test' somehow doesn't see that in the similar conference schedule, Cats are outscoring the Pandas by almost 10 points/game WHILE ALSO holding teams to 15 fewer points than the Pandas.

So you aren't a stats guy. And you aren't an eye test guy.

It sounds like you are just a homer who looks at the world through dark pink glasses.

Is this how you operate in court?

The invective is the use of the label “liar,” especially when based on total misattribution (when did I ever say “If you ignore MSUs toughest and UMs easiest games, the schedules are pretty similar”?).

You are a lazy clown.

You have said multiple times that MSUs superior SOS was a 'myth'.

And then you called me a clown....interesting for someone who professes to dislike invective when people point out how badly they misused statistics.

Are you up to date on conference stats & how the Cats have outperformed the gris in every single category except "Passing Yards per Game"?

[OldGriz]

You don’t know who is who in here (admit that you misattributed some BS statement to me instead of to whoever actually said it). If you can’t do that, then at least sober up.

[PortlandCat90]

Congratulations, guys. You have allowed this old has-been rival to infiltrate our football discussion board and turn it into a name-calling, d###-size contest better known as EGriz.

Any chance we can get back to decent football discussions where we don't have to sift through the feces to get to a decent fact-laden conversation for those of us who don't have time nor insider contacts anymore to gain useful MSU football information?

[BelligerentBobcat]

Congratulations, guys. You have allowed this old has-been rival to infiltrate our football discussion board and turn it into a name-calling, d###-size contest better known as EGriz.

Any chance we can get back to decent football discussions where we don't have to sift through the feces to get to a decent fact-laden conversation for those of us who don't have time nor insider contacts anymore to gain useful MSU football information?

No.

[Clinton T]

Congratulations, guys. You have allowed this old has-been rival to infiltrate our football discussion board and turn it into a name-calling, d###-size contest better known as EGriz.

Any chance we can get back to decent football discussions where we don't have to sift through the feces to get to a decent fact-laden conversation for those of us who don't have time nor insider contacts anymore to gain useful MSU football information?

I'm here for it. This place is better when there is a bit of mud slinging. Block the posters you don't like. I swear, there are more self-righteous, stand-and-make-noise-only-on-third-down hall monitors here.

[ClowderUp]

Honestly I've haven't seen PlayerRep get his ass kicked this bad in all his screen names. He was here for a while a year or two ago (can't remember the name) and finally 2506 ran him down and gave him a clean death. He also eventually died on the Lobos forum last year too. The mods there ran him off for being a complete and total idiot.

But this rendition is particularly bad. Absolute sh!t from ole Jack.