US sports obsession with statistics

[MacDonald Jardine]

6 hours ago, Say What Again said:

From the BBC's match report thread.

 

 

Is it just me who finds that quite interesting?

[Maple Leaf]

34 minutes ago, MacDonald Jardine said:

Is it just me who finds that quite interesting?

I would say yes.

[Nookie Bear]

I suppose it’s one way of saying it’s been a cagey opening!

[By the light]

I don’t mind stats but the irrelevant ones do my head in. They haven’t beaten X in 14 years...

 

Aye but they’ve only played twice and no player, coach, person is still there so why are you telling me this as if it’s an indication of what is likely to happen?

[Ribble]

Presume that all the posters declaring their hatred of statistics have refrained from joining in with the rest of the support when we have sang '22 in a row' or 'Since 1902' ??

[I P Knightley]

3 hours ago, By the light said:

I don’t mind stats but the irrelevant ones do my head in. They haven’t beaten X in 14 years...

 

Aye but they’ve only played twice and no player, coach, person is still there so why are you telling me this as if it’s an indication of what is likely to happen?

 

53 minutes ago, Ribble said:

Presume that all the posters declaring their hatred of statistics have refrained from joining in with the rest of the support when we have sang '22 in a row' or 'Since 1902' ??

I was about to agree wholeheartedly with By the Light but your post has made me think twice. 

 

The difference as I see it is that the latter (and Hibs's harking back to 1973) is direct taunting of your rivals. We will never lose 7-0 to them again; we'll never turn out a team as badly hungover - the game's moved on. They have one match with which to taunt us; we have an entire history. 

 

Chanting "Since 1902" was great - a reminder that, no matter the changes in personnel and playing systems, they were perennially awful in the Cup. I still sing it whenever I see a digital clock at 2 minutes past seven in the evening.

 

But singling out that England beat Germany 5-1 ONCE as a point of reference for all future games between the two sides as if it was somehow relevant to a team that was mainly in nappies when it happened is flippin' annoying!

[Ribble]

15 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

 

I was about to agree wholeheartedly with By the Light but your post has made me think twice. 

 

The difference as I see it is that the latter (and Hibs's harking back to 1973) is direct taunting of your rivals. We will never lose 7-0 to them again; we'll never turn out a team as badly hungover - the game's moved on. They have one match with which to taunt us; we have an entire history. 

 

Chanting "Since 1902" was great - a reminder that, no matter the changes in personnel and playing systems, they were perennially awful in the Cup. I still sing it whenever I see a digital clock at 2 minutes past seven in the evening.

 

But singling out that England beat Germany 5-1 ONCE as a point of reference for all future games between the two sides as if it was somehow relevant to a team that was mainly in nappies when it happened is flippin' annoying!

 

So the point is that when commentators/reporters use single facts as statistics then it is annoying, however true statistical trends that are relevant are not?

 

i.e using the england germany 5-1 game as reference doesn't indicate in any way how a particular game between the sides will go now whereas things like calling out that a team that has just gone a goal down has failed to win from a losing position for x no of games would not be annoying?

 

In summary it's the misuse of statistics that is annoying, not the statistics themselves

[By the light]

16 minutes ago, Ribble said:

 

So the point is that when commentators/reporters use single facts as statistics then it is annoying, however true statistical trends that are relevant are not?

 

i.e using the england germany 5-1 game as reference doesn't indicate in any way how a particular game between the sides will go now whereas things like calling out that a team that has just gone a goal down has failed to win from a losing position for x no of games would not be annoying?

 

In summary it's the misuse of statistics that is annoying, not the statistics themselves

 

Yes, in a nutshell. Context is everything.

 

As for singing songs, that’s just winding up rivals.

[I P Knightley]

4 hours ago, Ribble said:

 

So the point is that when commentators/reporters use single facts as statistics then it is annoying, however true statistical trends that are relevant are not?

 

i.e using the england germany 5-1 game as reference doesn't indicate in any way how a particular game between the sides will go now whereas things like calling out that a team that has just gone a goal down has failed to win from a losing position for x no of games would not be annoying?

 

In summary it's the misuse of statistics that is annoying, not the statistics themselves

I reckon you're about 88% correct there as has been your average over your last 2 years of posts

 

The bit you missed out is "FTH"

[andyscott82]

Was it not an old Aberdeen manager, Ebbe Skovdahl, that summed up stats the best

 

"Statistics are like mini skirts - they look good but hide the best bits" or something along those lines. 

[Say What Again]

BBC post match analysis was littered with stats. 

 

Best at start from a host nation, first time Poland have lost an opening game since, Colombia have never progressed after losing an opening game etc etc

 

I get the OPs point, but don’t think it’s an American thing. Can be quite interesting, while irrelevant at the same time. 

[Francis Albert]

11 hours ago, Ribble said:

 

So the point is that when commentators/reporters use single facts as statistics then it is annoying, however true statistical trends that are relevant are not?

 

i.e using the england germany 5-1 game as reference doesn't indicate in any way how a particular game between the sides will go now whereas things like calling out that a team that has just gone a goal down has failed to win from a losing position for x no of games would not be annoying?

 

In summary it's the misuse of statistics that is annoying, not the statistics themselves

Yes as i think the op made clear it is overuse of statistics at the expense of more relevant and interesting points. Particularly when the statistic is of little significance or demostrating nothing surprising or unexpected. For example the news that Panama is now the fifth Concacaf nation to have been shut out (fail to score) in its World Cup finals debut. The only surprise there is that as few as 5 concacaf teams have that distinction. 

[Francis Albert]

double

Edited June 19, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Peebo]

8 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Yes as i think the op made clear it is overuse of statistics at the expense of more relevant and interesting points. Particularly when the statistic is of little significance or demostrating nothing surprising or unexpected. For example the news that Panama is now the fifth Concacaf nation to have been shut out (fail to score) in its World Cup finals debut. The only surprise there is that as few as 5 concacaf teams have that distinction. 

So you were surprised by something demonstrating nothing surprising?

 

Interesting, shirley...? 

[shaun.lawson]

Here, on the other hand, is the perfect use of stats: which in this case, help tell a remarkable story. I learned something new - almost revelatory, it's so counter-intuitive - reading this. That's what I want from any analysis of the World Cup really.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/20/lionel-messi-sun-king-argentina-blind-world-cup