I think goals in football (soccer) is a bit of a crude measurement. It’s one of the very few stats, and the most obvious one, we use - so it’s hardly overrated but it needs more granularity (if that’s the right word) when used to judge a striker’s ability.
There’s such a massive difference between a goal that breaks the deadlock in the 85th minute in a tight, hardfought game, and the fourth goal slotted in from the penalty spot in a 4-0 rout.
Some strikers seem to compile decent scoring records without ever being a game-winning threat (can’t think of any great examples right now - Tony Cottee years ago would knock 2 in during a 4-2 defeat and be happy that he’d done his job. Sylvain Whitford for Arsenal had a rep as a soft player yet one who’d knock them in fairly reliably); others are known for producing when it really matters. Tim Cahill in his prime might score 10 goals a season from an advanced midfield position, with 9 of them being game-winning headers.
I think that’s his point, by way of explaining why red zone % is a measure of touchdowns instead of points. If it were only a measure of points, a team that lights up the field between the 20s but gets held to field goals an inordinate amount of time would dominate a red zone % stat based on points despite the fact that they stink in the red zone.
Just to be super picky, the NBA expanded in 2004 (the Charlotte Bobcats.) That doesn’t deflect your essential point that expansion hasn’t affected the quality of play over the last few decades, of course.
It goes something like this.
This is the highest total Sachin has scored off a single over of Akram, while facing pavilion end, with Miandad in slip, and with a dimple in his left ass cheek (Sachin’s), before tea-break,with his partner using a runner, outside India, in the month of April, in number 3 position, after his elbow surgery… and so on…
in light of the recent tebowmania, QB wins?
Indeed, which is why context is so important. The numbers don’t lie; people use them to lie just as they use words to lie.
Any time someone begins to reference stats but leads in with phrases like, “discounting this year…” or “since event X…” or something similar, it’s a red flag that they may be cherry picking stats to fit their narrative.
Fenwick and CORSI are just measures of shots taken while said player is on the ice to demonstrate possession and who’s pushing play in the right direction. It’s quite possible to be a strong possession player and not be a big time scorer. It’s not the most common nor desirable attribute, especially at $7.5m, but those stats aren’t misleading. Gomez’ ability to carry the puck into the zone, maintain possession and make tough passes is exactly what the Rangers overpaid for and then, inexplicably, Montreal traded for.
Nonsense; Statsguru clearly shows that the only five matches outside India involving Tendulkar, Akram and Miandad occurred in November and December 1989.
yeah! Whatever you say, cricket fan.
For me its all about context/interpretation.
Football: rushing yards correlated to wins. This is usually given as a cause-effect i.e. teams with better running games usually win. The truth is that teams in the lead late in the game tend to run more to eat up the clock.
Baseball: Almost every stat. Baseball stat-geeks are the worst. How does what happened on July 18, 2003 have any effect on the game today? What is the sample size of a single left-handed middle reliever pitching to a switch hitter on a day game when he pitched the night before?
Stat I’d like to see: football - QB completion percentage except miracle catches on a badly thrown ball counts as an incomplete and passed the receiver drops are counted as receptions.
Stat I’d like to see 2: baseball - cumulative time batters hold up the game by stepping out of the box.
Stat I’d like to see 3: baseball - accuracy rate of actual balls and strikes (according to the rules so yes there is a high strike) vs how it is actually called by the umpire.
That sounds more like a criticism of baseball announcers than SABRmetrician types.
I don’t think it should be an official stat, but I’d like to see that. And I think Tom Brady would, too.
I think you’ll find that self-confessed stat geeks absolutely hate those types of stats as well. I find it odd that you’d lump them together, as it’s usually the Joe Morgan “I hate stats” types that spew that sort of nonsense.
It really annoys me that I couldn’t figure out how to structure a statsguru query to find out what Tendulkar’s highest ever over against Akram was.
I guess it depends on what you mean by stat geeks. If you mean SABR-lovers, which is how I see it’s most often used these days, then they hate this kind of stuff. It has no predictive value and is only good if you’re desperately searching for a storyline. If you just mean geeky fans, it’s more applicable.
I’m talking about the stats geek you hear on talkradio and color commentary.
Anyone that I’ve ever heard disrespect the RBI as a stat has never played baseball. The RBI tells you quite a bit about that batters ability to hit a ball when he has an opportunity to drive in a run. Granted, he can’t drive in anyone who isn’t on base, but clutch hitting is a skill, and a highly paid one at that.
Saying an RBI is a joke is the same (sorta) thing as saying a save is a joke. A save wouldn’t be possible unless the team was already ahead in the score. The reliever is doing nothing to contribute to the gaining of that lead. He just gets to come in and try to close out the game (or blow the save).
Which reminds me. A stat that I hate is a closers wins. That usually tells you how many saves he’s blown.
Hockey - a players personal shots on goal.
Baseball k’s per 9 is a good choice.
Football - ave yds/punt is a dumb one. Gross and net. A punter may be pooch punting and trying to pin someone inside the 10. That could be a 30-35 yd punt. Kills the kickers average but helps his team immensely.
Basketball - who cares? I hate basketball. Maybe points off the bench. Whoopie
Disagree. That’s an essential stat in player evaluation and the foundation of most advanced stats.
That doesn’t mean it’s a good number ot use. It’s ok if you disagree.
But I don’t know anyone who can tell me how many shots Gretzky had in his record season, or in any game.
Yeah, you need that num. to get number of shots taken per goal, but that’s useless too.
Never, ever, in the modern history of baseball, has it ever been convincingly demonstrated that there was a hitter who could hit better in “clutch” situtations than in other situations. You are more than welcome to post evidence to the contrary.
And yes, I’ve played baseball. I’ve played zillions of games of baseball. There’s no such thing as a clutch hitter; I’ve never seen one, never played with one. A hitter who’s good with men on base is good with men not on base. A hitter who’s good in the ninth inning is good in the third inning. Mediocre hitters are always mediocre hitters. Bad hitters are always bad.
What about “triple-doubles” in basketball? This seems like a silly stat, existing only because the name may seem jivey.
This is not correct. However, I tip my cap to you because I’m too lazy to look up the stats I’d need to prove you wrong.
But how about some numbers from memory… Lou Gehrig had 24 grand slams in his career. Are you saying that he didn’t hit better than anyone else did with the bases loaded, or his yankee mates loaded up the bases for him on more occasions than any other team or player, or what?
or how about in a short series? Like the world series? You must concede that certain players seem to get the big hit when it counts or is needed, vs the hitter that gets a single or double with 2 out and no one on in the second inning, correct? They are different hitting situations, and not so long ago, Jeter was being compared to A-Rod in the playoffs and WS for just this type of behavior at the plate. A-Rod had a noose around his neck while Jeter seemed to always get a clutch hit.
I’m now curious to dig up the WS numbers or ALCS numbers that show this. But don’t hold your breath on seeing them soon. 
im going to bed