You know what makes me happy????

[CougEd]

I didn't say you played "gotcha" ...simply the nature of your

post. Stats if used correctly tell a story. And it depends whose stats you use, and if one either uses the stats incorrectly, as it seems 95 did including non running backs, or someone manipulating them for some unknown reason.

When Mike Price use to tell us his entire senior class is graduating that was a truth, but the stats showed that we had a 50% graduation rate. Price was using the number based on the kids he had as a senior, while the NCAA used the number of kids that signed letters.

When someone says were are in the top five in offense nationally, that tells me we are good between the 20's. Where were we in scoring, and more important, where were in scoring against the top 2/3 of the teams in the conference?

Like I said, stats can be so misrepresentative of what is really happening.

 

[Coug95man2]

Re: I didn't say you played "gotcha" ...simply the nature of your

The stats I used are rushing stats, period. I used ESPN, the link below and went through each school. No manipulation, just you wishing to manipulate my post because I wish to not play.
EDIT: let me clarify, I did "manipulate" the stats in one way… If a player had one run all year, I didn't place that in the stats I posted. One run for 20 yards, or something, and their yearly average is 20 yards per carry… Not representative. SO, there is that "manipulation" I guess.

Whether a WR or an RB or a TE or an OL for that matter, rushed more than 5 or so times in a year, he's in the rushing stats I posted. It was "handed" to them by the QB, so… take that as you wish.
This post was edited on 1/22 8:28 AM by Coug95man2

ESPN School stats

 

[CougEd]

If I may quote you 95 "Not sure what I wrote that you would come to that

conclusion. My whole post is why I don't like stats because often they don't come close to telling the story. To which 1990 wrote stats are fine if you go to a trusted source (I am sure that means one that jives with one's view) cause either the stats can be misused or manipulated.

I don't think you did either. I just think in my opinion don't tell a story because in those rushes it includes a receiver who touches the ball twice a game.

So no I don't think you manipulated the stats, I just think stats in general can be misleading.

 

[Coug95man2]

Re: If I may quote you 95 "Not sure what I wrote that you would come to that

That is the beauty of stats... You can take them as you will. No one is naive the think stats are the one and only thing to look at. You aren't blowing anyones mind here by stating this, ed. But they do have a way of cutting through BS a lot of times because memories suck due to emotion.

But the only reason I got back on this thread was because of your quote, "...and if one either uses the stats incorrectly, as it seems 95 did including non running backs, or someone manipulating them for some unknown reason".

Beyond that… continue on. I didn't manipulate squat. They are straight rushing stats.

EDIT: Nor was I "mis-using" stats. That implies I was either dupped by ESPN or using stats to prove some point that isn't correct. That is incorrect, as well.
This post was edited on 1/23 9:56 AM by Coug95man2

 

[CougEd]

95....

The quote you used was the assertion by 1990 in the previous post with regards to stats. "and if one either uses the stats incorrectly, as it seems 95 did including non running backs, or someone manipulating them for some unknown reason".

I don't think you manipulated "sh1t", nor do I think you pulled out random stats. You pulled out stats.

Back to my original post...fairly simply...why I don't like stats. But let me make this as clear as I can. I do not believe for one moment you manipulated stats. I don't really believe anyone does that. I think people find stats and post them. I think you simply found stats and posted them correctly.

My response was to 1990 that by the nature of his post, that if the stats are deemed unreliable even if they are straight from ESPN that they are manipulated if they don't jive with one's perception. The stats don't jive with my perception, but I would never once say you manipulated them or they came from an untrusted source.

 

[gcarlin1]

As far as the O-LINE is concerned they were a ton better last year and they and their back-ups are all back so I believe we can expect another up tic in their 2015 performance. I think we'll run the ball a little more but not a significant amount more and I also think Falk/Bender may tuck and run a little more often then Halliday did which would not be hard since he really hardly ever did.

 

[Coug95man2]

Re: 95....

To be clear, I don't believe what 1990 wrote was an assertion that my stats were incorrect or manipulated, at least not what I read or understood. It seems to me, that it is you manipulating a general statement by 1990 into something specific towards me. It seems to me, you put words into 1990's mouth. I could be wrong. 1990 could clear that up.

1990 said that in a general sense, stats could be used in odd ways. We all know this, I agree with this. YOU asserted that my stats specifically are bad or misguided or whatever. I'm standing by the stats. That is all.

If it's 1990 that thinks I've got bad stats, or misguided stats, or manipulated stats, then this post and the above are for him, not you, Ed. I'm not picking a fight, not upset, just trying to be as clear and concise as possible. Regardless of my miscommunication with Sponge, those are solid stats. We sucked, generally, at the rush. My only point.

 

[CougEd]

Re: 95....

A couple of thoughts---when I saw Morrow averaged 4 yards a carry I must admit I was a bit surprised. I would have thought probably 3 or 3.2. Yes, I think our run game sucks, but if he was really getting 4 yards a carry that is not a horrible average for a back.

But I do agree we sure seemed to have a lot of negative to two yard gains as well. I do not think we are real effective running the ball. But probably the only area you and I differ is that I think it is imperative to run the ball, even if in the infancy stages of the program we are not effective because of what it will open up by making the linebackers stay at home. While Leach may be an offensive genius, it is pretty clear this offense can be stopped by good teams and teams in the red zone. While he may have brilliant route concepts and play calling, this conference has been defensing the pass since Jim Pluncket was around. They went through Dennis Erickson and his passing game, to Price, Bellotti and the rest of the conference.

So I tend to agree they need to show the run if nothing else that keeping a defense from flood to the zones that WSU wants to run pass patterns to.

 

[Coug1990]

Re: If I may quote you 95 "Not sure what I wrote that you would come to that

Originally posted by Coug95man2:
That is the beauty of stats... You can take them as you will. No one is naive the think stats are the one and only thing to look at. You aren't blowing anyones mind here by stating this, ed. But they do have a way of cutting through BS a lot of times because memories suck due to emotion.

But the only reason I got back on this thread was because of your quote, "...and if one either uses the stats incorrectly, as it seems 95 did including non running backs, or someone manipulating them for some unknown reason".

Beyond that… continue on. I didn't manipulate squat. They are straight rushing stats.

EDIT: Nor was I "mis-using" stats. That implies I was either dupped by ESPN or using stats to prove some point that isn't correct. That is incorrect, as well.
This post was edited on 1/23 9:56 AM by Coug95man2

You notice how Ed tries to somewhat diminish and interpret in the least flattering way what I wrote? Stats can tell us so many things. But, just like anything, we have to weigh it based on several things.

 

[Coug1990]

Re: 95....

Originally posted by Coug95man2:
To be clear, I don't believe what 1990 wrote was an assertion that my stats were incorrect or manipulated, at least not what I read or understood. It seems to me, that it is you manipulating a general statement by 1990 into something specific towards me. It seems to me, you put words into 1990's mouth. I could be wrong. 1990 could clear that up.

1990 said that in a general sense, stats could be used in odd ways. We all know this, I agree with this. YOU asserted that my stats specifically are bad or misguided or whatever. I'm standing by the stats. That is all.

If it's 1990 that thinks I've got bad stats, or misguided stats, or manipulated stats, then this post and the above are for him, not you, Ed. I'm not picking a fight, not upset, just trying to be as clear and concise as possible. Regardless of my miscommunication with Sponge, those are solid stats. We sucked, generally, at the rush. My only point.

Yes, you would be correct 95. I did not assert your stats were incorrect. I didn't even assert your stats were correct. Statistics are all around us in ways people don't realize and may be afraid if they did. Ed did take what I said and manipulated it for an outcome that he wanted.

 

[CougEd]

That's right...I am a stat manipulator...

What outcome is that? That while I think stats are often misleading, and may be even in this case that our run game sucked?