People who quote stats should also quote their source(s)

e.g. re: https://www.606v2.com/t28220-aviva-premiership-team-of-the-year-606-version-lh-prop?highlight=lh+prop

Here are some stats for the poll leaders:

Marler/Ayerza/Wood

Matches 18/12/17
Tries 0/1/1
Try Assists 1/0/0
Passes 29/22/29
Carries 110/49/56
Metres Carried 201/72/69
Clean Breaks 5/3/3
Offloads 5/6/0
Defenders Beaten 6/6/5
Tackles 83/54/101
Missed Tackles 7/7/9
Penalties 16/8/26
Turnovers Conceded 5/5/6
Lineouts Won 6/0/2

If a poster doesn't quote his/her stats source, how do I know if they are not just made-up/cherry-picked/abstracted/genuine?

p.s. I am not for a single moment disputing the veracity of the stats, but the availability of the source data would be good if I felt so to do so.

e.g. Someone posted a stat about no HEC away team losing for the past 14 games - What does that mean? All HEC matches, QFs, What?

statistically, 43% of statistics are made up!

[quote6="tigertattie"]st5atistically, 43% of statistics are made up![/quote]

Don't go down that route tattie. This not a haka/Gav debate.

If someone wants to submit a stat, they should should explain how it was sourced (unless it is the bleedin' obvious like a particular score or a table position etc.

What per cent of 606V2 articles are Haka/Gav related I wonder.

As an aside if you search the words "haka" and "gav" on this thread alone they each appear at least four times.

Does this make this a Gav/Haka article.

I couldn't possibly say.

I have little to no interest in stats anyway.

Forfty percent of people know that.

red_stag wrote:What per cent of 606V2 articles are Haka/Gav related I wonder.

As an aside if you search the words "haka" and "gav" on this thread alone they each appear at least four times.

Does this make this a Gav/Haka article.

I couldn't possibly say.

Technically before you hit <send> there was only one occurrence of either. A strange way of manipulating the stats - but I am grateful to you for identifying your data source.

No problem Portnoy. I get what your saying and I actually agree.

People who quote articles should also quote their sources.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:People who quote articles should also quote their sources.

I agree with you kia.

I should have initially written

e.g. re: https://www.606v2.com/t28220-aviva-premiership-team-of-the-year-606-version-lh-prop?highlight=lh+prop

Here are some stats for the poll leaders:

Marler/Ayerza/Wood

Matches 18/12/17
Tries 0/1/1
Try Assists 1/0/0
Passes 29/22/29
Carries 110/49/56
Metres Carried 201/72/69
Clean Breaks 5/3/3
Offloads 5/6/0
Defenders Beaten 6/6/5
Tackles 83/54/101
Missed Tackles 7/7/9
Penalties 16/8/26
Turnovers Conceded 5/5/6
Lineouts Won 6/0/2

Oh. I did.

I wasn't aiming that at you Portnoy. Just saying I agree with putting your sources for articles as well as stats as some posters on here - not your good self - do.

Sorry Kia. I misinterpretation of the comment.

No worries.

I googled "Haka Gav" and got this article. Now, I'm disappointed that it's about stats

sugarNspikes wrote:I googled "Haka Gav" and got this article. Now, I'm disappointed that it's about stats

For those of a statistical bent, and with BBC iPlayer access
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00wgq0l/The_Joy_of_Stats/

Kiwireddevil wrote:

sugarNspikes wrote:I googled "Haka Gav" and got this article. Now, I'm disappointed that it's about stats

For those of a statistical bent, and with BBC iPlayer access
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00wgq0l/The_Joy_of_Stats/

I watched that Kiwi. It was very good.
I much prefer bell curves than bell ends. (looks into mirror )

I think sometimes it is hard to find the exact details but I do think that when stats are given there should be a line in it saying how they go it

Like you could say that statiscally Ireland did better in the HC then any other team which is right and wrong but with no back up it means nothing.

going on semi campare to teams entered Scotland have done as well

In the final it could be Scotland

If you go by ERC ranking they only did one place better or 0.25 group place better, but Scotland did better with 1.5 group place improvement.

If you go on average team place in the group Scotland did the best.

So without backing up how you got the Stat you can't challange it as it could be anything

And hopefully the source of the stats isnt from another source of stats as then we would have a case of chinese whisper stats that would really throw the cat amongst the proverbial pigeons.

I think as a current resident of Wellington you would have been PCafied Taylorman. Its called the whisper game now so as not to offend those chopstick drivers like me.