Does anyone else consider ESPN's stats look vague at best...???

There have been a number of stats that after reading their match details that many posters use on here to prove a point just do not add up.

Particularly the tackle and turnover stats..

You can look at 3 or 4 different sites and they will give you different stats for the same match. As a result I don't look at any of them as for the most part they are garbage, and even if they are correct give no context and rarely tell the story of the game.

I gave up on ESPN stats after the Glasgow v Northampton HC game this year, when what I saw directly contradicted statistics presented as gospel.

According to the stats ( http://www.espn.co.uk/heineken-cup-2012-13/rugby/match/167671.html ), Peter Horne scored no tries, ran a mere 8 metres and beat no defenders.

In fact, I saw Horne doing this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UWfEwTCOhw

What's wrong with this picture?

Does anyone have any alternatives?

Statbunker is supposed to be the most reliable and is often very very different to ESPN. Ironically, I would have thought tackle and turnover stats would be the most accurate across the board as it is much easier to count...than to calculate something like metres made.

The only turnover stats on ESPN are turnovers conceded, which seems to confuse a lot of people.  The offical Lions website will give you turnovers won.

Both those sites source their stats from Opta who are the biggest sports data company around, providing pretty much all the broadcasters, media, teams, unions and bookmakers.

Most of the stats posters start touting are the ones immediately after the game, which are the ones done live and will contain mistakes.  These are reviewed after the weekend when the analysts have time to pause, zoom and rewind recordings of the games.  It's also obviously up to the websites that pass on the live stats to correctly keep on top of these more accurate updates.

Coleman wrote:Does anyone have any alternatives?

http://www.rugbystats.com.au/rugby/

I find this site to be pretty good but it's only useful for matches involving SH teams.It hasn't got all of todays stats (eg. no stats for tackles made in the player stats column) but will probably update during the week.

Glad to see some blokes agree.

Thanks for the mentions of the other sites, ill take a look.

Ozzy you think all stats are garbage though. An odd stance to take I think.

Maestegmafia you only don't like what the espn stats are saying.

I think the Stats on ESPN are often wildly inaccurate. So I am glad that the posters above have offered some alternative websites to look at.

Any statistic is useless without context. Blind reliance on stats to judge player performance is silly. Using a relevant statistic to back up an opinion is fine but forming an opinion from the stats won't paint an accurate picture - particularly when you see absurdities like the one pointed out by IanBru above.

Why don't people just enjoy the rugby and forget about the stats? They're only really used for point-scoring and criticising players from opposing nations on this forum anyway.

jeffwinger wrote:Any statistic is useless without context.  Blind reliance on stats to judge player performance is silly.  Using a relevant statistic to back up an opinion is fine but forming an opinion from the stats won't paint an accurate picture - particularly when you see absurdities like the one pointed out by IanBru above.

Completely agree, though just checking out the http://www.rugbystats.com website recommended above and it is very interesting... Well worth a look.

Jeffwinger is it better to form an opinion on stats or form an opinion based on the spin of the media?

Neither are a good basis for an opinion if you haven't watched the player/team/match yourself. And if you haven't watched for yourself then it's probably best not to try and form too strong an opinion.

Well actually espn are part of the media. You are attacking their stats.

So why do you feel the espn stats are wildly inaccurate exactly? Because they do not support your own opinion?

Surely the websites cannot differ wildly. Surely to prove your point you should list the match stats from 3-4 websites and show clearly how they differ.

You saying that espn stats are vague. Where is the proof of this?

beshocked wrote:You saying that espn stats are vague. Where is the proof of this?

IanBru provided a good example earlier on this thread.

I regularly hear statistics that differ wildly from what I've seen with my own eyes. An example off the top of my head (because we are discussing Parling over on the England thread) was this seasons England vs Scotland 6N game. Johnnie Beattie bumped Parling off twice in a very short space of time, very noticeably. Then on this forum after the game someone was quoting a source which listed Parling as having missed 0 tackles.

As far as the media goes, try watching a few premiership matches on TV, then read the BBC Sport match report after. Some match reports contain all manner of inaccuracies - wrong names, wrong timings, wrong orders of events. This results in me lacking trust in the reports for games that I haven't watched.

Oh right so one example of in accuracy means that espn stats are wrong in every case. Good one!

Look my point is that things are not going to differ wildly. Ask yourself why is a player getting accredited? Maestegmafia's first post is a thinly veiled attack on Mako. I watched the match - mako was in the thick of it all. He did make a lot of tackles and did make turnovers.

Does it not make you wonder that if they've missed a bloke charging 40 metres to score a solo try to win it in the last play of the game, what else might they have missed? Does it fill you with confidence that every metre gained, tackle made and ruck hit has been accurately portrayed?

Sorry I didn't pick up any subtext to this thread, I haven't really been paying attention to any of the ongoing Lions debates so I'm not supporting any anti Vunipola undertones if that's what it's about. I'm just supporting the notion that the stats constantly trawled up in any debate about players are often flawed.

Jeffwinger yes perhaps some stats are flawed but there is generally some semblance of evidence. As you say stats do need context.

I agree missing a try is unforgivable but no Lions player can feel hard done in the line breaks or tries. I didn't see any.

The lions collectively did make a lot of tackles and turnovers so its not outrageous to acknowledge one player might have made quite a few tackles ad turnovers.

Metres made is harder to do. Tries is far easier. Surely turnovers are quite clear cut? Tackles less so.

It's a difficult one to call, I've seen some stats before that haven't looked right, but probably more often I've seen people write what seems absolute garbage about a match they've claimed to watch.

Everyone has an inflated sense of their own opinions, and with so many differing opinions on the same games and set of players, someone has to be wrong.

If you look at any studies of eyewitness accounts, most people's perceptions of events are often pretty inaccurate, getting even the most basic details wrong when questioned later.  Then you can throw into that mix that people watching rugby games have frequently had a beer or two, are being distracted by the environment they are watching in, might have some sort of bias or are influenced by people they are watching with.

Someone above posted a link to the client list of one of the top stats companies.  If they were consistently that wide of the mark would such big companies, teams & unions retain their services?  Most of those companies (particularly bookies whose profit margins depend on stat accuracy) would surely audit the product they are no doubt spending a lot of money on.

Stats are only as good at the person using and interpreting them, which is why there is a very specialised field of study and set of industries in them.  I'm sure there are errors in some of the stats (statistically speaking that's a given), but between people employed to trawl video footage and record their findings, and casual supporters with viewing baggage and a few pints under their belt, I reckon the stats will more often be the truer reflection.

As others have said, I think it's important not to form opinions based purely on stats, but if they do back your opinion up that's a strong indication that you're on the right track and if they point in a different direction it forces you to review what you felt you saw and see if there are circumstances to what was recorded that account for your view, which leads to a stronger understanding of the game.

Once upon a time..........

The stats you want to agree with you, you post.
The stats you don't agree with are redundant as stats are only a small part of the full story...until the next time they agree with you.

...and they all lived happily ever after.