Unbelievable Defensive Stat (It's VERY Good)

RTR91 said:

And now Cole revises his statement to say it is just this year.

Click to expand...

That makes more sense - I wasn't going to dig into the stats last season, but I could swear that you had some problems with runs up the middle.

KrAzY3 said:

I'd say one of the main reasons to post this stat is not just so how good the defense has been, but to counter the cherry picking of negative stats that we've seen recently. Yes, the run defense isn't perfect, no, the defense isn't perfect, but despite some issues it overall has been very good... and... it still hasn't been determined that any team can run on the 2015 defense.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between "cherry picking" and recognizing a trend. You can compare stats during intervals of time. You don't have to compare stats from the inception of the game for the stats to be legitimate. The stat posted in the OP is during the same time period of a stat that I saw and posted here. The stat said that Alabama was worse team in FBS in defending 3rd and long since the start of 2014. The exact same time period of the one in the OP. Why is one cherry picking and one considered to be a great stat? Maybe because one shows the defense in a negative light and one doesn't. So maybe the "cherry picking" is just a farce and some folks don't want to hear anything but positives about the team. If that's the case that's fine but don't call everything that you don't like "cherry picking."

Here are a couple responses from the other thread comparing a stat to the exact time frame as the stat in the OP in this thread:

-I like how he's combined it into this season to try and make it relevant.

-Noticed that too. With the right agenda, you can make it say what you want. 2014 is over.

So which one is it? Cherry picking or a good stat?

CrimsonForce said:

There's a difference between "cherry picking" and recognizing a trend. You can compare stats during intervals of time...

The stat posted in the OP is during the same time period of a stat that I saw and posted here. The stat said that Alabama was worse team in FBS in defending 3rd and long since the start of 2014. The exact same time period of the one in the OP. Why is one cherry picking and one considered to be a great stat? Maybe because one shows the defense in a negative light and one doesn't. So maybe the "cherry picking" is just a farce and some folks don't want to hear anything but positives about the team. If that's the case that's fine but don't call everything that you don't like "cherry picking."?

Click to expand...

First, the clear trend is great Alabama defense. If you do more than look at a couple stats, or a few slanted perspective that's the clear trend that shows through. The other trend, as has been shown is of scoring overall, and more aggressive SEC offenses. That creates another trend.

I also, specifically said this statistic countered stuff like you posted. But, even the way you presented it again, played into the misleading nature of the stat you provided. Alabama was not worse percentage wise! The fact is their defense created so many third and longs that they ended up giving up the most, due to a weakness on defense. But to assert they were worst was to overlook the fact that no, they weren't the worst, there were quite a few teams worse than them. And therein lies the problem in presenting cherry picked statistics in the wrong manner, you might not be meaning to mislead, but you are when you say that without qualifying it by saying Alabama's percentage was bad but not the worst. It would still raise a valid concern if you said only 17 teams were worse than Alabama on third and longs, but it would also be more correct to present it in that manner.

That's ultimately how one cherry picks though. They take a statistic, they place several qualifiers on it, and then they take the additional step of presenting it how they want to. Were both stats cherry picked? Did both give some insight? Sure, but did one create a mistaken impression? I'd say yes, I even saw someone, after the last Alabama game claim Alabama had a weak secondary. They're 28th in passing efficiency defense, with three freshman back there, so far they're good and getting better. But, for some reason people seem to have a false impression...

In short though, anyone can cherry pick a stat to show any team is the the best or worst in anything, if they get specific enough. You can say oh, well at night playing in the rain they're the best against the pass on third down or something. The truth lies in realizing that these highly specialized stats only provide a tiny insight into the team as a whole.

KrAzY3 said:

First, the clear trend is great Alabama defense. If you do more than look at a couple stats, or a few slanted perspective that's the clear trend that shows through. The other trend, as has been shown is of scoring overall, and more aggressive SEC offenses. That creates another trend.

I also, specifically said this statistic countered stuff like you posted. But, even the way you presented it again, played into the misleading nature of the stat you provided. Alabama was not worse percentage wise! The fact is their defense created so many third and longs that they ended up giving up the most, due to a weakness on defense. But to assert they were worst was to overlook the fact that no, they weren't the worst, there were quite a few teams worse than them. And therein lies the problem in presenting cherry picked statistics in the wrong manner, you might not be meaning to mislead, but you are when you say that without qualifying it by saying Alabama's percentage was bad but not the worst.

That's ultimately how one cherry picks though. They take a statistic, they place several qualifiers on it, and then they take the additional step of presenting it how they want to. Were both stats cherry picked? Did both give some insight? Sure, but did one create a mistaken impression? I'd say yes, I even saw someone, after the last Alabama game claim Alabama had a weak secondary. They're 28th in passing efficiency defense, with three freshman back there, so far they're good and getting better. But, for some reason people seem to have a false impression...

Click to expand...

Since the start of the 2014 season:

Alabama was 128 out of 128 teams in giving up 52 conversions of 3rd and long.

Alabama was 111 out of 128 teams percentage wise in giving up 3rd and long at 33%.

Anything statistical will have qualifiers on it unless the stat is being measure from the beginning of time. That's called giving a stat perspective (and I have seen the highly specialized and specific stats that you referenced but IMO the stats of 3rd and long for a team over the span of a year isn't one of those). So since the start of the 2014 season those are the numbers of Alabama's defense defending 3rd and long. What's misleading about that? It doesn't mean the defense as a whole isn't good. It's just showing an aspect of the defense that could use a tremendous amount of improvement..

I don't care to revisit the discussion or debate about the 3rd and long stat again. I just found it ironic that the stat in the OP in this thread was a great stat and the one I posted was "cherry picked" when they both covered the exact span of time..

CrimsonForce said:

Since the start of the 2014 season:

Alabama was 128 out of 128 teams in giving up 52 conversions of 3rd and long.

Alabama was 111 out of 128 teams percentage wise in giving up 3rd and long at 33%.

Anything statistical will have qualifiers on it unless the stat is being measure from the beginning of time. That's called giving a stat perspective. So since the start of the 2014 season those are the numbers of Alabama's defense defending 3rd and long. What's misleading about that? It doesn't mean the defense as a whole isn't good. It's just showing an aspect of the defense that could use a tremendous amount of improvement..

Click to expand...

I don't want to spar, or argue, and I didn't post anything intended to create an argument with you. I responded to your post directed towards me, so please don't take it the wrong way.

Also, we were critical of the stat provided. B1g accurately pointed out that it doesn't tell the whole story, there was no argument from me there. I never said one was cherry picked and the other wasn't. I think one was intended to make the defense look good, the other intended to make the defense look bad.

What the statistic you posted was intended to do, by the person who made it, was to portray the Alabama defense as having an inherent weakness of some sort. It stated from 2014-2015 and you've re-posted the statistic in such a manner that would lead one to believe it is accurate up to the current date.

It's not accurate. I don't have the exact stats, but ULM was 3/20 overall on third down. So, the stats are not current and they'd need to be recompiled. Also, as I pointed out, to say Alabama was worse was to overlook the fact that 17 teams were worse.

It's all in the accurate presentation of data. If you want to say here's a stat, it's interesting, take it with a grain of salt be by guest. But if you present a stat in a manner that could be misleading, expect to get somewhat of a backlash, especially if you post it right after a loss when negativity is abundant. It obscured a truthful discussion of the matter, which was that in 2014, Alabama had a legitimate problem with big plays. There's a stat for that of course, but they're really the same thing. Either way it's far too early to tell if this team is going to have the same issue.

KrAzY3 said:

I don't want to spar, or argue, and I didn't post anything intended to create an argument with you. I responded to your post directed towards me, so please don't take it the wrong way.

Also, we were critical of the stat provided. B1g accurately pointed out that it doesn't tell the whole story, there was no argument from me there. I never said one was cherry picked and the other wasn't. I think one was intended to make the defense look good, the other intended to make the defense look bad.

What the statistic you posted was intended to do, by the person who made it, was to portray the Alabama defense as having an inherent weakness of some sort. It stated from 2014-2015 and you've re-posted the statistic in such a manner that would lead one to believe it is accurate up to the current date.

It's not accurate. I don't have the exact stats, but ULM was 3/20 overall on third down. So, the stats are not current and they'd need to be recompiled. Also, as I pointed out, to say Alabama was worse was to overlook the fact that 17 teams were worse.

It's all in the accurate presentation of data. If you want to say here's a stat, it's interesting, take it with a grain of salt be by guest. But if you present a stat in a manner that could be misleading, expect to get somewhat of a backlash, especially if you post it right after a loss when negativity is abundant. It obscured a truthful discussion of the matter, which was that in 2014, Alabama had a legitimate problem with big plays. There's a stat for that of course, but they're really the same thing. Either way it's far too early to tell if this team is going to have the same issue.

Click to expand...

Any statistical analysis worth talking about will be presented in a given time frame. Presenting stats in a given span of time is not misleading. I understand what you referenced about very specific stats, i.e. on 2nd down if the wind is blowing and the team is on the short side of the field blah blah blah. Yes, I can see how that would be misleading. However, referencing a stat over the span of an entire year is not misleading IMO. If you feel that stats given during a specific period of time are misleading then we can agree to disagree about it. But if you do feel that way then I'm not sure how you could ever have a discussion about statistical data because in your mind it would always have a qualifier and be misleading.

BTW, I was just re-posting the 3rd and long stat as a reference from the other thread. It wasn't intended to be presented as updated..

Rush said:

I have just been LOVIN' this this year...

Click to expand...

Me too. One of these games a tipped pass is going to turn into a pick six. I wouldn't mind if it was this weekend.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

That's amazing! Chubb likes to run outside a lot within their offense in my opinion. No way he runs between the tackles on us.


Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus RTR

Here's another impressive one that ties into the OP.

CrimsonForce said:

If you feel that stats given during a specific period of time are misleading then we can agree to disagree about it. But if you do feel that way then I'm not sure how you could ever have a discussion about statistical data because in your mind it would always have a qualifier and be misleading

Click to expand...

To avoid any confusion on this, I explained the mentality in another post, about why I, and perhaps others would take issue with certain things. You posted here, asking what the difference was and I tried to explain the other side of it, why some might take issue with the statistics themselves. I don't really think there is a difference in terms of statistical relevance though, I do think both were cherry picked and without more supporting data lacked much context.

I am kind of a stats guy though, I cite stats all the time, I look stuff up all the time. I try to be rational, and if I'm not sure I'll look up the numbers and often form my opinion around those. I'm certainly not saying you can't use stats, by all means to do, just trying to answer why some stats might raise more issues than others.

All data is subject to being skewed if presented with ulterior motives (not saying you have them, but I absolutely believe some on social media and what not do). For instance, the last thing I wrote in which I cited several stats, I took care to come up with the date range and criteria before I looked up a single number. If anyone goes looking for a stat that says Alabama is #1, or conversely the worst, you can find one, but what does that really prove?

I'll give one example though, outside the realm of sports to provide my perspective. After Katrina, a lot of people were very alarmist about hurricanes. I live in Mobile, if the hurricane apocalypse was coming, I'd have been very much in danger. Some people kept presenting skewed hurricane data, arguing that rising temperatures were causing stronger and more frequent hurricanes. And, their data did make it appear that way. They went back several decades and showed that clearly hurricanes were becoming more frequent and stronger. The problem? The data started at a cyclical low. Go back a few years and you have several major hurricanes, and that blew up the entire "trend" they were trying to cite. I never accepted that skewed data, I argued strongly against it, I didn't move, and guess what? We went into another low activity cycle. The alarmists looked foolish (but don't worry they move quickly on to something else that's going to kill us all).

The key is to critically analyze data. That was done here, that was done with your post, and when in doubt look deeper, that's all I'm really saying. Any data can be "cherry picked" even if it covers decades. It doesn't invalidate the data, but to have true value it often needs more analysis in the very least.

KrAzY3 said:

To avoid any confusion on this, I explained the mentality in another post, about why I, and perhaps others would take issue with certain things. You posted here, asking what the difference was and I tried to explain the other side of it, why some might take issue with the statistics themselves. I don't really think there is a difference in terms of statistical relevance though, I do think both were cherry picked and without more supporting data lacked much context.

I am kind of a stats guy though, I cite stats all the time, I look stuff up all the time. I try to be rational, and if I'm not sure I'll look up the numbers and often form my opinion around those. I'm certainly not saying you can't use stats, by all means to do, just trying to answer why some stats might raise more issues than others.

All data is subject to being skewed if presented with ulterior motives (not saying you have them, but I absolutely believe some on social media and what not do). For instance, the last thing I wrote in which I cited several stats, I took care to come up with the date range and criteria before I looked up a single number. If anyone goes looking for a stat that says Alabama is #1, or conversely the worst, you can find one, but what does that really prove?

I'll give one example though, outside the realm of sports to provide my perspective. After Katrina, a lot of people were very alarmist about hurricanes. I live in Mobile, if the hurricane apocalypse was coming, I'd have been very much in danger. Some people kept presenting skewed hurricane data, arguing that rising temperatures were causing stronger and stronger hurricanes. And, their data did make it appear that way. They went back several decades and showed that clearly hurricanes were becoming more frequent and stronger. The problem? The data started at a cyclical low. Go back a few years and you have several major hurricanes, and that blew up the entire "trend" they were trying to cite. I never accepted that skewed data, I argued strongly against it, I didn't move, and guess what? We went into another low activity cycle. The alarmists looked foolish (but don't worry they move quickly on to something else that's going to kill us all). The key here though is to critically analyze data. That was done here, that was done with your post, and when in doubt look deeper, that's all I'm really saying. Any data can be "cherry picked" even if it covers decades.

Click to expand...

That's cool. I guess we just have a different way of looking at things. I think there's value of looking at data as a trend or a snapshot in time. You like to place things in a more historical context. Neither way is right or wrong and valuable information can be ascertained by either method. In fact, based on our conversations, I may be more apt to study statistical analysis more closely before I form an opinion about the data. I appreciate the discussion..