You have it exactly wrong. I'm not really going beat this too much more as you're obviously reading into what you think I'm saying as opposed to the case I've actually made.
In the context of this discussion the case was suggested on the basis of some stats that Miami has been better without Welker. WHAT FUCKING IDIOT BELIEVES THAT NO MATTER WHAT GOOFY STATS SOMEONE PULLS OUT OF THEIR ASS?? In just glancing at the corresponding stats it seemed they were glommed to create an illusion not borne out by reality. Miami was not better without Welker especially considering what Welker has done since.
You see, the problem isn't with stats as much as it is their susceptibility to shills exploiting them to gin up and support some nonsensical perspective.
Just like I said before, there was some dopey GOPer shill trying to carry water for GWB on Iraq claiming because of some statistic that Baghdad was 'safer' than DC. What idiot not carrying water would buy that?
In the college football thread someone cited Auburn's defense being 'worse' than Oregon's. By some numerical stat comparison they may appear to be but it's hard to know practically since Auburn's defensive ranking is based on a tougher schedule among other things. So in this case Auburn being ranked 54 (or whatever) is just a number.
Stats represent trends...that is useful information in some circumstances but in others they're just numbers. I watched a guy who shoots FTs at 91% for the Knicks miss 3 straight FTs against the Celtics last night. At that point in the game...in the middle of the game..with nothing on the line nor a strategy for fouling, etc. ...91 pct. was just another number.
