Most worthless stat in sports?

[Suburban Rhythm]

Thought about making this a poll, but didn't want to limit the answers to only those choices I came up with.

The 'NHL removing divisions' thread as well as a conversation at work yesterday had me thinking about this.

I've got a few answers bouncing around my head, but for me it's the GWG in hockey. Scoring the 2nd goal in what becomes a 5-0 lead for your team, before surrendering 1 goal with minutes to play, doesn't make your goal all that important, and certainly not enough to have a stat made up to recognize said goals.

[cody8200]

A stathead would definitely say Wins and Losses for baseball. Both of which the pitcher has little to do with.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by cody8200

A stathead would definitely say Wins and Losses for baseball. Both of which the pitcher has little to do with.

So Barry Zito didn't have much to do with his win/loss record the last few years?

[cody8200]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

So Barry Zito didn't have much to do with his win/loss record the last few years?

I should have just said wins. Losses are much more controllable.

More details:

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insid...26id%3d5599365

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

A quality start is 6 IP 3 ER which equals a 4.50 era.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by LastWhiteSoxFanStanding

A quality start is 6 IP 3 ER which equals a 4.50 era.

Below average is the new quality!

[larrymcg421]

Saves in baseball. Not only is it useless, but it has been damaging to the strategy of the game.

[gstelmack]

Agreed on saves in baseball. What about WAR? So useless no one can agree on a definition!

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Agreed on saves in baseball. What about WAR? So useless no one can agree on a definition!

What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

[Marc Vaughan]

Pretty much any soccer stat which isn't taken in context with other information - for instance a team might have 60% posession because the opposition is playing counter attacking and allowing them to push forward or because they are truly dominating a game ....

Similarly a team might have had 20 shots on goal all from 30 yards or might have had them all from close range, context is everything.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Agreed on saves in baseball. What about WAR? So useless no one can agree on a definition!

don't talk shit about war
we are going to start using that to decide the mvp

[Logan]

BCS Average.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by cody8200

I should have just said wins. Losses are much more controllable.

More details:

Keith Law: Starting pitchers only responsible for piece of the 'Pie' - ESPN

Ah gotcha.

[Toddzilla]

whatever that horseshit QB rating stat ESPN conjured up this summer

[A-Husker-4-Life]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

whatever that horseshit QB rating stat ESPN conjured up this summer

this

[korme]

Originally Posted by cody8200

A stathead would definitely say Wins and Losses for baseball. Both of which the pitcher has little to do with.

Thread over

[spleen1015]

Comparing how good a QB is and how much his team wins....

[korme]

Just wins, though. As mentioned. A pitcher doing a great job at sucking deserves all the L's he racks up

[Simbo Klice]

Red Zone Scoring %. Since a FG counts for the same as a TD, it's usually misleading; they should redo it to be points per trip.

[Dr. Sak]

+/- in Hockey

[Coffee Warlord]

Baseball Wins, hands down.

Though I have to agree, ESPN really outdid themselves with that horrid QB rating they came up with.

And on a similar subject...most QB based stats in general are garbage. I'd really like to see some sort of advanced metric for QB completions, factoring in drops & Blatantly Not The QB's Fault picks.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

+/- in Hockey

This, by far.

[Izulde]

What makes +/- worthless in hockey? The lower number of points scored? It's a genuine question, as I find it of some value in basketball.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Baseball Wins, hands down.

Though I have to agree, ESPN really outdid themselves with that horrid QB rating they came up with.

And on a similar subject...most QB based stats in general are garbage. I'd really like to see some sort of advanced metric for QB completions, factoring in drops & Blatantly Not The QB's Fault picks.

Have you looked at Football Outsider QB stats? I feel like they do an admirable job of looking at the real picture as much as they can.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

And on a similar subject...most QB based stats in general are garbage. I'd really like to see some sort of advanced metric for QB completions, factoring in drops & Blatantly Not The QB's Fault picks.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | 2011 QUARTERBACKS

[jbergey22]

Many great opinions so far.

Im going to say turnovers in basketball. As with many of the suggested ones, this on its own says nothing as a stat. In most years the 5-10 best players in the NBA are on this leaderboard because they have the ball in their hands so much and are making things happen.

As a team stat it means something, individually I dont feel it means much of anything.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Izulde

What makes +/- worthless in hockey? The lower number of points scored? It's a genuine question, as I find it of some value in basketball.

Im not a big hockey guy but I assume they mean with the different lines out there that do different things. You may play your best defensive line against the other teams best offensive line which will make your +/- look poor on that defensive line.

[korme]

+/- in basketball is really kind of stupid, as well.

[albionmoonlight]

This might not be quite at the level of some of the others, but I'd say rushing touchdowns in football. That, to me, has much more to do with opportunity than ability.

Also, tackles in football are a pretty useless stat. Especially because hometown scorekeepers freely assign tackles to the team's defensive star as long as he was within 3 yards of the ballcarrier when he went down.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Simbo Klice

Red Zone Scoring %. Since a FG counts for the same as a TD, it's usually misleading; they should redo it to be points per trip.

Yards gained / yards allowed, used as metrics for ranking offenses and defenses.

Points scored / points allowed is much closer, although we need to factor defensive TDs in here somewhere properly, they aren't "scored" by the offense or "allowed" by the defense.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by Izulde

What makes +/- worthless in hockey? The lower number of points scored? It's a genuine question, as I find it of some value in basketball.

Hockey Prospectus | Numbers On Ice: Fixing Plus/Minus

Pretty good article summing it up. Good players on bad teams are going to have more ice time and likely a higher minus number because of it. Plus/Minus is not indicative of skill or talent whatsoever.

[korme]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Yards gained / yards allowed, used as metrics for ranking offenses and defenses.

Also agreed. Football is still pretty much in the stoneage when it comes to modern statistical analysis.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

+/- in Hockey

Originally Posted by Grover

This, by far.

Originally Posted by Grover

Hockey Prospectus | Numbers On Ice: Fixing Plus/Minus

Pretty good article summing it up. Good players on bad teams are going to have more ice time and likely a higher minus number because of it. Plus/Minus is not indicative of skill or talent whatsoever.

I think the way most people use/perceive it, it's a terrible stat. But used "properly", it's not bad. Not great, but not bad. Taken in context with other information like QUALCOMP, it can be helpful.


As I said in my original post, GWG is crap. Its tells you nothing, other than a guy scored A goal at some point in A game...which possibly 50+ minutes later becomes the goal the is the one for his team that just so happens to be 1 more than the other team scored.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

This might not be quite at the level of some of the others, but I'd say rushing touchdowns in football. That, to me, has much more to do with opportunity than ability.

Also, tackles in football are a pretty useless stat. Especially because hometown scorekeepers freely assign tackles to the team's defensive star as long as he was within 3 yards of the ballcarrier when he went down.

The Ray Lewis rule. Even if he's the 5th guy on the pile, tackle.

Hits in hockey are notoriously skewed in certain rinks.

[Grover]

Suburban, how do you feel about CORSI?

[DanGarion]

Any statistic that includes a number instead of a subjective explanation of players perceived ability and skill.

[bulletsponge]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Baseball Wins, hands down.

Though I have to agree, ESPN really outdid themselves with that horrid QB rating they came up with.

And on a similar subject...most QB based stats in general are garbage. I'd really like to see some sort of advanced metric for QB completions, factoring in drops & Blatantly Not The QB's Fault picks.

+1000000. passing yards and passing TD's are touted every week but indicate nothing on how well he played. worthless stats

[Crapshoot]

RBI's are clearly horrific, and wins for pitchers are pretty mediocre (still, better than RBI's).

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

I think the way most people use/perceive it, it's a terrible stat. But used "properly", it's not bad. Not great, but not bad. Taken in context with other information like QUALCOMP, it can be helpful.


As I said in my original post, GWG is crap. Its tells you nothing, other than a guy scored A goal at some point in A game...which possibly 50+ minutes later becomes the goal the is the one for his team that just so happens to be 1 more than the other team scored.

I was under the impression that a goal only counts as a GWG if it is a 2 goal or less victory. In your example, a 5-1 win would not qualify that 2nd goal as a GWG. Unless something has changed with how it is measured or I am mistaken (which would not be unusual in the least).

[Grover]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I was under the impression that a goal only counts as a GWG if it is a 2 goal or less victory. In your example, a 5-1 win would not qualify that 2nd goal as a GWG. Unless something has changed with how it is measured or I am mistaken (which would not be unusual in the least).

A game-winning goal (GWG) is the (n + 1)th goal scored by a team that defeats a team which scores n goals; e.g. if team A beats team B 2-1, the scorer of team A's second goal is credited with the GWG, if team A beats team B 4-2, the scorer of team A's third goal is credited with the game-winner.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I was under the impression that a goal only counts as a GWG if it is a 2 goal or less victory. In your example, a 5-1 win would not qualify that 2nd goal as a GWG. Unless something has changed with how it is measured or I am mistaken (which would not be unusual in the least).

So then you change the example to the 4th goal in a 5-3 win. It's still a stupid stat. Baseball used to have a similarly stupid stat GWRBI and wisely scrapped it for the same arguments made above. It says quite a bit when baseball, king of the ridiculous stats, gets rid of a stat because it is a stupid.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by korme

Just wins, though. As mentioned. A pitcher doing a great job at sucking deserves all the L's he racks up

So a pitcher losing 1-0 deserves the L? A pitcher loses 10-0 but all the runs are unearned and he still deserves the L?

[SteveMax58]

Balks

[albionmoonlight]

Oh, and any stat where the cut-off number is clearly arbitrary and created for purposes of the stat.

I am seeing this a lot with Drew Brees right now. He's having an epic run, but some of the "records" that they are talking about are not "records" in any real sense. Things like consecutive games with 20+ completions. Why 20? Because he probably had less than 25 in a few of those games. And some other guy would probably have the record if you made it 18.

Another example is something like "Only player to go 5 or more games in a row with at least 17 points, 10 rebounds, and 7 assists."

Even though all numbers are somewhat arbitrary, I get using certain agreed upon milestone numbers (100 yards rushing, hat trick of goals, 10 rebounds, etc.) to base a "record" on. It is when you don't even bother to tether yourself to that that I have a problem.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Grover

A game-winning goal (GWG) is the (n + 1)th goal scored by a team that defeats a team which scores n goals; e.g. if team A beats team B 2-1, the scorer of team A's second goal is credited with the GWG, if team A beats team B 4-2, the scorer of team A's third goal is credited with the game-winner.

I understand how the stat works, I just wasn't aware that it is still considered a GWG if a team wins by 3 or more goals.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

So then you change the example to the 4th goal in a 5-3 win. It's still a stupid stat. Baseball used to have a similarly stupid stat GWRBI and wisely scrapped it for the same arguments made above. It says quite a bit when baseball, king of the ridiculous stats, gets rid of a stat because it is a stupid.

Oh I totally agree the stat is worthless.

[Groundhog]

                POS MIN  FG-FGA  FT-FTA  3P-3PA ORB-TRB AS ST BL TO PF  TP
Earl,Acie         C  44  13-23   14-19    0- 1    4-12   3  0  2  6  3  40

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Grover

A game-winning goal (GWG) is the (n + 1)th goal scored by a team that defeats a team which scores n goals; e.g. if team A beats team B 2-1, the scorer of team A's second goal is credited with the GWG, if team A beats team B 4-2, the scorer of team A's third goal is credited with the game-winner.

Only semi-related, but a good example of ridiculous stats.

Last night, Carolina brings in goalie Mike Murphy late in the third period while trailing Calgary 6-3. It's 6-4 when he ends up getting pulled for an extra attacker with a minute left. The Flames score an empty netter to make it 7-4. Carolina then almost pulls off the miracle comeback, scoring twice in the final minute. Final score is Calgary 7, Carolina 6.

The end result: Because of the comeback, the Flames' seventh goal (into an empty net) becomes the "winner". And because Murphy was the goalie of record, he takes the loss even though he was on the bench when it was scored.

The kicker is that it was his NHL debut, making him the first (and let's just assume only) goalie in NHL history to lose a game before ever giving up a goal.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

+/- in Hockey

Slightly worse than GWG. The +/- stat in hockey measures a player individually but is really an indication of the entire line of players on the ice, not just that player's individual performance.

I hate +/-.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Grover

Suburban, how do you feel about CORSI?

I think it helps confirm notions most people feel, but normally can't quantify. Zetterberg is typically at or near the top of this list. Most people can watch a game and see he, and his team, posses the puck and spend a lot of time in the opponent's zone, but now have a concrete number.