Ireland v Argentina 2017

[artaneboy]

It would show up in tackles made/missed per minute played. Anyway, not a hill I wanna die on.

No, it wouldn't. Tackles not attempted because of positional errors wouldn't show up in any stats.

That point has been made at least three different times by three different posters and the response is basically more stats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peg Leg]

It would show up in tackles made/missed per minute played. Anyway, not a hill I wanna die on.

No, it wouldn't. Tackles not attempted because of positional errors wouldn't show up in any stats.

That point has been made at least three different times by three different posters and the response is basically more stats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And more paddy, bleeding out, up there on that hill.

[Peg Leg]

I must remember to shoot hugonaut down for his use of stats next time he's doing a PO'M takedown...
That said, i agree entirely with Paddyor and the point he is making. We are harsh on AB amd probably are searching for some confirmation of our own bias much like [Lobs grenade] JGP and/or LMcG... [Runs for cover]

[artaneboy]

I must remember to shoot hugonaut down for his use of stats next time he's doing a PO'M takedown...
That said, i agree entirely with Paddyor and the point he is making. We are harsh on AB amd probably are searching for some confirmation of our own bias much like [Lobs grenade] JGP and/or LMcG... [Runs for cover]

You better run!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[artaneboy]

I must remember to shoot hugonaut down for his use of stats next time he's doing a PO'M takedown...
That said, i agree entirely with Paddyor and the point he is making. We are harsh on AB amd probably are searching for some confirmation of our own bias much like [Lobs grenade] JGP and/or LMcG... [Runs for cover]

Seriously- stats are very useful when they are consistent and actually measure what they claim to measure. That’s the debate here.

There’s a principle called ‘falsifiability’ in science and philosophy that says that for a statement (or theory) to be useful in argument it should be possible to prove it wrong. You can’t prove something wrong if the measures used to illustrate it are inadequate or seriously inaccurate.

[wixfjord]

That point has been made at least three different times by three different posters and the response is basically more stats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It seems the response is not only more stats, but more arbitrary stats split in an even less meaningful way!

Adding 10 or 20 to make up a larger quantity of benign numbers that mean very little, and avoiding the actual evidence on the pitch!

I always go back to this piece by Wayne Smith. It fits very well here. https://www.therugbysite.com/blog/coach ... ayne-smith

The stats are often numerical fiction.

The tackle area is a good example of why stats do lie, of why they are completely misleading without the detail.

I must remember to shoot hugonaut down for his use of stats next time he's doing a PO'M takedown...
That said, i agree entirely with Paddyor and the point he is making. We are harsh on AB amd probably are searching for some confirmation of our own bias much like [Lobs grenade] JGP and/or LMcG... [Runs for cover]

Specifically what do you mean be 'we are harsh on AB amd probably are searching for some confirmation of our own bias'? Is there not enough actual evidence to not need to search for more to confirm a pre-existing bias? Did we not build that same bias from watching him play?!

[Peg Leg]

That point has been made at least three different times by three different posters and the response is basically more stats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It seems the response is not only more stats, but more arbitrary stats split in an even less meaningful way!

Adding 10 or 20 to make up a larger quantity of benign numbers that mean very little, and avoiding the actual evidence on the pitch!

I always go back to this piece by Wayne Smith. It fits very well here. https://www.therugbysite.com/blog/coach ... ayne-smith

The stats are often numerical fiction.

The tackle area is a good example of why stats do lie, of why they are completely misleading without the detail.

I must remember to shoot hugonaut down for his use of stats next time he's doing a PO'M takedown...
That said, i agree entirely with Paddyor and the point he is making. We are harsh on AB amd probably are searching for some confirmation of our own bias much like [Lobs grenade] JGP and/or LMcG... [Runs for cover]

Specifically what do you mean be 'we are harsh on AB amd probably are searching for some confirmation of our own bias'? Is there not enough actual evidence to not need to search for more to confirm a pre-existing bias? Did we not build that same bias from watching him play?!

The bias being his defence is bad and any error proves the point (that element of his game gets deep scrutiny). He has improved a lot this season ergo there was enough, but less so as he develops this season. To me thats the point, the focus is more on the (now less frequent) bad read than the other elements of his game. Daly on the other hand gets a pass... I've no problem with paddy raising the issue using the only available stats as a defence performance indicator.

[ronk]

Not all missed tackles are equal. And there are high profile cases where a bad read costs points without even missing a tackle.

AB has made some bad reads but is improving and i cant wait for him to get a few games beside Rob to tighten up that part of his game.

Sometimes the reputation from an impression can well beyond whrn the play changes. ABs tackle stats do offer some useful context to assessing his defence.

[wixfjord]

The bias being his defence is bad and any error proves the point (that element of his game gets deep scrutiny). He has improved a lot this season ergo there was enough, but less so as he develops this season. To me thats the point, the focus is more on the (now less frequent) bad read than the other elements of his game. Daly on the other hand gets a pass... I've no problem with paddy raising the issue using the only available stats as a defence performance indicator.

That doesn't make sense. Errors do prove the point
That's not bias.

The focus is on because he has a habit over the last 18 months or so of doing something. It's not because of some perceived unfair bias. It's objective. It's because that's what he has been doing on the pitch consistently (including this season by the way).

Daly isn't 'getting a pass'. What a bizarre comment. Daly has nowhere near the level of defensive problems Byrne has. Also Byrne is a far more impressive physical specimen, his issues are on the positioning and concentration side, both fixable, but he seems to be make little or at best slow progress towards them, which is why there's more frustration with him. You mentioned JGP, it's the same with him. He's very talented and could be a potential international, if he just focused on the one or two consistently bad parts of his game. You can both say they're very good players and at the same time say they have serious flaws without being called 'biased'.

The stats Paddy is raising are nice stats. But they're arguing a completely different point and he's then trying to shehorn and edit them to make a different one. That's bias if anything!

[artaneboy]

The bias being his defence is bad and any error proves the point (that element of his game gets deep scrutiny). He has improved a lot this season ergo there was enough, but less so as he develops this season. To me thats the point, the focus is more on the (now less frequent) bad read than the other elements of his game. Daly on the other hand gets a pass... I've no problem with paddy raising the issue using the only available stats as a defence performance indicator.

Oh, so it's you that has the confirmation bias then! That's clear from that series of totally stat free (thank you for that anyway) judgements. I'm genuinely not sure what you mean by, "He has improved a lot this season ergo there was enough,..." typo possibly. But to contend that he has made less bad reads this season- from what was a very poor base level last season in the first place, has no basis in stats- as we have established there are none, nor either in the old-fashioned observable world. He was a definite liability in a couple of games. So to say "I've no problem with paddy raising the issue using the only available stats as a defence performance indicator." is the equivalent as saying 'I haven't a problem with someone claiming the increased number of diesel cars on the road is improving the environment'- even though we know that it's not an accurate measure at all. Same applies to the tackles equaling defence
.

[Peg Leg]

The bias being his defence is bad and any error proves the point (that element of his game gets deep scrutiny). He has improved a lot this season ergo there was enough, but less so as he develops this season. To me thats the point, the focus is more on the (now less frequent) bad read than the other elements of his game. Daly on the other hand gets a pass... I've no problem with paddy raising the issue using the only available stats as a defence performance indicator.

That doesn't make sense. Errors do prove the point
That's not bias.

The focus is on because he has a habit over the last 18 months or so of doing something. It's not because of some perceived unfair bias. It's objective. It's because that's what he has been doing on the pitch consistently (including this season by the way).

Daly isn't 'getting a pass'. What a bizarre comment. Daly has nowhere near the level of defensive problems Byrne has. Also Byrne is a far more impressive physical specimen, his issues are on the positioning and concentration side, both fixable, but he seems to be make little or at best slow progress towards them, which is why there's more frustration with him. You mentioned JGP, it's the same with him. He's very talented and could be a potential international, if he just focused on the one or two consistently bad parts of his game. You can both say they're very good players and at the same time say they have serious flaws without being called 'biased'.

The stats Paddy is raising are nice stats. But they're arguing a completely different point and he's then trying to shehorn and edit them to make a different one. That's bias if anything!

Im talking about confirmation bias. A trend is noted at a point in time. It is taken as a consistency at that point in time and regardless of the decrease in frequency of said trend being repeated, every instance thereafter is treated as proof of the original noted trend (regardless of the passing of time or changes made).

[Oldschoolsocks]

The bias being his defence is bad and any error proves the point (that element of his game gets deep scrutiny). He has improved a lot this season ergo there was enough, but less so as he develops this season. To me thats the point, the focus is more on the (now less frequent) bad read than the other elements of his game. Daly on the other hand gets a pass... I've no problem with paddy raising the issue using the only available stats as a defence performance indicator.

Oh, so it's you that has the confirmation bias then! That's clear from that series of totally stat free (thank you for that anyway) judgements. I'm genuinely not sure what you mean by, "He has improved a lot this season ergo there was enough,..." typo possibly. But to contend that he has made less bad reads this season- from what was a very poor base level last season in the first place, has no basis in stats- as we have established there are none, nor either in the old-fashioned observable world. He was a definite liability in a couple of games. So to say "I've no problem with paddy raising the issue using the only available stats as a defence performance indicator." is the equivalent as saying 'I haven't a problem with someone claiming the increased number of diesel cars on the road is improving the environment'- even though we know that it's not an accurate measure at all. Same applies to the tackles equaling defence
.

i'd say you're great craic to go for pints with

[artaneboy]

The bias being his defence is bad and any error proves the point (that element of his game gets deep scrutiny). He has improved a lot this season ergo there was enough, but less so as he develops this season. To me thats the point, the focus is more on the (now less frequent) bad read than the other elements of his game. Daly on the other hand gets a pass... I've no problem with paddy raising the issue using the only available stats as a defence performance indicator.

Oh, so it's you that has the confirmation bias then! That's clear from that series of totally stat free (thank you for that anyway) judgements. I'm genuinely not sure what you mean by, "He has improved a lot this season ergo there was enough,..." typo possibly. But to contend that he has made less bad reads this season- from what was a very poor base level last season in the first place, has no basis in stats- as we have established there are none, nor either in the old-fashioned observable world. He was a definite liability in a couple of games. So to say "I've no problem with paddy raising the issue using the only available stats as a defence performance indicator." is the equivalent as saying 'I haven't a problem with someone claiming the increased number of diesel cars on the road is improving the environment'- even though we know that it's not an accurate measure at all. Same applies to the tackles equaling defence
.

i'd say you're great craic to go for pints with

Well, you'll never have to worry about it!

[Oldschoolsocks]

have you taken the pledge?

[Fan with smartphone]

Lol.

I think it was Dick Spring, or Einstein, who said “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.” Mind you, as we know to our cost, money can be counted and apparently it also counts.

It’s fair to discuss his defence, there are issues and we’ve seen them this year, but I’ve always felt the criticism is excessive and his mistakes fixable. For example, had Byrne allowed Nadolo to kick past him on the sideline, not complete the tackle on him (when he probably legally could have) and allow a try up his wing, well I think Byrne would have been absolutely slated. Franno would have had a column on it. That’s what Sweetnam did, but if you ask most people, Sweetnam had a good November and enhanced his reputation. That’s not to run down Sweetnam, but as peg leg says about Daly, I’d argue Byrne gets a harder time than that. Maybe that’s being judged to a higher standard as more is expected of him, or maybe he’s just got the name as a bad defender and he’ll just have to live with that forever. I dunno, but I think he’ll be a better defender for the work of the past month. Joe claims they weren’t looking back at 2015 and he suggests he didn’t want his wingers backing off, but I suspect there was plenty of studying the 2015 game and plenty of work on only bite in if you absolutely have to. Whether that will be enough to make him the best 14 in Leinster and Ireland over the next few years is hard to say just yet.

[wixfjord]

Im talking about confirmation bias. A trend is noted at a point in time. It is taken as a consistency at that point in time and regardless of the decrease in frequency of said trend being repeated, every instance thereafter is treated as proof of the original noted trend (regardless of the passing of time or changes made).

Oh I know what you're talking about. But it's not confirmation bias if you don't have to go searching for false examples to confirm your bias.
The trend is being repeated this season.

As a wise man once said, "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?".
The information hasn't changed all that much. If it does, I'll alter my opinion.

You're accusing people of confirmation bias, but ironically you're falling prey to the very same thing by seeing looking for reasons to back up your feeling that every negative point around this issue is down to bias! You've fallen into The Matrix!

It's factually correct to say that Byrne has issues with his defence, particularly his positioning and tentativeness, and they've continued into this year.

It's not factually correct to say that tackle stats would indicate otherwise, since they don't actually measure this. It's not factually correct to add an arbitrary number to tackle stats to try to make up some argument. It's not factually correct to say that pointing out annoying, recurring, solveable flaws in an otherwise excellent young player's game is 'conformation bias'.

[wixfjord]

It’s fair to discuss his defence, there are issues and we’ve seen them this year, but I’ve always felt the criticism is excessive and his mistakes fixable.

If the criticism is excessive then maybe it's because his mistakes are so easily fixable? (But so far haven't been fixed.)

As I've said, the same thing happens with JGP and McGrath too. Players with high ceilings and fixable inconsistencies in their game tend to get more flak than players with lower ceilings. That's part and parcel of being highly rated. If Byrne wants to make a step up and cement his place in green and blue, he'll need to actually fix these things. I believe he can, but it's not 'unfair' or excessive to point out specific examples where he hasn't!

[artaneboy]

It’s fair to discuss his defence, there are issues and we’ve seen them this year, but I’ve always felt the criticism is excessive and his mistakes fixable.

If the criticism is excessive then maybe it's because his mistakes are so easily fixable? (But so far haven't been fixed.)

As I've said, the same thing happens with JGP and McGrath too. Players with high ceilings and fixable inconsistencies in their game tend to get more flak than players with lower ceilings. That's part and parcel of being highly rated. If Byrne wants to make a step up and cement his place in green and blue, he'll need to actually fix these things. I believe he can, but it's not 'unfair' or excessive to point out specific examples where he hasn't!

Ye know what? I can't argue with anything in your last two posts. Well and succinctly put.

[Peg Leg]

The bias being his defence is bad and any error proves the point (that element of his game gets deep scrutiny). He has improved a lot this season ergo there was enough, but less so as he develops this season. To me thats the point, the focus is more on the (now less frequent) bad read than the other elements of his game. Daly on the other hand gets a pass... I've no problem with paddy raising the issue using the only available stats as a defence performance indicator.

Oh, so it's you that has the confirmation bias then! That's clear from that series of totally stat free (thank you for that anyway) judgements. I'm genuinely not sure what you mean by, "He has improved a lot this season ergo there was enough,..." typo possibly. But to contend that he has made less bad reads this season- from what was a very poor base level last season in the first place, has no basis in stats- as we have established there are none, nor either in the old-fashioned observable world. He was a definite liability in a couple of games. So to say "I've no problem with paddy raising the issue using the only available stats as a defence performance indicator." is the equivalent as saying 'I haven't a problem with someone claiming the increased number of diesel cars on the road is improving the environment'- even though we know that it's not an accurate measure at all. Same applies to the tackles equaling defence
.

Yes, my bias.
Not a typo just a nonsensical sentence. Read: he has improved a lot this season, ergo there were enough mistakes to feed my own assertion that he was very bad in defence,.....

Paddy sought to raise a topic, chose the defence stats available for AB and his peers and presented them to help form the discussion. Your contention that the stats do not present the empirical data to assess 100% of the body work therefore no stats can be included in the conversation is a bit much.
Your comparison between my statement and your diesel car line is good though, i like it. But your missing the point, i think the stats that paddy read (and likely surprised him) gave him food for thought and he posted them here to start a conversation about AB's defence. My response was to state that there were some gaps in the data, yours was to get the step ladder out for that high horse of yours, saddle up and trample all over the stats and paddy's use of them.

Im playing a longer game, I'd like Paddy to keep paying his subscription fee and continue to share some of the insights (read: stats) that the management teams also use in assessing player performance.

[Logorrhea]

Em, he was just called into the Ireland team to make his debut??

Doesnt mean he has learned to tackle.

Did Leo say that officially? Missed that one!

Of course he didn't but again, that doesn't make the series of poor defensive games just disappear.

Taking a more long term view I just feel like he was all over the place when he first came into the side and, while he still makes errors, he looks more assured now and makes fewer mistakes.

Yeah thats fair enough. Hopefully that upward curve continues.