Originally Posted by Direckshun
Explain how statistics are not evidence.
Or are you just saying things because it's fun to say things.
As someone who hasn't read the thread, is bored and wants to post, what I believe Austin is saying is that statistics can be manipulated fairly easily and aren't entirely representative of the truth. As an example, one might see Matt Cassel's 27-7 td/int ratio and think "Golly, that's not half bad. You might be on to someting there." However, when evaluating more closely, one can see that that simply isn't even remotely ****ing close to being the case.
I'm not saying that's what happened here but statistics are consistently manipulated to appear better than what they actually are.