Originally Posted by Sorter
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.
Statistics are evidence. Shit statistics are also evidence, albeit shit evidence. AC was talking out of his ass.
Now if you want to argue that the statistics I presented are shit statistics, go for it. But you're going to have to do better than an unverifiable conversation you had with some idiot in Europe. BEP would be a master debater on this forum if that was remotely acceptable. Christ.