[aturnis]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Read his sig. It's cherry picking. When an opponent scores more than 24 points, Alex Loses! AMIRITE?

Well, actually, that statistic means nothing if Alex Smith's team ALSO scored more than 24 points. If his team loses 48-45, then it would fall under Clay's "Statistical analysis" (see: bullshit), because Smith's team technically lost while the opponent scored over 24 points. But so did his team. So, if the defense had held the opponent to 24 points, he would have won, and Clay's point would be meaningless. Granted, this isn't true for all of these losses or even a majority, but even one contrary example shows the fallacy in relying on statistical propaganda, which is what the sig is.

Still, it's an arbitrary benchmark. He's using statistics to prove points he already believes. That's cherry picking. He would have you believe that the only thing you have to do is to beat Smith is score 24 points, because clearly he was incapable of leading his team to more than four scores in a game. Ever.

They make for great discussion, but it's annoying as **** to have to go and do the research just to disprove a bullshit theory that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

I ****ing love the gifs though. They are far superior to statistics for making an argument.

I disagree with this. I think it is absolutely relevant. It shows that if his defense isn't capable of beating the other team, you can't really on him to beat them. Pretty simple shit.