Washington Post: Clinton Portis' Misleading Stats

Today I've got another post up at the Washington Post's Redskins Insider site about how misleading Clinton Portis' rushing yardage totals are. He's managed to post some impressive totals, but he's been a net drag on the Redskins' offense during his tenure in Washington. With his recent injury, it gives the Redskins the chance to reevaluate their running game.

I've had several other posts there too, but some of them are Redskin-specific applications of some of the other concepts and stats I've already written about. But in case you're interested, here they are. Caution: The comments there are unmoderated. You will be dumber after having read them. Outside of the comments, there's been a lot of good feedback, so don't assume there aren't any smart Redskins fans out there.

  • Spread The Love
  • Digg This Post
  • Tweet This Post
  • Stumble This Post
  • Submit This Post To Delicious
  • Submit This Post To Reddit
  • Submit This Post To Mixx

8 Responses to “Washington Post: Clinton Portis' Misleading Stats”

  1. Anonymous says:

    I just read the comments over at the Washington Post and I don't no what your talking about. They all seem to very intiligint comments too me!

  2. DA Baracus says:

    My god are those comments stupid. I particularly like the one by the guy who thinks lots of tackles by a CB is a good thing.

  3. Ian Simcox says:

    Great comments as ever over there. I especially like the 'Brian Burke = NERD' comment.

    Who's the nerd though? The author (an ex-navy pilot), or the guy who both reads fully the nerd's article and comments on it?

    I enjoyed the article - perhaps could have used some comparison against other backs for context - but otherwise great points.

  4. Dave O says:

    Seriously, stop worrying about the comments. WaPo is an exceptionally high-traffic site and all high traffic sites have the same problem (if you want true horror read the comments on any Politico.com article). They are not only not representative of Redskin fans, they are not even representative of the people who read your post because anyone with a sensible opinion isn't going to bother posting it just to have it get lost in that mess.

  5. Jonathan says:

    This post ought to be retitled, "I'm a numbers nerd and no nothing about football".

    That was my favorite. I definitely got dumber just from reading that comment, but it was worth it.

  6. Eric says:

    It's a morass of idiocy on RI, for sure. That said, I don't think that Brian's posts there have added much to Skins fans' understanding of their team, and I say that as a big fan of this blog. Doesn't excuse the dopiness of posters, though.

    The 'Skins have been an average team, with average personnel for a long time. We've even had long spells of back luck, which takes in the averageness and spits out a losing record. Tough to watch, year in and out.

  7. Tarr says:

    As you imply at the end, all we really know from this is that the Redskins should be running less often with Portis when he is on the field. What we don't know from this is:

    a) whether another running back would do better in the same situation (although there's plenty of data from his backups, so we could analyze this), and

    b) whether Portis's much-touted prowess in pass blocking makes up for this. That is much harder to measure.

  8. Anonymous says:

    fgb fghgfhgfhj jgjkj kjhkh

Leave a Reply

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.