Dear dimwit on the phone

Shouldn't he have negative passing yardage?

 

On the subject of bad statkeepers, I'll call a foul on myself. For a long time while covering high school basketball, I didn't count airballs as shots, nor did I credit the players who grabbed them with rebounds. I went by the NBA logic that if it doesn't hit the rim then the shot clock doesn't reset, so therefore it must not have been a shot. Just a pass, essentially.
Got straightened out one time on a stat thread by the SJ illuminati, and have reformed my ways. Too bad I probably cost dozens of kids double-doubles and the ensuing scholarships.

 

As silly as it may seem, I can understand confusion regarding kicks and punts. The punt yardage counts from the line of scrimmage, but the field goal yardage counts from where the guy kicks the ball.

 

No, pizza-delivery guy outside in the rain, I will not open the door and let you in no matter how many times you press the buzzer. There are two people in this newsroom, and neither one ordered pizza. Please call the person in some completely unrelated office who actually placed the order, and make him or her come downstairs to open the door and pay you. Or just go away... but leave the pizza.

 

Ice cold.

 

Shot or pass? Hit or error? Those sort of things can be judgment calls.

I covered a very good hockey team years ago and kept my own stats. The "official" stats always grossly inflated the shot totals. I think they credited guys for shots regardless of whether they missed the net or were blocked, etc.

 

That's funny you bring that up. I may have posted about this guy before, but a stats guy at an area school would give QBs negative passing yardage on interceptions. I don't think he ever corrected it, either.

 

If you take in-depth stats, those get counted up. Sadly the ones you report are the SOG, so being on goal is pretty key.

 

Well, the ones I never counted in basketball were clearly attempted shots. They just didn't hit anything, so I didn't think they were supposed to be counted. I was ignorant of the rule.

Have never covered a hockey game, but soccer seems pretty similar.
I count anything with intent and that's within reasonable accuracy (to account for shots that are just high or wide), or that the goalie has to keep from going into the net (to account for long through balls that are clearly heading toward the goal) as a shot.
Talking to some soccer coaches, though, it seems everyone has a different definition. Some will count anything their players kick in the general direction of the goal. Some are pretty strict and say if it doesn't hit the post, the back of the net, or the keeper, then it's not a shot.
I think my approach splits the difference, and since there's no real consensus it seems like a pretty good guideline.

 

For soccer, I will factor in intent. A long through ball isn't a shot, it's a through ball that the keeper got to first. I also track shots on goal and shots not on. That is something coaches have talked about, get chances but not getting them on frame.
With soccer a better stat can be corners. A team keeping pressure on for most of the game will generally have more corner kicks that the other.

 

NASCAR fan wrote in from last week after Gordon won at Kansas:
"Nice article on Patrick winning race Saturday night..oh wait she got seventh Jeff Gordon won...nice article Tell your sports writer he missed his call. When you have to put seventh before first because she is a female..time to change papers.."

I guess that "Associated Press" credit line on the story and photos was read real well....glad to know that our reader thinks we are so big time we send our own reporter halfway across the country to cover a race though. haha

 

In hockey, a shot on goal has to either (1) go in the net for a goal or (2) be stopped by the goalie. A shot that hits the post, or gets past the goalie and is knocked away by another defender before crossing the line does NOT get counted as a shot on goal.

Thus there is a mathematical formula, just like there is in figuring rebounds.