bulldogproud wrote:whufc, that terrible stuff-up you mention just happened on one occasion and the statisticial still is red-faced about it!
The reason The Advertiser takes the stats from the organisation it does rather than from the clubs is that it has found that the club stats are less accurate. They hold a belief that people within clubs tend to overstate the stats of their favourite players and understate stats of others.
Before Ecky gets mad at that comment, I must explain that that comment came from The Advertiser, not directly from me!
My own thought is that the clubs probably do a more accurate job as they have more stats people to do the job and, in many cases, those people are also vastly experienced and also less likely to get players of their club confused with one another.
Cheers!
there is no way that this would happen as the reason we take the stats is for decisions to be made so they have to be as accurate as possible. we have 2 people watching the play at glenelg so even is a player is acalled in error it is always corrected by the othe rperson- something which wouldnt happen amongst the paper stats people. If a caller does have a perceived bias it would only impact on the effective/ineffective rating of a possession which wouldnt effect the total stats that are displayed in the paper.
just out of interest sake i am compiling a comparison from the weekends glenelg game between what we had, the abc had and the paper so if anyone reading this is a south statistician or knows one it would be great if i could grab a copy of what they recorded to add to the comparison
I noticed they have quoted his Advertiser stats in the writeup: 
