Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Yesterday, after Rams RB Todd Gurley had another big day, several media outlets reported that Gurley is the first rookie to open his career with four consecutive 100-yard games "according to STATS with data available since 1991."

Since 1991? That was yesterday. This is as far back as STATS can go?

Later, other outlets reported that Gurley's 566 rushing yards "are the most in a player's first four NFL starts in the Super Bowl era."

The Super Bowl era? Again, pretty recent window.

Since one has to go back much further into pro football's statistical record before gaps start appearing, I can only assume the ambiguity and recent focus of their reporting has something to do with the question of starting status, i.e., it's easier to compile a list of a players FIRST FOUR GAMES than it is their first four games AS A STARTER.

Any thoughts?

STATS sucks. I remember years ago the Elias Sports Bureau tried to "copyright" sports statistics, which is ludicrous in concept and Orwellian in practice. This data ownership issue has resurfaced in the Pierre Garcon/FanDuel lawsuit. I don't really understand what benefit is gained by having these sports statistics monoliths...most of the heavy-lifting (compiling historic data) had already been done and whatever data is cited by these groups always has a caveat such as "since the Super Bowl era" or "since the merger". I have no idea why comprehensive data is non-existent for these statistical companies...the only reason I can think of is laziness.

Bryan wrote:STATS sucks.

Well, that was my first thought as well. I didn't think STATS was still relevant, yet they were quoted everywhere on this yesterday.

I'm used to media not looking back very far, but 1991? Wow.

mwald wrote:

Bryan wrote:STATS sucks.

Well, that was my first thought as well. I didn't think STATS was still relevant, yet they were quoted everywhere on this yesterday.

I'm used to media not looking back very far, but 1991? Wow.

I'm pretty sure that's when they started out, but it does seem amazing that they couldn't have researched this on their own.

I keep hearing stuff like "That's the first time it happened since November of 2013" from baseball and football broadcasters.

There's always been a particular kind of lunacy about World Series records. I think Junior Gilliam still holds many World Series records for black switch-hitting second basemen who once batted leadoff but were then moved to second in the batting order.

rhickok1109 wrote:I keep hearing stuff like "That's the first time it happened since November of 2013" from baseball and football broadcasters.

There's always been a particular kind of lunacy about World Series records. I think Junior Gilliam still holds many World Series records for black switch-hitting second basemen who once batted leadoff but were then moved to second in the batting order.

Of course, about 20 years ago, baseball suddenly decided to just quote "postseason records." Never mind that Lou Gehrig, etc., never played in the LDS or LCS, which led to idiotic "new records" where nondescript players like Mark Lemke were passing Ruth, Mantle, etc. for "Most Games Played, Postseason. "

BD Sullivan wrote:

rhickok1109 wrote:I keep hearing stuff like "That's the first time it happened since November of 2013" from baseball and football broadcasters.

There's always been a particular kind of lunacy about World Series records. I think Junior Gilliam still holds many World Series records for black switch-hitting second basemen who once batted leadoff but were then moved to second in the batting order.

Of course, about 20 years ago, baseball suddenly decided to just quote "postseason records." Never mind that Lou Gehrig, etc., never played in the LDS or LCS, which led to idiotic "new records" where nondescript players like Mark Lemke were passing Ruth, Mantle, etc. for "Most Games Played, Postseason. "

You get a ribbon, and you get a ribbon, and you get a ribbon ... hey, how 'bout a ribbon just for showing up!

Not sure what bothers me more ... the leagues that ignore their own history or the press release-quoting writers too bored or lazy to research.

[quote="rhickok1109"]I keep hearing stuff like "That's the first time it happened since November of 2013" from baseball and football broadcasters.
[quote]

Yes. And what's funny is due to sites like Pro-Football-Reference and Pro Football Archives, which are obviously great sites, the information is accessible to anyone. Yet the networks and other sports pundits report it as though they uncovered a long lost chunk of Nazi gold.

It's become a race to report what anyone could look up. And, as we've seen with the reference to 1991, they're not even looking it up well.

I chalk it up as a side effect of the big data movement. Quoting a number--any number--makes you an analytical guru today. Eventually the newness will wear off and real analysis will return. At least I'm hoping.

"Since the merger", "since 1990", since "we're too lazy to go back any further" and so on has been a problem for a long time now.

Interstingly, re: Gurley, I saw three different variations of his statistical milestones yesterday; the 1991, something about since 1970, then shockingly, a "first rookie since at least 1932" 'stat' ...

mwald wrote:

rhickok1109 wrote:I keep hearing stuff like "That's the first time it happened since November of 2013" from baseball and football broadcasters.

Yes. And what's funny is due to sites like Pro-Football-Reference and Pro Football Archives, which are obviously great sites, the information is accessible to anyone. Yet the networks and other sports pundits report it as though they uncovered a long lost chunk of Nazi gold.

It's become a race to report what anyone could look up. And, as we've seen with the reference to 1991, they're not even looking it up well.

I chalk it up as a side effect of the big data movement. Quoting a number--any number--makes you an analytical guru today. Eventually the newness will wear off and real analysis will return. At least I'm hoping.

Cosell may have started it. He had his own expert in the network van who looked up and spouted all sorts of trivia at him (which the other broadcasters couldn't hear) so that he could pretend to be showing off his own knowledge.