It would have to be a tweet that inferred violence.

"a defender (doesn't matter which one; goalies don't count)"

Tracking information makes some people pay more attention to it. Apparently not you, which, good for you. But other people do find it helpful.

I occasionally keep a calorie log. When I'm actively logging, I pay more attention to what I eat, and I sometimes can directly attribute my choice to not eat a snack to the…

The more shots you take*, the tougher it is to be efficient with those shots**. In the three point era, only Karl Malone in 1990 has come close to the combined volume/efficiency combo of KD and LeBron this year.

That's not a sentence. It's a sentence fragment.

Eh, I don't know, I'm skeptical.

His response to this photo is pretty great:

Because soccer, like American football, is not at all a team sport!

For future reference, the "Premier League" is a soccer league n Europe. You may want to avoid clicking on titles that contain those two words adjacent to each other.

Ha, I've definitely been on your side of the argument for other stats/charts discussions, so I get where you're coming from.

Just for fun...

/is disappointed that, based on lack of responses, no one cares as much about jeans as self

What would make you think that people who care enough about football to make fancy charts about it don't care enough to actually watch the games? For me, charts and data augment the games (usually after the fact), they don't replace them.

I know this is a joke, but Silver isn't replacing the ESPN Stats & Info division. They are still very alive and well, and still led by Dean Oliver of Basketball On Paper (semi-)fame.

Ah, I see. Well, that's less weird, but still doesn't sound right.

Are you saying you want him to say "The Arsenal are on a roll" or "The Arsenal have done well"? That sounds very, very weird to my ears.

Katzowitz ranks low in both win% and yield.

I understand WHAT they are doing. I just don't think it makes sense to judge the pundits on a metric that they're not trying to optimize for. The pundits are trying to pick the most winners (in which case they'd pick TEN in my example), so judging them by who picked the most winners seems to be the best metric. If the…

Yeah, Oakland really came out flat in that game. It took them a whole 53 seconds to score. And they were only up 3 at halftime. :)

I don't get why you guys keep scoring the "pundits" by assuming they are betting a dollar on each game. They should only be betting if they think the team has a higher chance to win than the break even point for the Vegas odds.