Statistics are very useful for trend analysis, even with relatively small samples. The key here is detecting the trend, or tendencies, if you will. If you're not proficient in this type of analysis, then, yeah, it just boils down to "lies, damn lies and statistics".
In the theoretical example you provided, divining trends from (relatively) small samples of a much larger population will give you valuable insight to tendencies that can be exploited.
For example, in your 3rd and long scenario, knowing your opponent blitzes all the time (as you said) in that situation is a key variable that will be used to game plan for situations like that.
<<<<But that is exactly my point. Of course knowing that is very valuable, but you get that from FILM study. I understand there are many things that come under the heading of 'statistics'. The guy who studies the film and charts the plays created a statistic. But the key here is film study, not statistics.
Moreover, those are not the kind of stats being discussed here, or the manner of use either. The discussion here is whether cumulative offensive or defensive statistics in the common categories, over a season vs varying competition in varying situations determine much, if not broken down in minute detail?
Let me put it another way.
Lets say the Broncos allow an AVERAGE of 90 rushing yards a game, and rank 2nd in the NFL. Their AVERAGE indicates 2nd best run defense.
It lack sany consideration to variables. Are they 2nd because they played most of their games against pass happy teams? I think any defense in the NFL would be ranked very differently if they played Pitt, Atlanta, Seattle 16 times than if they played Arizona, Detriot, SF 16 times. Its still the same D.
Are they 2nd because game situations dictated the other team pass more?
Are they 2nd, but in being 2nd, they simply eliminated the fluky long runs, but allowed 3 on 3rd and 2, 2 on 3rd and 1, etc?
And that is my point here, there are too many variables. A poor run defense will be ranked very high if its offense controls the ball, takes leads and plays from ahead, if its secondary is weak and vulnerable, and/or if it plays vs teams that are pass oriented or weak running teams.
Stats would tell you they are a good run D and its an advantage, but is it, in this scenario?
If that same run D played a lot of running teams, played from behind, had a strong secondary, they'd be near the bottom in run D.
Those are just examples of the variables.
STATISTIC ARE VERY GOOD AT PREDICTING BASED ON AVERAGES, BUT FEW GAMES ARE AVERAGE. Matchups are not factored in either.
Finally, consider these statistical anomolies.
A 60% passer is considered accurate. A 52% passer erratic.
The difference? If you pass 30 times per game, the first completes 2 more passes ALL DAY. Brady threw a perfect pass last week that hit the ref. Thats half of being considered erratic. There are tipped balls, drops, bad calls by refs, throwaways, etc. Can you really say that 2 guys who are equal on 28 passes, but different on 2 are the difference from All-Pro to cut?
2 RBs. Both run 20 times for 78 yards.
On the 21st, one RB breaks a in the backfield and runs for 17 yards.
The other doenst break the tackle and loses 4.
RB A = 21-95 4.5 per carry, very good
RB B = 21-74 3.5 per carry. 3.5 per carry usually costs you your job
Whats the difference? One broken tackle. Lets now say that RB As team did not score from that 17 yard run. How can you justify when these teams meet again saying what the stats say, that team A has a huge advantage in the running game?
I know these things average out. But when you factor all of the other variables, it becomes a very cloudy picturte.
Teams (or, the really good ones, anyway) do in-depth statistical analysis like this all the time. You don't really think they leave this stuff to dumb luck, do you? (Although I will say I do believe that "luck" is the residue of design.)
If you know your opponent better than he knows you (or, even better - than he knows himself!), then you can not only game plan to exploit his tendencies, you can extend the game plan to your own team to cover up weaknesses, be they real or percieved.
Now, having said all that, while the statistics are useful and valuable (if used in the right manner), the game is played by humans, and these humans still have to play the game.
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Nothing is 100%. People playing the game, even the very,very best, are wont to make mistakes, invariably at the worst possible time (thank you, Murphey!). It's not so much successes that dictate a game's outcome so much as it's failures. And like so much in life, timing is everything.
You had some valid points there, Andy, but I also appreciate McDonuts' efforts in this area. We don't see nearly enough of this stuff, and it's a refreshing change of pace from the usual plethora of opinions that run the gamut the likes of Mgteich to Bronco Freak (Lord, please spare us!).
Just my 2 cents...