As if we needed another reason why Gamechanger stats cannot be trusted

[_MIA_]

, ... they will be fortunate to have you paying attention the whole game LOL

I honestly rather watch that then my DD’s MS games. They at least look like they want to be there…

 

[Lemond]

To say that GC is inaccurate is disingenuous! It’s a freaking calculator! It will only spit out garbage if garbage is put it. If you have an issue with your team’s stats, teach your scorekeeper to keep score correctly, or do it yourself!

Yes there are valid reasons, though not many, to correct mistakes after the game is over. And if anyone is padding their stats that way, shame on them! In the end, if they think they are fooling a college coach by doing that, they are likely the fools.

GC is a tool, and like all other tools, it can be misused. Hopefully, we do not need a coke bottle “this is not a hammer” warning on softball stats! But, then again…

 

[MoJo]

To say that GC is inaccurate is disingenuous! It’s a freaking calculator! It will only spit out garbage if garbage is put it. If you have an issue with your team’s stats, teach your scorekeeper to keep score correctly, or do it yourself!

Yes there are valid reasons, though not many, to correct mistakes after the game is over. And if anyone is padding their stats that way, shame on them! In the end, if they think they are fooling a college coach by doing that, they are likely the fools.

GC is a tool, and like all other tools, it can be misused. Hopefully, we do not need a coke bottle “this is not a hammer” warning on softball stats! But, then again…

Colleges don't rely on GC.....because it is flawed and the stats are inaccurate.

Flawed for sure......bad data input. Biased operators and inexperienced operators. Counts for about 99%.

 

[Lemond]

Colleges don't rely on GC.....because it is flawed and the stats are inaccurate.

Flawed for sure......bad data input. Biased operators and inexperienced operators. Counts for about 99%.

Well, I never claimed it was perfect, but this was the biggest part of my point (add in honest mistakes, incompetence, and if “biased” includes cheaters).

I can’t pretend to know why NCAA does not use GC except that I know they’ve needed to score games for far longer than GC has been a twinkle in DSG’s eyes. With the time and effort (read $$) DSG has put into GCTM over the last two years, I would expect that they have an end game with a good business case, and giving it away for free to rec leagues is not likely it. Maybe one of their goals is NCAA market share? Who knows?

For the other 1%, if there are truly flaws in the software that create inaccurate data, the GCTM team has been pretty responsive in accepting feedback and implementing improvements. (No, I have no stake in GCTM or DSG, I have just had good experiences with them.) I would suggest letting them know.

For me, it has been a valuable tool for setting line ups and evaluating performance in conjunction with real life evaluations of our players (attitudes, streaks/slumps, health, mental health, effort, etc.). I know and understand that not every scorekeeper is judging the same hit vs error, WP vs PB, etc. And, if I were a college coach, I speculate that if an athlete presented me with stats from GC or any other scoring SW, I would not likely take it with much validity without knowing a whole lot more.

Bottom line, it’s a tool in my belt that I have been able to rely on consistently, and the only flaws I have seen or cared about, were induced by scorekeepers. Ymmv

 

[Agcy]

Colleges don't rely on GC.....because it is flawed and the stats are inaccurate.

Flawed for sure......bad data input. Biased operators and inexperienced operators. Counts for about 99%.

The only 'flaw' that I might think is ERA. I don't believe that GC is perfect in identifying how many runs were earned when several errors occur in a single inning.

The real 'flaw' is the human inputting the plays.

The bigger flaw is people doing paper scorebooks. How many coaches/teams/people try to calculate stats from a paper copy after he fact. In travel ball, I am guessing not many and if they are, it takes a immensely dedicated scorekeeper to get all the information needed to accurate create even half of the stats that GC or iScore calculate automatically. I'm a data guy and very anal about our teams' stats; I've tried to recreate games that I missed from the paper copy. There is no way to get it accurate from anyone except the most elite scorekeeper.

So, you're left with this - you can only trust scorekeepers/coaches that you know and/or have audited to gage their accuracy. Period. (unfortunately, integrity in the sport regarding scoring is not highly prevalent)

Other food for thought
- GC stats don't mean anything for the opposing team - half the time you can't even get the players full name
- In college games, the home team is responsible for stats* - LINK
- Iowa requires coaches to input their team's stat for every game into a database for tracking comparison - those aren't completely accurate either
- So many stats on GC that I find useful, IE First Pitch Strike % and First Pitch Strike Out %, that you can't get from a paper scorebook
- Many people just don't know the difference between stuff like fielders choice and hit (my mother believes that every time my kids get on base it is a hit!)
- Unless you yourself read the rules once a year, I doubt that you get every play right to the letter of the law.
- NFHS scorekeeping rules are not as complete as NCAA scorekeeping rules (IE it is a stolen base when there are runners on 1st and 3rd and not defensive indifference)
- Even with high integrity scorekeepers, some error/hit decisions are debatable...

* NCCA Scorekeepers Document - SCORER’S DUTIES SECTION 1. a. The home team, conference commissioner or tournament director shall appoint an official scorer before each game. The scorer shall have sole authority to make all decisions involving judgment. He shall communicate such decisions to both teams and all members of the news media present.

 

[Agcy]

Colleges don't rely on GC.....because it is flawed and the stats are inaccurate.

Flawed for sure......bad data input. Biased operators and inexperienced operators. Counts for about 99%.

Which stats, specifically, are flawed? The only one I don't fully trust is ERA (iScore does better in that situation)...

 

[_MIA_]

The people saying stats are inaccurate are saying input error..I think. Also those saying that colleges don’t rely on GC are saying (I think..) they don’t rely on it for recruiting purposes.

 

[Agcy]

The people saying stats are inaccurate are saying input error..I think. Also those saying that colleges don’t rely on GC are saying (I think..) they don’t rely on it for recruiting purposes.

You're likely right. Just a lack of accuracy in communication. Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...

 

[Agcy]

Well, I never claimed it was perfect, but this was the biggest part of my point (add in honest mistakes, incompetence, and if “biased” includes cheaters).

I can’t pretend to know why NCAA does not use GC except that I know they’ve needed to score games for far longer than GC has been a twinkle in DSG’s eyes. With the time and effort (read $$) DSG has put into GCTM over the last two years, I would expect that they have an end game with a good business case, and giving it away for free to rec leagues is not likely it. Maybe one of their goals is NCAA market share? Who knows?

For the other 1%, if there are truly flaws in the software that create inaccurate data, the GCTM team has been pretty responsive in accepting feedback and implementing improvements. (No, I have no stake in GCTM or DSG, I have just had good experiences with them.) I would suggest letting them know.

For me, it has been a valuable tool for setting line ups and evaluating performance in conjunction with real life evaluations of our players (attitudes, streaks/slumps, health, mental health, effort, etc.). I know and understand that not every scorekeeper is judging the same hit vs error, WP vs PB, etc. And, if I were a college coach, I speculate that if an athlete presented me with stats from GC or any other scoring SW, I would not likely take it with much validity without knowing a whole lot more.

Bottom line, it’s a tool in my belt that I have been able to rely on consistently, and the only flaws I have seen or cared about, were induced by scorekeepers. Ymmv

I am also guessing that GC is late to the party as far as coordinating across a conference or division. The stats for each game/player/team are better coordinated than what I have seen from GC.

 

[Westwind]

If you are a young team, and have decent pitching it can be really helpful to put accurate names into gc. At tryout time when those kids show up at your tryout you can have a pretty good idea what kind of offensive performers they are.

As far as NCAA, they probably use paper. Not because “game changer sux man”, probably more like “that’s how we do it”.

There is nothing magical about their scoring. It’s some dude or dudette up in the press box who has more jobs than Official Scorer Of Your Favorite Team. They are fairly lenient with hits. They occasionally score a bunt for a hit with no out as a sac. There isn’t any of the “if her glove touches it it’s an e” stuff.