- Jul 15, 2008
- 1,381
- 837
Talk of "averages" often annoys me. Likewise with percentages and ratios. I hear or see reports saying, for example that the risk of a certain outcome might have doubled for a given circumstance. It might be, say the risk of getting some sort of skin cancer from using a certain type of lotion. "DOUBLES" is the headline term used to alarm people. But what if the risk was only 1 in 10 million to start with? So it has increased by 1 in 10 million; big deal. Had the risk of some other similar outcome increased by 10% from 1 in 100,000, the overall increase on cancer figures would have been much more despite the 10% headline. 10 times more by my reckoning.
The devil is always in the detail, and that's the case here as well. The average age of a squad doesn't really say nearly enough about a squad to be of any use in making comparisons about issues such as different club's reliance on youth or development policy towards younger players. To do that, you need much more info or else at very least a much less lazy concept than averages.
I definitely agree with you about your first point, as I find that equally annoying, but using the mean isn't always uninformative, and in this case I think it's pretty valid. Since the variance for age at a football club is usually pretty small (you don't often see many players outside the 18-35 range), and the number of players involved is reasonably big (for a sport), the mean should be fairly representative.