'....Ah, at last, you have revealed your true contempt for fans that don't rely on stats John.....'
It's not contempt at all. And I think I've maintained the same stance since day 1. I (that's a capital) like to back up claims I make with facts if I can . To me, if you discuss something other than a preference, then try to use facts if you can. IE If I say 'arry was the best manager we've had since the 60's - I'd need to qualify 'best' (league positions, silverware, win percentage) - and then I'd try to show it. If I said I liked Christian Gross more than Wendy Ramos...that's just a preference. (Actually I wasn't keen on either).
'...You have taken it upon yourself to take issue with any fan that has an opinion not based on fact (If you can call stats facts) and point out the error of thier ways.....'
If anyone wants to say '... I like blah more than blah'... then that is up to them as it is subjective and a matter of taste. You don't like T'Hudd, I do. You didn't like 'arry, I did. Subjective. But when you say 'better' or use a comparative term, then surely you need to know what you're comparing? No? IE if you said that T'Hudd is crap at passing - and if there were figures on pass success rates and it showed T'Hudd was in the top 10% - then isn't sensible to say that? No?
'....If somebody says out loud that they think Defoe is better than Adebyor it is up to John the Crusader to "prove" that is completely untrue....'
Totally depends on how/what is said doesn't it? If someone says '... I think A is better than B....' it's different to stating '..A is better than B...'. But both may be false depending what 'better' means in their mind. At first I think I'd need to know in what way Daffy was better. Better at tackling, better record of scoring, better with his head, better...'better' means nothing unless it is qualified, ie unless you know what scale to apply. I'm no 'crusader', but I will ask what they mean. If they then qualified it and said Daffy scores more than Ade - then I may check to see if they're right - and if they're not, I'll show them the figures. What a sin eh. How mad am I.
'....Exactly how high is that horse of yours John? (the use of stats to prove this is not required)....'
It's odd how people react. I try - I don't always succeed - to address the point being made, not to attack the person. You and SB seem the opposite, you seem to want to attack the person rather than addressing the point. Again, that's your choice.