Data Dominator Problem? (1 Viewer)

[Horrorshow]

I was wondering if anyone could help me. I have a query regarding Doug Drinen's excellent Data Dominator tool.

I use the DD and the Historical Dominator a great deal and I definitely consider it to be a fantastic piece of software. I've recently been using the DD to look at some third down pass receiving numbers from the 2006 season, specifically data relating to target numbers.

First of all I ran a report from;

http://footballguys.com/stats.htm

Then I clicked on the final 2006 WR target stats;

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2006/0...17wrtargets.php

Then I selected the Quick Link to Target Details option;

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2006/06targetdetails.php

Finally I choose the link for STL's 3rd Down Targets Page;

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/d...att%2Brsh%2Brec

As you can see it tells us that Torry Holt was the target of 46 passes on 3rd down plays during the 2006 campaign. I usually cross reference these sort of things though and this is what I discovered. So from another angle...

Back to the stats page then on to the Data Dominator;

http://www.footballguys.com/ddform.htm

I entered the following criteria, leaving all other fields at their default settings;

What kind of report do you want? = Player Report

Seasons or Totals: = Individual Seasons

Which stats do you want to see? = Receiving

Position: = WRs Only

Year: = Between 2006 and 2006

Down and Distance: = Between 3rd and 3rd down

Sort by: = Targets (descending)

Minimum to qualify: = 25 Targets

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/d...amp;mincat=targ

The link above is the final report. It shows that Torry Holt was the target of 42 passes on 3rd down plays during the 2006 campaign - as opposed to the earlier report which brought up a result of 46 targets.

Am I being extremely dumb here or is this a little bit of a glitch? Please don't pounce on me if I've made some glaringly obvious misjudgement! It wouldn't be the first time that I've made some horrible mistake. Be gentle.

TIA!

 

[Doug Drinen]

I think the discrepancy is explained by the fact that Holt had 4 targets on 4th down. That, plus the 42 in your query, gets us to the 46 on the "3rd down targets" page.

I honestly don't have any idea if I intended to do it this way or not, but to me it makes some sense to say that 4th down targets are morally the equivalent of 3rd down targets (e.g. for the purposes of determining who the team went to when they needed a play). So "3rd down targets" is really shorthand for 3rd and 4th down targets.

Again, whether I actually meant to do that or not, I'm not sure.

 

[Horrorshow]

Doug,

Many thanks for getting back to me - much appreciated! I'm grateful for your time and input!

Viva la data domination!