Originally Posted by k-troop
I could extend Chas's argument to your review. "Brocks reviewed Hank's book; in that review, he claimed that the chapter on statistics ("Adding it Up", or somesuch) was inaccurate. It was later revealed that his observed "inaccuracy" was this: HH claimed that Tiger never dropped below #2 from 1998 to 2010. In reality, Tiger dropped to #3 OWGR for two weeks in 2004. The thesis of the chapter was a comparison of Tiger's performance with Hank vs. his performance with Butch; the inaccurate statistic was from a time when Tiger was with Butch, and it actually made Tiger look better with Butch than he actually was. Brocks' conclusion that the chapter is "inaccurate" is therefore logically correct, but very misleading, because the erroneous statistic was immaterial, and the correct statistic actually made HH's argument stronger. If Brocks' review was misleading as to this point, his entire review is untrustworthy and should be disregarded.
I just noticed that you edited your post after I had already replied to it, to add the above paragraph.
The chapter contained inaccurate information; that is a fact. Since it did, it was inaccurate; that is another fact. I didn't call it a lie, I called it a mistake. I did not state or imply that the inaccuracy was deliberate, I did not state or imply that the inaccuracy was major, and I did not state or imply that the inaccuracy helped Hank's case; if you inferred any of those, that was your misperception, and it's not my problem. To say that my statement was misleading is, charitably, a mistake.
And not your only mistake. Tiger was #3 for five weeks, not two, namely the week of 10/3/2004 through the week of 10/31/2004. That was over six months after Haney was openly coaching Tiger, so the mistake did make his record look better. I won't say that the correct stat made his argument weaker, because I don't think WGR was what either he or Tiger were worried about at the time, but it certainly didn't make it stronger, as you assert.
As to the trustworthiness of my review, I don't know why anyone would think they should trust some anonymous poster on the internet in general, and a book review in particular. I would expect a higher standard from someone who publishes a book, and says in one interview after another that his goal in doing so was honesty, than from some guy on the internet, but maybe that's just me. And you are welcome to disregard my review, this post, and all my future posts without responding to them.
More than welcome.