I'm not sure what your point is. Are you arguing that statistics can't be manipulated and that it's uncommon for two opposing sides to use the same numbers to produce statistics that favor their argument?
Where did I say the chapter was full of lies, I simply stated that HH did a statistical analysis that was biased to help prove his case. The numbers are the numbers, I'm not accusing him of not using the official results from the PGA Tour site. I'm accusing him of interpreting the numbers he found to provide him with the results he wanted to convey.
I don't have the book any longer, but if I remember correctly, in one citing HH used Top 3 to compare himself to Butch, and in another he used Top 10. I haven't done the math (I really don't care that much), but I'd guess there's a reason he selected those ranges specifically, rather than maintain consistency in his analysis. I'd also guess if one did the math they'd find a range maybe Top 5 or Top 20 where the numbers would favor Butch.
I'm not arguing that one cannot manipulate statistics. I'm saying that it's perfectly possible (in fact, most likely) that statistics say what they purport to say. You're clearly saying that HH manipulated the statistics so that they would show that HH was the better coach. You didn't say "the chapter is full of lies," but you're clearly implying it. When someone is arguing a conclusion using intentionally manipulated data, then that is dishonest--and this is exactly what you're accusing HH of doing.
How can you not see the bias in your own posts? Do you have any evidence of this, other than "I'm sure if you picked some other random finish point, then the numbers would favor Butch."
Here are the stats that Butch uses: win%, top-3%, and top-10%, all pretty straightforward. He's not picking "finished 7th%", or "% of rounds shot in the 60s in Florida", or something stupid like that. He claims to have used two sources for his numbers: PGATour.com, and Tiger's website. If you look at the appendices, HH lists Tiger's finish for 111 events that he played while under Hank's tutelage, including events like the PGA Grand Slam, Skins Game, Target World Challenge, etc. Since he only counted 91 events in his stats, it's reasonable to conclude that he only counted PGA Tour official money events in his comparison (though he doesn't explicitly state which events he counted).
Win%: 34/127 (27%) under Butch; 31/91 (34%) under HH.
Top-3%: 55/127 (43%) under Butch; 52/91 (57%) under HH.
Top-10%: 82/127 (65%) under Butch; 66/91 (73%) under HH.
Those numbers are consistent. Why is it that, looking at these numbers, you'd "guess" that some other statistical finishing point would favor Butch, and that HH manipulated the numbers to convey a false conclusion? The answer is clear: you are biased.
The University of Michigan did a study of political opinion among citizens about 6 years ago; their conclusion was that the more firmly held a political belief, the less likely the believer was to be responsive to facts. In fact, when you presented one of the truly devoted with a concrete, indisputable fact which contradicted their worldview, they would find a way to spin that fact to further support their misguided opinion (usually by citing press bias and accusing the reporter of lying, or statistical manipulation).