Stats don't lie. He's tied for first in one, and is third in the other.
Stats lie all the time. eg "99% accurate" could lead to a conclusion that is either true or meaningless.
Specifically you claim:
"Trubisky and Keenum were the only two quarterbacks in the league with a 100 percent rate of catchable balls to receivers when in a clean pocket.
Trubisky is also the third most-accurate quarterback at throwing to covered receivers."
Many here will call for your source. Also, many will question what is "catchable", who determines that? What is a "clean pocket"? Who determines that? What is a "covered receiver"? Who determines that?
Often, when challenged people get defensive and cry "Do you honestly believe [insert source] skewed it to favor Trubisky? It isn't like [insert source] are Bears fans!"
What will be lost in the pages of erudite debate and witty retorts, will be the fact that these claims are dubious due to:
1) semantics and language used to define the measured parameters in comparison with other QBs.
2) an innate instinct that stats are particulary vulnerable to what is called the base-rate fallacy.
BASE-RATE FALLACY:
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT FOR FUN: Suppose that the rate of highly thanked posts (call it 7 or more thanks) is three times higher among Masters' degree holders than among non-Masters' degrees, that is, the percentage of masters who have HT (highly thanked by a scalar of 7 or more) is three times the percentage of non-masters who have HT. Suppose, further, that Pat is one of the highest percentage of HT, and this is all that you know about Pat. In particular, you don't know anything else about Pat at all; in fact, you don't even know whether Pat is male or female. (Insert SNL gif here lol) What is the likelihood that Pat has a masters?
ANSWER:
If you're like most people, you probably estimated that the likelihood that Pat has a masters is pretty high - much higher than 25%. Most would reason it to be 75%, probably basing their estimate on the fact that the rate of HT is three times higher among masters degree holders.
The exact answer to this problem depends upon what percentage of the CCS has masters. We don't know that exactly, but let's suppose that it is 10%. We don't need to be precise since this is a "back of the envelope" calculation designed to check that our intuitive judgments are "in the ballpark". So, suppose hypothetically that we have a population of 100 people, 10 of whom are masters. Suppose, further, that three of the masters have HT, which means that the rate of HT among the masters is 3 out of 10, or 30%. Since we are given that the rate of HT among non-masters is one-third of that among masters, we must suppose that 10% of the non-masters in the population have HT, which means that 9 of the 90 non-masters have HT. So, the total number of persons with HT in our hypothetical population is 12, three of whom are masters. Thus, all that we know about Pat is that he or she has HT, so Pat is one of the witty twelve. Therefore, the chance that Pat has a masters is 3 in 12, or 25%.
From your post it seems neither you nor I know what a "catchable ball" is, what a "covered receiver" is, what a "clean pocket" is, and no one anywhere knows the number of catchable balls for all QBs in all passing plays vs. non-catachable balls caught by amazing athleticism, number of all covered receivers for all QBs in all passing plays vs. covered receivers not thrown to because others were open, and I doubt that anyone knows the rate of completion given these poorly defined terms among all QBs in comparison with everyone else. (Who had the most number of clean pockets? Who had the least/highest amount of covered receivers? Did Trubisky throw the most amount of completions to covered receivers in total? Or the least amount? Middle? Where? etc)
TL;DR - Stats lie all the time when gathered sloppily or interpreted wrongly. I suspect that the stats you gave here are not lying so much as meaningless and not giving a full picture.
Cheers.
