Residuals vs fits Plot I'm a little confused on the residuals vs fitted values plot.
I take data in a table and create a scatter plot.  Then I run a linear regression computation using my calculator or other program that gives me a linear regression line in the form of $y=mx+b$.
I then create a table which calculates the estimated or predicted value $y$ based on the input ($x$).  I compare this predicted value with the actual value to compute the difference or "residual".
I then plot this on a graph showing the $x$ values on the horizontal axis and the residual values (difference value) on the y axis.
This is how my text shows it.  However, when I look online at other stats sites I see the residuals plotted with the "Fitted Value" on the $x$-axis. This does NOT seem to be the same thing as the original $x$ values from the table.  And to confound things further, I read that the most common residual plots show the fitted value.  What is the fitted value?  Why isn't it the same as the original $x$ values?
Am I misunderstanding this?
 A: Residuals vs. $x$.
In simple linear regression (one predictor variable $x$), it is common
to display a plot of residuals vs. $x.$ This is a 'diagnostic' plot to
see if assumptions of the regression model are met. Ideally, you will
see no patterns in this plot. 
A common departure from assumptions is
that the variability increases as $x$ increases. Here is an example.
Scheduled flight times of non-stop flights were regressed on miles traveled.
Notice that residuals 'fan out' (increase in variability) as distance
increases.
 
This means that one cannot get reliable prediction intervals for flight
times based on hours. The difficulty here turned out to be that direction of travel is
not taken into account. [Eastbound flights take less time because they
often have tail winds; westbound flights often have headwinds. The greater
the distance, the greater the extra variability due to the ignored variable, direction.]
Residuals vs. Fits. If you plot residuals against fits for the same regression as above, the result will look essentially the same because fits are a linear function of 'Miles' ($x$).
More generally, fits are $\hat Y = \hat \beta_0 + \hat \beta_1 x.$

So why bother to plot residuals vs. fits at all? The answer lies in multiple
regression, in which you have several predictor variables $x_1, x_2, \dots x_k.$
For multiple regression, it is usually more helpful to look at a single plot of residuals vs. fits (as per the Comment by @knrumsey). One could look at residuals vs. $x_1$, residuals vs $x_2,$ and so on. At some point that may be useful in discovering that one of the
predictor variables is causing a problem with assumptions.
But as a start, it is best to look at residuals vs. fits. If all is well
in that plot, move along to the next diagnostic procedure. For the same
data as above, here is a plot of residuals vs. fits when travel direction
is taken into account ($x_1 =$ distance, $x_2=$ direction). On the whole it is a much more satisfactory residual
plot. [The two points at the far right are trans-oceanic flights, which
should ideally be removed from the dataset because rules for flights over oceans
are much different than for flights over land.]

Note: In a discussion of simple linear regression, you may find a author who (embarrassingly) goes on and on about fundamental differences
between plots of residuals against $x$ and residuals against fits. I hope
a comparison of the first two plots above will help you to understand that there
is no fundamental difference in simple linear regression.
Addendum after Comments: If you have the data in the order collected, it is a good idea to plot residuals in the order of data collection. Here is an experiment in which a regression line fits nicely through the data (not shown),
and the plot of residuals vs. fits looks fine, but the plot of residuals vs. order shows early residuals to be mainly negative and later ones to be mainly positive. A lab assistant re-calibrated  the measurement device about halfway 
through the experiment.


