Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagor
100% agreed and to be honest your post rubbed me the wrong way, I was being a bit of a smartarse dick in my reply and apologise.
My point is that as the sample size grows (e.g. 41 games), new variables are understood, models are refined then there is a greater likelihood for a more accurate projection. And as has been proven on the FOI section of the board, you can twist stats to make your point.
IMO of course you can treat data, as long as you don't falsify it.
No-one's claiming things as fact, it's just an educated consensus based international best guess.
|
I would also like to apologize if my tone in my original post rubbed you the wrong way. I completely agree with everything you said above. I was only trying to urge caution in reliance on models and forecasting, because even though more data leads to better models (as you point out), they will never be 100% accurate. I also don't have a problem with treating data, as long as it is done objectively and not in a way that will force some desired result.
That being said, I think we're still on opposite sides of this debate
.