Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Well yes. But the degree is merely a reflection of one's successful comprehension and application of skills derived from the years of specialised training.
So would I, but I'm not at all convinced that the bloggers I am most familiar with have enough of a clear understanding of how to do advanced statistics to make them altogether useful. I imagine that I could read a book or take a basic introductory course and produce the same sorts of analyses. But I am also fairly confident that this limited "training" would no doubt fail at various points in my amateur attempts to measure, apply, and interpret data.
*EDIT* Upon further reflection, I now wonder how useful it is to be both a competent observer of the sport and a trained statistician. I am now starting to think that certain benefits would follow from an entirely blind system of data processing. How much does one's own expectations and intuitions actually interfere with statistical results?
|
In my industry we pair a domain expert with a 'data scientist' to come up with new insights and correlations. The data scientist understands stats to the nth degree and has a toolkit that goes lightyears beyond comparing shots for and against, the domain expert provides input on which factors are important to consider and helps apply the findings back in the real world. It's a good mix.
Edit: I should add that my industry is bound by the laws of physics and chemistry, so that no matter how surprising a correlation may be if it exists it exists. That doesn't apply so cleanly when humans are involved.