Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
They shouldn't continue to be asked because they've been answered!
If you read that article and think, "once again, I persist in requesting that shot quality data be added to the existing statistics because it will make a difference or improve them in some way", you didn't understand the article. Or the many, many others that have reached the same conclusion.
|
I've read that article a few times now, but it makes the same error that all "sample size" conclusions do: on the whole is correct, but it leads to erroneous conclusions about individuals.
I'll use a healthcare example. If we look at the risk of rhabdomyolysis in those taking statins like Lipitor and Crestor, we'd see it's a dose related side effect. We then can say your curable If we didn't look forget into subgroups (specifically genetic or ancestral) we wouldn't have noticed those of Asian descent (mostly Japanese) do not metabolize the drug as fast and thereby require lower doses and have higher risk of rhabdomyolysis at lower doses.
More shots = more scoring chances generally, yes. That doesn't mean outliers by default are random. Perhaps there's more at play? The only time shooting % is found generally unsustainable is using whole season data and comparing season to season. I'd say that's apples and oranges, because roster turnover means you simply cannot compare and trust the results.