Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster
Good scientists are often more fascinated by the outliers and the non-correlated results, than they are the garden variety results.
Corsi or whatever flavour is neither right nor wrong nor good nor bad.
It's either useful or it is not useful. I think evidence seems to be mounting that it is limited - not because of the results that agree with it, but because of the valid results that do not.
|
OMG, thank you a million times for this post, especially the bolded part. That's the thing, theories come around all the time. Either evidence supports your theory or discounts it. In the event you have events that regularly discount it and are statistically significant, you have to consider remodeling the theory. That's how science progresses, and statistics and math are just a tool for all types of science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by driveway
The Flames are a statistical outlier. Outliers happen, see for example Joe DiMaggio's hitting streak or Don Bradman's career run average in test cricket.
|
No, no, no. You've got it wrong. The Flames are considered an outlier because they shouldn't have done well despite their success. Joe DiMaggio's success was due to the fact he was an exceptional player. You can't suggest that his streak should have regressed to the mean, right? At what point do we allow for exceptionalism in a competitive sport? BTW, no idea who Don Bradman is.