Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan
The process of arriving at a conclusion is just as important as the conclusion. If you guess right due to random chance, there are also going to be other times you guess wrong. If you do a proper analysis of the data, you are far more likely to end up with the right answer because there is a system in place to acquire knowledge. That, in fact, is how we can evaluate the quality of the conclusion in itself. If we can't see the process that led to that conclusion, the very conclusion becomes suspect. This is true of logic, science, and statistical analysis, and these are the tools that have led us to clear and objective conclusions based on empirical evidence rather than subjective analysis that may be flawed due to personal bias.
In short, I trust Bingo's conclusion far more than yours because he did the work to understand the problem objectively. Just because you were too lazy to support your conclusion doesn't mean we should give it the same validity.
|
This is all true, but it's kind of missing the point here.
We all watched the games. I looked at the game and saw x-amount of chances.
Bingo or others saw the same game, but quoted someone elses interpretations of chances in form of stats websites.
So with some twisted logic applied, I arrived at a conclusion by doing the work, where others were just relying on others to do the work (charts and stats.) So I should get full marks, no?
Although Bingo often supported the stats with his own eye test so he gets some points too.
Point being, I watched and analyzed what I saw. As uneducated my analysis may be, I did all the work myself and got the results correct (if we can agree on the results).
Others looked at heat maps, graphs and other stats websites that made an
assumption on how one team outplayed the other etc.