Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
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. |
The point is your analysis may be flawed because of the subjectivity of it. There's no empirical data to go along with your interpretation. So yes, this time your interpretation is correct, but it's about 50/50 or maybe 60/40 at best to assume your interpretation will be correct in the future.
I can't tell you how many times I thought I was right about player X or team Y only to be proven wrong later. Objective analysis will often give you perspective on a situation that you may not have been aware of, and it's an objective reality, so you have to include it in your thought process somewhere. How you decide to form a conclusion should have some sort of objective process to it, because we are all prone to bias, and we are especially prone to emotional responses/overreactions when we are talking about sports.