Quote:
Originally Posted by looooob
I agree with you . I don't pretend to understand their methodology so I wouldn't be able to say whether this particular list is
1. totally random (seems unlikely)
2. based partially in truth but with a lot of noise and error (unhelpful)
3. mostly a reflection of a mix of either guys who are truly useless and guys who just get a lot of icetime and are a bit deficient on the defensive side
4. completely accurate
I doubt its 1 or 4.
|
I doubt it's 1 or 4 either.
And that is the problem: with 2 or 3, users believe the data is telling them something, but there is no way to know whether or not it is accurate. But because they have data, they believe it is accurate. This is worse than having no data (and having to decide for yourself).