Buffdog
Registered User
- Feb 13, 2019
- 7,374
- 17,940
I'm not trying to "gotcha" anyone. How many times has someone (like you did with corsi rel) make a statement and use one stat to back it up? Only to backpedal and say "well, yeah but X, Y and Z" when someone refutes their opinion with another stat (or even the same one). I think it would be best if we all just stop doing it. To me, it's intellectually dishonest to only select stats that back up your argument and dismiss/dimish ones rhat don't. Doing so is blatant cognitive dissonance/confirmation biasObviously not to the bolded, as their quality of competition would be massively different.
You like to try to play this gotcha game, but you are just outing yourself. There is obviously no one stat, which I said right in that post, and the best tool are the cards because those guys track way more stats and then aggregate them. And yes, I am aware the cards are not perfect either.
I can live with a difference of opinion on how much better, but there is no argument Miller is not better than Stanley.
As I've said about the cards, they outputs rely on the weight of the inputs. I think that if you agree 100% with how they do that, then go ahead and rely on those. Personally, I refuse to outsource my thinking to anyone on any topic
As for the bolded, I agree. Which (along with the Kovacevic shit the other day) has been my entire point all along