Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Riot
You and Chuck are sad. Before they have even looked at what they've assembled through 2009, before they have released one iota about what they've found, the rocket scientists here have already dismissed it as premature, rushed, useless, ill-timed, and a failure.
Yeah. And I'm the crybaby?  You whiners are complaining about something not even done yet. Pre-emptive dismissal.
The laughable part is that if they didn't release anything, the whiners would be complaining they are hiding something, it's a waste of time, it's useless, etc.
Yup. No wonder this industry is eating itself apart from the inside out. |
I am sad because they are rushing to throw together "something" instead of doing it right. And doing it right would be letting an independent person study and interpret the data, an independent person that can analyze the numbers as a statistical evaluation. Like I said before, a professional statistician. The "data" is just that. It doesnt matter if it is broken legs or sloppy tracks or passed balls and stolen bases. Having a vet interpret the data after 1 year seems like a mistake in that conclusions may be drawn that simply arent valid.
The industry has already made the mistake of trying to interpret breakdown stats on a month by moth or meet by meet basis. There simply isnt enough data and too many variables until you have the proper amount of data. This is basic mathmatics.
The reason that this industry has issues is that everybody has had their head up their asses forever and now instead of properly doing things it rushes to judgement as it is doing here.
No one would complain about the "reports" not being released until they were told they existed. The fact is that one years worth of data (incomplete data at that) really cant be very telling can it?