Sometimes things are so inherently flawed that they can't be improved. You've just got to blow 'em up and start fresh. I believe this to be one of those cases.mbvinnie wrote:I agree that they are not definitive, and I have said several times that we can really only take some broad generalizations, but the analysis is kinda fun and interesting, and there is some limited usefulness. I agree that there is some bias, so let's look at how we can improve it rather than dismissing it.
I couldn't agree more about the 'correlation not equaling causation' thing. That's essentially my job is.
But that doesn't mean statistics can always be dismissed, or
The original data itself is flawed, and it just goes downhill from there. The "analyst" appears to be aware of that, which is why my questions concerning a justification for the many lapses of objectivity contained within his "analysis" remain unanswered. Instead, he obfuscates the issue entirely with things that have nothing at all to do with the discussion.
mnmracer wrote:Ok, so be a doll and say, list the youngest drivers to take pole, win a race, win championships etc.
And then see how you feel about yourself for quoting simple facts.
The fact you want to find bias behind everything that doesn't fit your agenda, is your problem.