11-09-2021, 04:55 PM
(11-09-2021, 04:34 PM)Jommybone Wrote: Seems to me that +/- flunks the scientific method by a long shot. There’s no control group, and at least the raw numbers make no attempt to account for the large number of variables.
The most apt analogy I can think of is measuring the air temp of an individual’s location. You might think we could assume the variables will even out over time, and the Texans will have warmer air space than the Canadians. But that’s a poor guess when you don’t consider how much time they spend outdoors, where the thermostats get set, how tolerant they are of extremes, and a host of other things.
If we just assume the things we don’t know are a wash, we come to conclusions like Alex Caruso is better than Russel Westbrook.
I like(d) this post but Alex Caruso is better than Brodie ToxicTripleDouble. So, I'm kinda torn.