Quote:
Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis
Yeah, the obvious thing to concluded that that each quarterbacks' respective receivers caught a certain percentage of passes, with Rodgers having the higher percentage. That's the only fact that the data tell you.
Saying they Rodgers is better is an inference; they are as good as the premises you use to justify them.
1. Aaron Rodgers had a higher completion percentage than Steve Young(true)
2. Having a higher completion % than someone else necessarily makes him a better player than someone else(likely not true)
Conclusion: Aaron Rodgers is better than Steve Young (when using the above premises, likely not true. You can use other premises to try and justify it though)
The truth value (true or false) of Premise 2 is not true, and for a multitude of reasons, none of which discredits the use of statistical analysis done properly. In fact, it can be disproven using statistical methods depending on how the data behaves. One can use a test of whether the means are equivalent to see if there is a statistically significant different between the two mean values(note: statistical significance does not necessarily signify significance in real life)
|
This was way too wordy and too much scientific/lawyer talk for me... you lost me at the word: concluded.