Now you're gettin' it!
Ex. 1: All the crazy sports statistics in the last 15 years. Multiply this by that, add or subtract random categories, graph, analyze. Without controlling of variables, a .326 batter in 1930NL is the same as a .326 batter in 1967AL (1930NL averaged .303, 10 batters at .356 or higher...1967 AL averaged .236, Yaz won the title by 15 points).
QB ratings vs. actual wins/losses - which is more important? Utterly meaningless NASCAR "% of DNFs," where it's virtually impossible to not finish (woohoo, no DNF even though we're 147 laps down in a 300 lap race!!!)?
Ex. 2: Power Factor, when evaluating ammo for "One Shot Stoppishness." A PF between
X and
Y can be "proven" ideal, yet I could build one very light/tiny and extremely fast AND another super heavy/large and
sloooow projectile with the "correct" PF...and have vastly different results.
Ex. 3: Brady Bunch, % of "children" killed by guns or AWs. Their definition of a child is unlike anyone else's.
Ex. 4: for a game, I'm working on a rebuttal to fighter weaponry. The author multiplied weapon ROF x bullet weight x bullet velocity to get "mass on target" then divided by weapon weight to get an "efficiency" rating. He DIDN'T account for # rounds or ammo weight or MG/HMG/cannon range; concluding that one Japanese cannon was "clearly superior" to the other, primarily due to ROF. Jap 2x20mm/2x13.2mm is more "effective" than US 6x.50, even though the actual results were different.
You had fun, learned something, and got to fireform 100 cases. You accepted the data, rather than trying to make it fit your hypothesis. Furthermore, you now know what to look for next time, or while critiquing your classmates. This is to be commended.
