Add new comment

In the interview I recalled, he made a general observation about the recent positive contributions by a player, and quickly took GLS's advice by adding that, of course it was a small sample. Apparently, Wedge should have just shut up, because "most likely" the positive contributions were nothing more than random noise. But, Wedge doesn't have the option of saying to the press, e.g., in April, "Boys, anything I say about this game, or this month for that matter, is simply random noise. Come back to me on June 25, when I have enough data to give you reliable information on the reality of these wins and losses."
I would suggest that Wedge's (and my) understanding and use of SSS is proper. See a pattern, suggest a kernel of truth or knowledge lies therein based on knowledge already gained and accepted. Articulate it, but understand and accept the data is small enough that you may be in error.