Add new comment

...you might as well go all in and be rude, dismissive, inaccurate in your depiction of my argument, and evasive to my actual points.  You've got the whole package today, babe...nicely done.
Just in case you're wondering where I get that...my point was never that I expected James' system to be ineffective in 2010...at least no more ineffective than it already is given its (I'll say it again) *WRONG* definition for what constitutes an UP or DOWN year.  My point was that arguing "look, I made a purdy correlation!!!" is not proof that you're doing something useful.  Not unless you can logically explain - with data that fits what you're trying to accomplish! - why that correlation exists.  That's how science works.  I use an exapmle from my real life in the sciences to illustrate why callibrated correlation is not sufficient to convince me of the utility of a metric and you talk down to me like I'm a 3 year old and completely ignore my point.  That's not like you, Doc...and frankly...I'm extrmely disappointed in your behavior.  Maybe you ought to think about what tone you want the rest of this conversation to follow. (there...how does it fell to YOU when I start talking to you like a child, hm?)
Throwing some numbers together isn't new...fans have been doing the kind of stuff James does for years.  The difference is...James is a great writer and so has won himself a big money job, the backing of the wealthiest stat-tracking firm in the game for publication, and a massive audience.  You act as though James is the only one who ever thought of this kind of toy...and that's all it is...a toy...he's not.  He's just the most visible.