Stalwart wrote:But it often times is. Unless of course you develop theories which are falsifiable and you have them peer reviewed. But at that point you become a scientist. Is Ben Taylor a scientist?
No, Ben isn't a scientist in a strict sense. He does develop theories that has been falsified all the time on the court. It's not about his rankings (which are the least important part of his job), it's about evaluation process and big concepts. Sport is not a science, but people use a lot of scientific models to get a better grasp at what is happening on the basketball court.
It's similar to studies like sociology - it's not really a science but it used a lot of scientific methods to get a better view at the subject.
I think the problem with our society is quite the opposite. Too many people view theories as truth and it is indeed leading to an ever growing fantasy world, a house of cards even, for those who think this way. Theories are just theories until they are proven or shown to be true. At that point they cease to be theories and start being facts.
You mistake theories with hypothesis. Scientific theories are already falsified within a scientific method limitations. It seems that you have no idea how scientists work, no wonder why you think we have some imaginary problem. The problem with authority is that people don't listen them anymore, everybody believe that he understands the world better than the rest. If you don't see the authority problem today, then it proves my point actually.
And I wasn't using those words as insults. I was making the point that Ben Taylors work is subjective which means its only as good as its underlying premise, values, assumptions, ect. Which is true for much of the analytics field.
Taylor's conclusions are completely subjective (which is always the case, even in scientific studies), but his models and evaluation process is significantly closer to objectivity than what you do on this board. This so-called "analytics field" makes everything less subjecitve, they limit assumptions and premises to minimum. Without them, we'll stay at the level of "I see he's good, so he's good".
Sport isn't that important in absolute terms fortunately, but I don't think you understand how massive impact analytical thinking has on our society, on all levels basically. If you decide to shut down it, we would come back in time to the beginnings of human spiecies.
Congratulations!
Thanks, but again - most people likely won't treat my job seriously. In the end, I will only work with theories - right?
I am talking all time rankings. There are 60+ players with a stronger combination of team success, individual success, statistics, intangibles, and impact on the sport and league. But if you ignore all of these things in favor of analytical theories well then anything is possible. Why not just throw him in the top 20?
What is individual success? What are statistics? What are intangibles? Why do you think that other players are better than Miller at that? Why do you think that "analytical theories" don't capture some of that?