I don't know how it could be more on-topic, actually. By using meaningless stats to discuss/argue a point, you render the discussion/argument meaningless. No statistical integrity = no meaning and no use to the argument. There has to be some validity to the points on either side of a debate, doesn't there? In this debate, one side is arguing that their meaningless data points have actual merit, and the other side is arguing that they don't.
It's not really a debate about Bargnani at all, anymore.




Reply With Quote