Home-court Advantage Decline

There is something about this article that I really don't like. None of the theories were present during the first part years of the chart. The NBA 3 point line did not come in until 79/80. If the data was actually started from that point I am not sure we see that same type of reduction. I think that line may be a lot straigher.

Why would someone use a range outside the influence of their theories?

Well I completely believe that all 3 of their theories have an affect on the NBA I am not sure that this "report" is very well thought out. I would really like to see just the raw data for this. I am too lazy to grab it all myself.

I wonder what would happen if you actually picked starting dates for these theories and checked them against the actual home win totals.

It's not conclusive to the theories, which is why the author just compiled the notes and made it into an article. This is how the scientific method works, you reply with confirmed or counter data and keep adding it together. Battling a hunch with a hunch is useless.

That is not how scientific method works.

This is how scientific method works.


Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion

He did not do that.

IF you had access to the resources of the author, data and ease to gather it along with time, is that would you would have used? Simple yes or no question.

czman said:

That is not how scientific method works.

This is how scientific method works.


Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion

He did not do that.

IF you had access to the resources of the author, data and ease to gather it along with time, is that would you would have used? Simple yes or no question.

Click to expand...

Maybe after rereading the article and the post, you will change your mind about that conclusion. He does use a scientific method. Not just the bit I'm snipping out for you.

From the Article
The question: Why? What the heck is going on?

The short answer: It's not clear.

Click to expand...

Thus he gives out theories to why, but no claims. It even says in bold, Theory. Which is a continuation of the method and not a full completion of a study(because the data, as I said, is inconclusive.)

The DATA that the author had access to, and used, was public knowledge.

So the BASIC scientific methoid was followed by asking a question(Has HCA declined?). Providing data that home court advantage has been on a decline. Then creating a hypothesis to why it has happened.

Is it a full study with full completion with posted results? No, but that is now how scientific method works in all cases, as I explain. It is building the study, because the author doesn't have control over the team/league/venue policies to test any theory. So this continues and is open to others bringing in more hypotesis that may or may not be able to get continued testing for the sake of answering the question.

Let me guess, you have never worked with an open source project, developing and contributing research? Because if you have, you know these types of studies are done often because not everyone has access or the resources to complete the entire study on their own. I'm not even sure why I bother responding to you. It's hopeless.