“You’re just repeating the same points in the same way going on three or so times now.”
That’s because they’re the only points I want to make, and you still don’t get them. Instead you now pull out the strawman of calling me dogmatic and close minded.
“Quibbling with someone’s diction instead of earnestly trying to understand what they’re saying isn’t the move of someone who wants to have a debate in good faith though.”
Believe me, I made every effort on my part to avoid having to quibble. Like, explaining in my first comment why you were wrong. It would have suited you well to think to yourself something along the lines of ‘This guy seems to have some professional knowledge in this field, maybe he is on to something and I should question myself’.
Trying to understand what you’re saying leads one to believe that first and foremost you don’t understand what others are saying. To wit:
“Of course there are immutable rules for chaotic systems, that’s why they are being studied” (my quote) means that chaotic systems are being studied because there are immutable rules governing them. You understood it the other way around and taunted me with an accusation of circular reasoning.
“Chase’s article is connected to this because he says he has found a formula for making statistic inferences have predictive value.” and your continuing usage of the February 14th ‘formula’ is off-topic. Chase says that the practice of data snooping is a bad one. He is obviously using the ‘formula’ tongue-in-cheek, he’s ridiculing bad researchers who are in danger of coming up with such nonsense because they are data snooping. He even writes “Just because history tells us that those dates are highly correlated with success … doesn’t mean that there is any predictive value in that piece of information”, which is the opposite of what you understood.
“It seems to me your assumption of a “strange attractor” … is entirely taken on faith.” I do not assume them. Strange attractors do exist. They are precisely defined mathematical objects. They can be found in experimental data and in equations (I did both). They are a very good sign of a chaotic system. I described a method to look for them in a football-related data set. If you want to prove your claim that football is a chaotic system, the burden is on you to successfully perform that task.
“A phenomenon like football is too complex to be rendered mathematically”. Here you are arguing that football is *not* a chaotic system.
And frankly, I don’t want to debate someone who writes
“Statistics are at best misleading and at worst fraudulent for most purposes”.
on a website doing nothing but statistic evaluation of football. That is scathing, impudent and derogatory. Similarly, your ‘verdict’ is way off-base, too.
“It’s the move of someone who just needs to be right”
Yes, that must be it.
I need a holiday now. I’ll leave the last word to you.

You’re just repeating the same points in the same way going on three or so times now. I’m not sure if you’re not reading what I wrote or if our backgrounds are just too different for my perspective to make sense to you. Quibbling with someone’s diction instead of earnestly trying to understand what they’re saying isn’t the move of someone who wants to have a debate in good faith though. It’s the move of someone who just needs to be right and will get really upset if that doesn’t happen. I’m sorry it hasn’t worked out.