i call it using data effectively. we took it, its accurate, and it has clear conclusions, just because we didn't explicitly state we were testing it doesn't mean the data is suddenly less conclusive
Actually it is less conclusive due to the fewer data points. Your data is heavily skewed by outliers.
im fine with that, still doesn't make our data less conclusive on the topic.
Your data is mostly inconclusive on the topic, which is not surprising because it doesn't test the topic. The elephant in the room is the source of the fluctuation -- shots which amount to outliers on an otherwise consistent marker could be paint-based fluctuations, i.e. an oversized, undersized or out-of-round ball, situations which your and other peoples' testing has shown can induce spin. Whereas a marker-based fluctuation, say, from an inconsistent pulse, could see less spin-induced trajectory change. So no, your data is not conclusive by a long shot.
FWIW Troy's data actually comes closer and actually does show a correlation, however I'm not sure how valid that is at 30 feet. In the end though, it's mathematically conclusive and patently obvious to any player that velocity has a correlation to trajectory.
Edited by drg, 08 August 2012 - 01:50 AM.