analyze that data. However, I think it important to not draw conclusions that go beyond what data support — or to at least acknowledge alternative (and potentially better) explanations for results.

It seems to me that you had a hypothesis regarding the value of short fields, gathered and analyzed data accordingly, and found that short fields are associated with a higher winning percentage. That’s all good.

But then you made judgments about the offense as a result. That’s where you outkicked your coverage so to speak.