Originally Posted by MWM
I have no idea what this means, and I've had a good amount of statistical training. It seems like he's saying that if you take a team's POP and line it up with wins, there isn't any correlation. It has nothing to do with OPS. OPS wouldn't be involved at all. If I looked an independent variable and found that it only correlated by a factor of .283, I'd throw it out as well.
I think that IS what he is saying. What I was saying is that in the background if OPS is NOT held constant then he's comparing different POPs to Wins but the different OPS levels of the teams are driving the results and smothering any relatively more subtle impact of POP.