Just had another look myself. The words "patently ridiculous", which you took out of context, were used because it is something K&R themselves wrote. It was a little bit of irony.
And seriously, when was the last time you said "I provisionally conclude that this is not valid"? My website is certainly not an academic journal, and even articles in academic journals don't always use language like that. Obviously, it was provisional, since I have now stated there may be some validity, based on new evidence.
I just re-cracked open my K&R Compendium (the latest one) and was reading about Perserverence. It seems obvious to me that there would be a relationship between number of shots and save percentage, and given the above post it seems that there is one.
What I'd like to know is why K&R came up with .6 ( I Think ) as the number to factor into #shots taken. It seems arbitrary to me. I'd like to see them use a number that comes out of research.
