(upvoted the parent; although I don't agree it's a reasonable point that deserves an answer)
Firstly the data is interesting in it own right, and secondly it's useful for people considering where to get seed funding from.
The value of YC (and others) isn't in the money they provide (I suspect most YC funded startups could easily have got the money from other sources), it's in the expertise and connections they provides. When picking an investor you can either go on "gut" feeling about the extra value the investor provides, or you can look at hard data.
I agree that the data is interesting* and I apologize for over-reacting. I also agree with your second paragraph completely.
*Performance metrics for many of these early stage startup funds are skewed by the quality they attract. Ycom and TechStars have the creme of the crop, I expect to see better results overtime... 3 companies from S09 raised >$1M. And as you know, the rate of failure in startups is also naturally high - there are far too many factors involved that my decision would be less guided by metrics and moreso toward your second point.
I'm actually doing a similar analysis of UK universities for a non-profit I help run (http://quofoundation.org) and see the exact same issue. With universities you can get around the problem by adjusting for entry grades. I wonder if something similar would be possible in this situation.
Firstly the data is interesting in it own right, and secondly it's useful for people considering where to get seed funding from.
The value of YC (and others) isn't in the money they provide (I suspect most YC funded startups could easily have got the money from other sources), it's in the expertise and connections they provides. When picking an investor you can either go on "gut" feeling about the extra value the investor provides, or you can look at hard data.