1866RE: [APBR_analysis] Re: Consistency Score
- Feb 26, 2003-----Original Message-----
From: igorkupfer@... [mailto:igorkupfer@...]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: Consistency Score
>> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>[...]
>> > I think players with large means will have a bit of an advantage in
>> achieving high consistency scores; the players who fairly often get 0
>> points or rebounds will have such low means that their inverse coeff
>> of variation will not be able to become very large, unless they have
>> an incredibly low standard deviation. This is not necessarilly a bad
>> thing, maybe we think that such players truly are less consistent
>> than the Karl Malones of the world.
>Hmmm. Don't really have time to analyse the list, but I'll post the top 25 and >bottom 25[...]
>duncan,tim 3.7 |-------| + |------------|
>o'neal,shaquille 3.2 |----------| + |---------|
>wallace,gerald 0.5 |---|+ |------------|I guess this is what causes the nagging doubt that I still have; although the inverse coefficient of variation idea is a good one, I wonder to what extent it really is measuring what we would call "consistency" as opposed to measuring who's got a large mean.
>amaechi,john 0.5 |---| + |---------|
Igor is correct that simply looking at standard deviation penalizes the Duncans and Malones who'll tend to have larger standard deviations than the bench scrubs of the league, who simply don't accumulate enough points or Manley credits (do we have to (TM) them like Tendex?) to have large standard deviations.
But I wonder if the Consistency Score goes too far in the other direction, in terms of rewarding the Duncans and Shaqs with their large means.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>