- Nov 3, 2001--- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
>

stuff? ;) But

> Hey didn't you go to Caltech and shouldn't you know this

> you did nail the correct answer to the ellipse modeller: Kepler.

Hey, going to Caltech means I know the formulas, how to derive them

>

from first principles, what all the little math symbols mean, and how

to go 40 hours without sleeping. It doesn't mean I know the names of

the famous dead guys. Heck, by going to Caltech, I have a right to

forget names.

>

of

> I'm not sure about this one. Because an overly "conservative" list

> good defensive players will STILL get arguments -- from people who

minimize the

> complain that the list left out players X, Y, and Z, who are great

> defenders.

>

> It's analogous to statistics: you can be "conservative" and

> probability of a Type I error by choosing a small significance

level. But

> in doing so, you are automatically raising the probability of a

Type II

> error.

This is pretty much my point. In policy making, a policy maker

>

really wants to reduce one of those types of errors. Usually the

policy makers don't care about the cost-benefit of Type I vs. Type II

errors. Their job is minimize one type and fight with everyone else

who wants to minimize the other type.

Not sure how that relates to any hoops stuff we're doing right now,

but it might in the future, when we start using all those funky math

symbols.

> Well there's another kind of consistency, one which is a good thing

to

> have: logical self-consistency. E.g. rating systems should avoid

that

> double-counting (unless there is a reason to put a heavy weight on

> variable).

That's true and a good . I can add that to the routine speech I give

at work. Then when my people look at me funny, I can blame it on you.

I would phrase what you're talking about a little differently here,

though. A method makes assumptions at the start and those

assumptions should remain true at the end. Thinking off the top of

my head -- if Tendex assumes all those things to be worth one point,

shouldn't they all be worth one point at the end, too? Does this

mean Tendex should add up to points scored?

I know all the arguments pro and con with Tendex. I always point out

that Tendex, when applied to teams has only about a 70-80%

correlation with winning percentage. Which means it's not terribly

reliable for predicting winning teams and probably no more reliable

for predicting winning players. I also don't like the fact that it

really just encourages a lot of shooting. I don't know how well

Tendex correlates with points scored. But unlike baseball, where

position players are pretty much responsible for offense and pitchers

for defense, basketball players are responsible for both. That's why

I try to keep offensive and defensive contributions separate for

individuals. Doug Steele has an offensive and defensive Tendex

rating based on some conversations we had in '94. It was a start.

DeanO - << Previous post in topic