## Re: USAToday giving statistics a bad name . . .

Expand Messages
• Personally, I found single-number rating extremely handy for the studies in the book. In particular, the Detroit study (searching for fluke years) and the
Message 1 of 20 , Nov 1, 2002
Personally, I found single-number rating extremely handy for the
studies in the book. In particular, the Detroit study (searching for
fluke years) and the Indiana study (comparing playoff performance)
would have been close to impossible without the numerical comparison.

--- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...> wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
>
> > > > Realizing that their own system was not passing the laugh
test
> > > ... started taking logarithms of the financial variables before
> > > calculating z-scores,...
> >
> > A logarithm isn't exactly a root is it? The math part of my
brain
> > was destroyed in an experiment. I know a log and a root are both
> > parts of a tree...
> >
>
> A log is different. The log of 10 is 1. The log of 100 is 2. The
> log of 1000 is 3. (All base 10 log).
>
> >
> > > I read US News' rankings of schools and I read MikeG's rankings
> of
> > > players. They are entertaining and they are good for some
> > > trashtalking ...
> >
> > Well, you have the option of talking at the trash level. In the
> end,
> > we may be working together toward something pretty sound.
> >
>
> How can we know what is sound? What objective measure will we use
to
> say that this linear weights method is "pretty sound"? Is it, as
> Kevin P said, just making sure that Shaq is #1 among today's
players?
>
> > I like some of what danthestatman has done. Some of it is
> identical
>
> I guess the question is Why would you use something he has done?
Do
> you like "some" of what he's done only so far as it's the same as
> what you've done? Why don't people just use JohnH's weights? Or
> Doug Steele's weights? What have people learned by looking at
other
> people's weights? Why does anyone adopt other people's ratings?
>
> > Finally, I think single-number player-ranking is pretty handy
when
> > looking at the course of a players's career. Whether or not his
> > scoring is inflated (for example), you can still see how his
> playoffs
> > fared relative to his season, or how one season compares to
another.
>
> Bill James listed a few times when single ratings are handy. I
don't
> recall what they were, other than basic trade analysis and first
cut
> analysis of player evaluation. Anyone else remember?
>
> DeanO
• ... for ... comparison. I guess I always use individual offensive and defensive ratings, as well as a player s percentage of the team offense. (%age of team
Message 2 of 20 , Nov 1, 2002
--- In APBR_analysis@y..., "John Hollinger" <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
> Personally, I found single-number rating extremely handy for the
> studies in the book. In particular, the Detroit study (searching
for
> fluke years) and the Indiana study (comparing playoff performance)
> would have been close to impossible without the numerical
comparison.

I guess I always use individual offensive and defensive ratings, as
well as a player's percentage of the team offense. (%age of team
defense is harder to estimate, so I don't use that).

As a screen, one number gives you a sense and you can do stats on
it. I guess I like to know reasons. How can you change and predict
it? The stats from one number can help make predictions (sometimes
better than with multiple #'s because you don't rationalize a
number), but it doesn't help you _change_ anything, which is how I
like to use my stuff.

Didn't get an answer, though, to how people use each other's weights
or what they've learned from them.

DeanO

>
>
>
> --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...> wrote:
> > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Realizing that their own system was not passing the laugh
> test
> > > > ... started taking logarithms of the financial variables
before
> > > > calculating z-scores,...
> > >
> > > A logarithm isn't exactly a root is it? The math part of my
> brain
> > > was destroyed in an experiment. I know a log and a root are
both
> > > parts of a tree...
> > >
> >
> > A log is different. The log of 10 is 1. The log of 100 is 2.
The
> > log of 1000 is 3. (All base 10 log).
> >
> > >
> > > > I read US News' rankings of schools and I read MikeG's
rankings
> > of
> > > > players. They are entertaining and they are good for some
> > > > trashtalking ...
> > >
> > > Well, you have the option of talking at the trash level. In
the
> > end,
> > > we may be working together toward something pretty sound.
> > >
> >
> > How can we know what is sound? What objective measure will we
use
> to
> > say that this linear weights method is "pretty sound"? Is it, as
> > Kevin P said, just making sure that Shaq is #1 among today's
> players?
> >
> > > I like some of what danthestatman has done. Some of it is
> > identical
> >
> > I guess the question is Why would you use something he has done?
> Do
> > you like "some" of what he's done only so far as it's the same as
> > what you've done? Why don't people just use JohnH's weights? Or
> > Doug Steele's weights? What have people learned by looking at
> other
> > people's weights? Why does anyone adopt other people's ratings?
> >
> > > Finally, I think single-number player-ranking is pretty handy
> when
> > > looking at the course of a players's career. Whether or not
his
> > > scoring is inflated (for example), you can still see how his
> > playoffs
> > > fared relative to his season, or how one season compares to
> another.
> >
> > Bill James listed a few times when single ratings are handy. I
> don't
> > recall what they were, other than basic trade analysis and first
> cut
> > analysis of player evaluation. Anyone else remember?
> >
> > DeanO
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.