Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: USAToday giving statistics a bad name . . .

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    ... 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 1 of 20 , Nov 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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.