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

Expand Messages
• ... 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.