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

Re: Tendex rating

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    ... stuff? ;) But ... Hey, going to Caltech means I know the formulas, how to derive them from first principles, what all the little math symbols mean, and
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
      >
      > Hey didn't you go to Caltech and shouldn't you know this
      stuff? ;) But
      > 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.

      >
      > I'm not sure about this one. Because an overly "conservative" list
      of
      > good defensive players will STILL get arguments -- from people who
      > 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
      minimize the
      > 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
      > double-counting (unless there is a reason to put a heavy weight on
      that
      > 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
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.