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

final reply

Expand Messages
  • Joe
    you seem to mean well but you also seem to be going circles and criticizing my system both ways. -- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Dickey
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 13, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      you seem to mean well but you also seem to be going circles and
      criticizing my system both ways.



      -- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel Dickey"
      <danthestatman@h>
      "> The problem is - guards by nature usually have to take tougher
      shots (at
      > least longer) because of their positions"


      you criticize my system earlier because it fails to recognize that
      guards by nature usually have to "take tougher shots (at
      least longer) because of their positions".

      then i adjust the system to recognize that and improve their shooting
      stats and then you criticize that as an artificial adjustment.

      -- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel Dickey"
      <danthestatman@h>
      "The problem with this is that if 2 players have the EXACT same
      shooting
      statistics - one could get more of a bonus than another - just
      because he
      may be "defined" as a SF, while the other may be "defined" as a PG.
      This is
      all complicated by the fact that many players really aren't easily
      defined.

      Two players with the exact same shooting stats (let's say from the
      same team
      - for simplicity) - should get the same credit for their shooting."


      obviously i cant seem to satisfy you. but thats ok. i accept the
      total set of comments and challenges offered by all because it made
      my system stronger. but i am satisified with my results and am done
      discussing it, one week after i started.

      i have look at john hollinger's site. as i said, on 65% of the
      ratings we are with 5 slots on rankings. but here a few of the biggest
      differences:

      mine his
      ben wallace 12 46
      kneyon martin 13 39
      ray allen 28 12
      corey magette 37 20

      i'll take my values as closer to reality. but that is my opinion and
      others are free to feel differently.

      and the whole point of rating systems is to closely match reality.
      adjusting get a close fit with true performance is appropriate
      effort, not a flaw. i openly discussed the mechanics of it but i
      think the final formula is methodogically as strong as any and i am
      basically satisified it will do what i intended. i also extended
      performance ratings to trade value with adjustments for size, age,
      and rarity of performance. i am not aware of any other example of
      this. so i'll continue to tweak the formulas for my own use but i've
      gotten what i wanted from the discussion.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.