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

Re: water under the bridge

Expand Messages
  • carlos12155
    Here s a suggestion Joe. I have a home made ratings system and a few weeks ago decided to see if I could verify his accuracy. I made an offensive only
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 14, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Here's a suggestion Joe.
      I have a "home made" ratings system and a few weeks ago decided to
      see if I could verify his accuracy. I made an "offensive only" rating
      and applied it to teams rather than individuals. Then compared the
      results with the teams Offensive Efficiency (Pts./Poss.).
      Well, the rating followed Off.Eff. reasonably closely. Some teams
      ratings differed from their Off.Eff.(probably because my ratings are
      not very good) but the best teams ranked higher and the worse lower.
      I know that your system can't do this (at least with the adjustments
      for position), but why don't you try to take away the position
      adjustments and give it a try. It should show if the weights are
      seriously screwed up.

      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <myviewonthis@y...> wrote:
      > > Being 4 days behind isn't THAT outdated ;) You'e been tweaking
      > quite
      > > quickly.
      > true. i thought i'd been patient enough with several earlier
      > but i will try to use this as a lession to keep being patient.
      > I do
      > > challenge you to show when I have been "just wrong" with any of
      > points I
      > > make.
      > i won't take it because i dont want to slip back into it again.
      > posts are there but it is all water under the bridge now.
      > >
      > > Finally - you mentioned my circular reasoning earlier - how I
      > thought your
      > > system double hurt smaller guys - THEN I didn't like the method
      > how you
      > > rewarded those little guys. I know it looks as though I was
      > criticize
      > > no matter what, but I think you misinterpreted my point. Here it
      > is in a
      > > nutshell:
      > >
      > > I feel as though people need to try to make their systems as
      > objective as
      > > possible. This means just use the stats - and make it make sense
      > in various
      > > scenerios. I never have liked when people (including myself -
      > fallen
      > > into the same thing) try to do final subjective adjustments to
      > their work at
      > > the end to make the results come out "better". The results
      > certainly
      > > will come out better when they do this - since thats why they did
      > it lol.
      > > However, that subjectivity (multiplying by some number plucked
      > of the
      > > air if a player plays a certain position) then clouds the
      > So - your
      > > adjustments at the end (the position multipliers part) I'll be
      > quite suspect
      > > of. All things being equal (same team, pace, whatever) - two
      > players with
      > > the exact stats shouldn't rate differently because one may be
      > labeled a PG,
      > > the other a SG.
      > >
      > > So, my original point - I feel if one feels they need to make
      > position
      > > adjustments at the end to make the ratings work - then they
      > look at
      > > their original weights first, because they probably aren't
      > optimized. That
      > > was my original problem with the system that I was critiquing -
      > there
      > > are improvents IMO. I can tell you are a guy that really will
      > crunch, work,
      > > rework, scrutinize, etc. to get your work where you feel it need
      > go - so
      > > I definitely should stand back and let you do this. Maybe, when
      > you are all
      > > done (so I won't fall prey to that outdated thing) - I'll do my
      > tests
      > > with it - and let you know if I see discrepencies - and you can
      > with it
      > > what you feel, including ignoring it lol.
      > >
      > > Good luck with your work - and have fun, don't let criticism from
      > people
      > > (like me) allow you to get down or pissed. I was only trying to
      > help you
      > > (believe it or not) - giving you a different take by my
      > >
      > > OK - that nutshell was big - and not really to the point. My bad
      > again...
      > >
      > > Dan
      > i hear your point about disagreeing with my method of shooting
      > adjustment but i still feel the adjustment is pretty good and fair.
      > havent seen better. despite the friction, i appreciate the
      > consideration of my work and your response to it. but i feel it
      > would be best to move on. enjoy the game.
      > >
      > > _________________________________________________________________
      > > FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
      > > http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.