View Single Post
07-22-2011, 08:18 PM
Meditating Guru
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,585
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by OlivierB View Post
I see.

Would you say that the math is flimsy because it's an attempt to depict something that isn't describable by math, or because it's a failed attempt at depicting something that could, indeed, be understood trough (correct) maths?

FWIW, I'm the guy who put this whole thing together and I'm really interested to hear criticism of my work. That's why I put it out there, after all.

I entirely read your post, once, and think I understood the majority of it.

First, congratulation, that's a lot of work. I didn't saw obvious flaw. I'm curious about the tools you used (beyond your data sources), as I sincerely hope you did not compute all that by hand.

I think the only weak point of your model (as far as I understand it) is still how you compare different teams CQRC, normalized or not. I'm not convince it's possible to compare players from different team with a microstats that is purely team-centric at its base, although that over the run of a season, it may not make a big difference overall.

Amusingly, I once used standard-deviation calculation based on the "typical" hockey stats (G, A, P, etc.) but in the context of a fantasy hockey leagues where players statistics had to change depending on their seasons performances... obviously our model was way simpler, and didn't have the benefit the modern hockey microstats bring.

Goldthorpe is offline   Reply With Quote