View Single Post
Old
02-15-2012, 03:03 PM
  #70
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
Lets look at 1987. The 71 players above 60% is tied for the highest in the 17 years on your table. 71st in scoring is 63 points. 63 points from 1985-1989 gets you: 70th, 85th, 71st, 71st, & 76th. 71st place is 63, 67, 63, 63 & 65 points. 60%+ equals: 76 pts, 73 pts, 63 pts, 72 pts, & 66 pts. That doesn't vary as much as your 60%+: 39, 53, 71, 54 & 69 players.

That's 63 pts: 70th-85th; 71st: 63-67 pts; 60%+: 66-76 pts; 60%+: 39-71 players.

Leaving the #2 at #2 and 108 points would only move that to 65 points and 64 players for 1987. (That 64 players would still be the 4th highest for the 17 years.) I don't see anything out of line there, so you fixed something that wasn't broken. Maybe your tweak is better, but I'm doubtful at this point.

On the other hand with only 39 players making the 60%+ mark in 1985, with 2 outliers already removed, I'd think that might need a closer look.

One will need to look at other points in the data, and compare them to the straight #2 numbers to get a better picture, but just with the numbers above it looks like you didn't "fix" at least two years. I also wonder how many years have you gone too far, as I believe you have in 1989.

In 1989 the top 4 are way ahead of average, and the rest of the pack are slightly below average. So a line like 4, 7, 13, 34 is much more in line with reality than 9, 22, 42, 69, which makes it look like the leaders were below average and the pack were above.
I see you took it to the other thread. I'll do the same.

seventieslord is online now