View Single Post
04-28-2012, 11:43 PM
Czech Your Math
Registered User
Czech Your Math's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,846
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
This has to be in response to my earlier comments. Let me clarify, I don't think anything needs to look a certain way "for me". I have no problem with laying out the methodology and then saying "according to this specific methodology this is what results we get". But when I say the end results need to look a certain way it is more for other people than me. I want more advanced work like yours to be accepted, and if it gives a result like I calculated (Turgeon 5-6% better than Savard) then that is just too different from some more conservative peoples' perceptions to ever get widely accepted.

As you said though, this does a better job than regular adjusted stats, at least from what little testing I've done.
No, it really wasn't directed at you in particular. I know it's not only a common, but a natural and familiar way to judge results. This is what makes it so difficult to overcome. No matter what adjustements are made and how correct or incorrect they may be, some results are never going to be accepted, because they clash with one's subjective preconceived ideas of how things "should look."

I'm glad you've found the results useful to any degree.

Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I think that no matter what you do, you should keep it scaled relative to league size. So if you choose 30 players in a 6-team league, you need to use 150 in a 30-team league. Not because the talent pool is five times larger, BUT, the amount of players with the opportunity to play x number of minutes and thus score x number of points in a season, does change proportionally with the number of teams.
Maybe you are right, that it is more important to keep the number of players fixed more in relation to opportunity (league size) than quality (fixed or more gradually increasing number).

Again, I can only stress the following:

- the basis of all results are pairs of consecutive seasons

- any attempt to keep the opportunity factor static is going to adversely affect the average quality of player studied, unless the amount of players of minimum or average quality Q remains proportional to the number of teams in the league

- If opportunity increases and this influences production of top players, it would be captured in the results of the study. Also, if the data from seasons of the distant past were composed more of that of lesser quality players on average (more "second liners"), then one would expect it to appear easier over time to score, since more recent seasons are composed of the data of higher quality players on average. Yet the exact opposite trend emerges in the results and this would seem to refute any such bias.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote