View Single Post
07-12-2012, 03:06 PM
Czech Your Math
Registered User
Czech Your Math's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,841
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by plusandminus View Post
Just to ask. Do you mean that one is not "a serious stats guy" if one uses methods other than "on/off" to adjust the raw +/-?
Or are you referring to "adjusted +/-" as opposed to raw +/-?
I'm pretty sure he means the bolded.

I tried to address much of what you've been saying in the sticky thread, but personally, I don't want to clutter that with this type of discussion. Maybe in the future, if there's not much content there, it would be worthwhile to use that thread for purposes other than posting links to studies. I've also encouraged you to link to some/all of your studies, if/when you want to do that. You should realize that there are only so many people who A) may have seen a particular study you did, B) be able to understand the process and implications of the study, C) felt they had something worthwhile to say about it.

From my limited knowledge of only some of your studies, or aspects of them as presented them in various threads, I know you are very capable and very rigorous in your methodology. I think you're expressing the natural frustration that goes along with many hours developing and researching larger studies of that sort. As you know, it's difficult to perform a study which:

- is understood by most and/or more easily understood by those properly qualified to evaluate it
- is interesting to a broad spectrum
- is more comprehensive in nature
- covers a long span of time
- is broad in its impact, IOW has a meaningful change in how teams/players are evaluated and valued
- is easily applicaple to exisiting data, esp. on a broad scale

I don't know why you don't receive more feedback, but some of the factors are listed above. Starting or "bumping" a thread for your study is the best way to receive meaningful readership and constructive criticism. The newly created sticky thread is meant to assist in reaching a wider audience for such specific threads.

My intuition is that you may overwhelm many with the amount of data which you often present, your rigorous methodology is not easily understood by the casual reader, and it may be difficult to apply some results directly and meaningfully in a short amount of time. I don't think is uncommon, nor particular to your studies, as I also run into this. I'd rather constructive, meaningful feedback from the select few who understand what is being presented, than a bunch of pats on the back from people who may not understand the study, don't care about the process, don't realize its implications and/or applications, etc. The goal as I see it is to improve one's own study, make it of use to a more (but likely still very limited) audience, and let it be read and used by others who may use it to build and/or improve their own studies. It's not a quick and easy process to advance the knowledge in any area.

That's why I would suggest starting/bumping a thread for the study that meets the most or most important criteria (from your perspective) and see what happens. If you receive some meaningful feedback about at least one study, it may give you insights into how your other studies could be modified or presented differently. If you do that at least a couple times with what you feel is your best work, and no one seems to care or respond, then perhaps you are right and either not enough value your studies or not enough really understand what is being presented to them. If you are performing such studies mainly in hopes of glory or mainly for reasons other than your own innate curiosity and enjoyment, then you may be disappointed, but I wouldn't suggest giving up until you are more certain that is what is best.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote