View Single Post
Old
10-31-2012, 05:22 PM
  #131
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
You need to stop taking posting lessons from C1958. You'll have to explain yourself better.
It's funny cuz it's true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Honestly dude...most of this post is a lot of bla bla bla where you don't even answer to the points I made half the time.
I addressed your points as appropriately as possible. I don't think you have a valid retort, and so have resorted to accusations of "bla bla bla." It's not like you to give up a fight, but it's probably wise in this case.

I provided analogous, coherent examples, reasoned arguments and simple mathematical formulas in support of my assertions. You have already shown that you don't even understand the math involved in adjusted stats, yet accuse others (specifically me) of not understanding the very process that I was one of the first to create and/or adopt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Most of it is you skirting around admitting there is a big flaw (and there is a big flaw that you will see if you do the exercise I mentioned earlier) while at the same time saying we need to examine possible solutions.
And it's not whether or not further adjustments could make it worse.
Is there a flaw? If you are using adjusted stats to compare the difficulty level of attaining equivalent levels of adjusted production in different seasons, then no, it's not absolutely perfect, so yes there's a flaw... but it's a much, much smaller flaw than there is in using raw data or the compilation of the opinions of a few sportswriters, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Ok, now all that completely aside.
The single biggest thing I keep taking from your posts is that you keep saying that adjusted stats are a replacement for raw stats, that one should use one or the other but not both.
THEY ARE NOT AND YOU SHOULD NOT EXCLUDE EITHER OF THEM!

This whole thing is about what value to assign Adjusted Stats. They are not a replacement for anything! They are not an alternative! They are just another tool to be used to find a reasonable answer.
It sure as hell isn't about excluding anything.
It isn't exclusion. The raw data is simply an ingredient to make a much more satisfying end product. I'll bake cookies, but I won't exclude you from consuming a cup of flour, a cup of sugar, a raw egg, etc. You can lash out at those of us using indoor plumbing, and trudge out to the outhouse in two feet of snow. No one's excluding anything, but those of us who understand adjusted stats prefer not to go back to the dark ages, just because others are afraid of the boogey man.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote