View Single Post
10-31-2012, 05:21 PM
Student Of The Game
seventieslord's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,146
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
If the graph is not acurate for whatever then perhaps that should have been the initial response to my complaint about it. I guess its useless in this debate.

You take every NHL season ever and adjust all the stats to 82gp and 6gpg (skaters). What is that? What have you done to the seasons?

I alter every result in a set of test scores so everyone gets 60%. Someone asks to audit the tests. Now I have to go in and alter the mark for each question. What happens to the 0's and 100%'s achieved for individual questions? If the original result was 40% on a particular test, do I just add 50% to each individual question?

I can show you that graph.
---------------------------- 60%
____________________ 40%

It doesn't matter how I shape it, the two graphs would be parallel in some geometry. But now I'm giving value to 0's. I'm creating value where none existed before.

If I use some multiplier so as not alter the 0's and perhaps the 100's then I've completely changed the relationship between the grades on individual questions. My graphed results for a single test would look like two uniquely formed pieces of string with the ends tied together. Perhaps even a circle. There may be some visible correlation since the new curve comes from the values of the first curve but the shape would clearly be distorted.

Both these methods fail to maintain either the integrity or relationship of the grades recieved for each question on each individual test.

Now suppose that to prevent cheating I have more than one test. They have different questions and even different numbers of questions. Some of the questions are not changed however except perhaps the wording.

I need different formulae if I want to keep the 0's. In that case people who got identical results on questions that every test had might now have different results.

If I don't care about 0's then many would have different results on questions that they originally had identical results.

Making all the tests have the same final result only leads to errors on the individual test questions.

Call it whatever you want but making all the seasons exactly equal with respect to gp, gpg, players per team can only lead to errors.

The only reason to even do this is a misplaced notion of bell curving. The belief that there exists an average. The refusal to accept extreme outliers as a possible real outcome. The 'bell curve' is a way of thinking that permeates evaluation and prediction of productivity.

You need to read that study or read it differently. Ignore the data and read what the authors purpose was and how the results support it.

If you are averaging and making all the seasons have the same values, if you are forcing the outliers to conform to average then you are bell curving whether you see the physical thing or not.
Iím sorry, but all I see here is irrelevant drivel.

Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Not to mention that Gretzky is actually getting punished more than anyone else because the more he scores, the lower the average gets when his points are removed.
While Nilan, who is below the average, when his points are removed, the average actually goes up and he benefits from it.

That's hilarious
CYM showed you this is absolutely incorrect.

Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
As I tried to show previously, Gretzky's points would not be multiplied by a lower number (the calculated league avg. gpg that season), but multiplied by a constant (6.00 gpg is the most frequently used standard) and divided by the lower number (league avg. gpg). Dividing by a lower number yields a higher result, hence why I said that such a calculation would help the higher scoring player, such as Gretzky.
This kind of got glossed over by Rhiessan taking this entire post and replying to it as one block instead of addressing this individually. But you are obviously correct.

Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
You need to stop taking posting lessons from C1958. You'll have to explain yourself better. What do you mean that "outliers are denied"?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote