Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
You set yourself up in your first post in this thread as someone who is much less interested in actual dialogue, and primarily seeking to confirm your already strongly entrenched assertion that "these stats are crap." I encourage you to actually stop and take a look at the link provided by Tinordi here, because it outlines fairly precisely why your "explanation" is a moot point. Perhaps he was somewhat unfair in his accusation that you lack a commensurate understanding of the topic, but you pretty fairly brought this on yourself. You have done so by the brash claim at the outset about the COMPLETE invalidity of the advanced stats that Mirtle is employing, and then by responding with an explanation that turns out to be practically negligible. |
the problem with Tinordi's link is it shows a weak attempt at normalizing data that is already acknowledged as being faulty. If sampling problems are a result of methodology consistencies the data is considered unreliable. You cannot normalize data that should be excluded from the data set as a result of collection errors. If you do it just further compromises your data.
Quote:
|
The fact of the matter is that PDO is useful under certain conditions, but useful nonetheless. It has proven to be a relatively good—if imperfect—predictor of what might happen at the end of the season. By this qualification, would you not agree that this is actually a fairly well grounded method for making general predictions? Or at minimum, for showing areas in which some teams will need to improve in order to either begin to achieve or to maintain success?
|
If you believe the data to be accurate, then yes, you may attempt to make an inference. But if the data is questionable, then any inference made is just a guess. Do I really have to explain how bad data can misrepresent the facts and present a skewed picture of the facts?