Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Well, no, I'm accepting it because the guy who created it explained in great detail what is process was, and the testing he performed to try to make it as accurate as possible, leading to a very high R2 value compared to standings points over a number of years... just like the way every other statistical model in every other area where statistics is used does. They're not banging rocks together, there are accepted methods of doing this type of work.
Well, the model author has explained why he thinks his model is reasonably accurate and predictive. He also has a lot of education in this area that you lack (as far as I know; maybe you have some education in stats that you haven't disclosed so correct me if I'm wrong), and while it's a bit of an appeal to authority I'm always inclined to listen to the expert who has provided a long detailed explanation about why he's right over the layperson who has provided no justification for his beliefs.
So I disagree. I would say that the burden is definitely on you as to why we should believe you.
|
We were typing at the same time.
Yes, I have a fair bit of training and experience with statistical modelling and analysis.
And again, no, the burden is always on the model. Even if the author has followed proper modelling techniques (they have), that still doesn't ensure valid results. What we have with hockey stats is 'well, this is the best we can do at this point'. That is not a criticism to those producing them, it is simply the limitations that they face.