Grades v UCF

[gatordavisl]

Originally Posted by InstiGATOR1

1. As I said originally, I weighted by minutes played. To me that makes sense as the players that play must play all the minutes. I gave Walker a 4, the average of his team scores, as Tupac gave him no rating but suggested there was nothing positive or negative to day.

2. There is certainly enough data to be internally consistent. One could do all the rankings presented here, then compare the player and team averages and then make adjustments to make them roughly internally consistent.

4. Because they are subjective rankings they can be made internally consistent. In fact making them internally consistent is a check on subjective biases.

5. I guess I could include the coaching rating. I chose not to because the staff and announcers do not play minutes on the court and the player ratings to some extent reflects the coach impact. Still in this case if I included Donovan's 6 the average would go up.

1) I am curious as to how you are "weighing" that. What type of statistics are you applying?
2)No - 2 ratings for an entire team rating presents a serious dilemma wrt to internal consistency, esp when you are dealing with subjective ratings. There is obviously a lack of data. You mention "all the rankings here," but there are only two team rankings.

4) You might do some homework on establishing internal consistency. One doesn't "make" it internally consistent.

5) You should not include the coach rating, as your main point of contention is minutes played, which is chosen by the coach, but NOT chosen by the players.

I'm not trying to bust you on your statistical rationale, but am genuinely interested in your method to control for minutes played.

[themistocles]

This was a most interesting discussion.

I have felt that Billy D leaves the "regulars" in too long for ages.

I really do agree with Bullish in that Boynton, playing on a tender ankle, despite forcing some shots, deserves a higher score.

[gatordavisl]

themis - I am certain that you can provide some statistical insights. This is a subjective measure, and should be regarded as such. I do not understand Insti's critique.

[InstiGATOR1]

Originally Posted by gatordavisl

1) I am curious as to how you are "weighing" that. What type of statistics are you applying?

2)No - 2 ratings for an entire team rating presents a serious dilemma wrt to internal consistency, esp when you are dealing with subjective ratings. There is obviously a lack of data. You mention "all the rankings here," but there are only two team rankings.

4) You might do some homework on establishing internal consistency. One doesn't "make" it internally consistent.

5) You should not include the coach rating, as your main point of contention is minutes played, which is chosen by the coach, but NOT chosen by the players.

I'm not trying to bust you on your statistical rationale, but am genuinely interested in your method to control for minutes played.

1. A player who plays 30 mins plays .75 of a player game. I multiplied min/40 for each player by their rankings, summed up the result which is then for 5 players or 200 minutes and then I divided by that summ by 5 to get a weighted average ranking per player as per the Tupac scale.

2. Internal consistency is the player rankings being consistent with the team rankings, SINCE THE PLAYER MAKE UP THE TEAM AND PLAY ALL THE TEAM MINUTES.

4. One certainly can make subjective ranking internally consistent. Something non-subjective either is or is not internally consistent, but sometime you can make something non-subjective that is not internally consistent, internally consistent if you have a good reason. [A quick example, for some reason I jumped from 2 to 4 in my number of the points. That is not consistent numbering. Had I noticed that I probably would have gone back and MADE the numbering consistent so no one was looking back to see what point 3 was. So even with something concrete you can sometimes for good reason make the numbers consistent. ]

5. We agree on coaching rating then.

I hope point 1 makes it clear how I weighted the player grades to get a composite team grade. I did not have real strong opinion on internal consistency or had not thought it out much until you prompted me to think about it. The more I have thought about it, the more I think Tupac should make this player and team rankings roughly consistent with each other.

I thought UF played pretty well against UCF, though as other have said their were areas that could have been better. I think I believe UF played a bit better than the average poster around here thinks. I agreed generally with Tupac's player rating and I think they better reflect how UF played than his team rankings.

Had Tupac looked at the minutes weighted average of his player rating, he may well have given higher team grades or he might have gone back and lowered his player grades.

[tupacbiff]

Originally Posted by InstiGATOR1

1. A player who plays 30 mins plays .75 of a player game. I multiplied min/40 for each player by their rankings, summed up the result which is then for 5 players or 200 minutes and then I divided by that summ by 5 to get a weighted average ranking per player as per the Tupac scale.

2. Internal consistency is the player rankings being consistent with the team rankings, SINCE THE PLAYER MAKE UP THE TEAM AND PLAY ALL THE TEAM MINUTES.

4. One certainly can make subjective ranking internally consistent. Something non-subjective either is or is not internally consistent, but sometime you can make something non-subjective that is not internally consistent, internally consistent if you have a good reason. [A quick example, for some reason I jumped from 2 to 4 in my number of the points. That is not consistent numbering. Had I noticed that I probably would have gone back and MADE the numbering consistent so no one was looking back to see what point 3 was. So even with something concrete you can sometimes for good reason make the numbers consistent. ]

5. We agree on coaching rating then.

I hope point 1 makes it clear how I weighted the player grades to get a composite team grade. I did not have real strong opinion on internal consistency or had not thought it out much until you prompted me to think about it. The more I have thought about it, the more I think Tupac should make this player and team rankings roughly consistent with each other.

I thought UF played pretty well against UCF, though as other have said their were areas that could have been better. I think I believe UF played a bit better than the average poster around here thinks. I agreed generally with Tupac's player rating and I think they better reflect how UF played than his team rankings.

Had Tupac looked at the minutes weighted average of his player rating, he may well have given higher team grades or he might have gone back and lowered his player grades.

I never thought responding to a request to add team off and def would set off a stats debate.