Twitter helper (a place to put longer comments)
Twitter helper (a place to put longer comments)
I've been trying twitter for a few months. Still really dislike outdated 140 character limit. Want a place to compose longer comments and link to them. Might also draw some new / old folks here. An experiment. Ignore unless the comments interest. Anyone else want to use for same basketball analysis purpose, feel free. Or link to twitter stuff you think is important, potentially worth longer discussion here.
Re: Twitter helper (a place to put longer comments)
Tweet to talking practice: With that in mind, what do you think of presenting player value / impact estimates in say 5-7-9 tiers, either instead of as point estimates or in addition to point estimates by the way they are grouped and / or color coded?
Re: Twitter helper (a place to put longer comments)
So analytics (and I assume one metrics are a major part of this) helped identify the value of D Green... but one metrics mean way less than most think? What does Seth think of one metric's discovery or validation of D Green? Was he going to be found and ranked high anyways by eye test without any use of one metric ratings?
Re: Twitter helper (a place to put longer comments)
Teams use stats, including single value metrics, to act as a filter on who to scout. You can't scout everyone with the same intensity!
Re: Twitter helper (a place to put longer comments)
That would seem smart to me, but not sure everyone agrees that this usage occurs or should.
Re: Twitter helper (a place to put longer comments)
Teams do use stats that way, I've heard directly from them that is the case.Crow wrote:That would seem smart to me, but not sure everyone agrees that this usage occurs or should.
Re: Twitter helper (a place to put longer comments)
7. Tweet to talking practice:
Sure context matters. But do people think rpm, which intends to handle context, routinely does poorly with context adjustments most of time or less than 1/3rd of the time or in between or unknowable with any confidence? Want to know how worthless some think it is. The tone of the recent critique from Seth been broad, near total rejection. You sound like you go almost or as far. Is that case? Then why bother with IPV and a new version of something. If it still has value to you, how much, how often? Pretty useful to find 3-5-7 general tiers with one or not that much?
As for Josh Smith, either he was good or had a very favorable context or both.What do you and Seth say on that? This isn't too deep but looking at his context when he had strong rpm ratings he had vet guards and Al Horford or an Al Horford type. Can you really predict Smith's ratings will rise until you know if he will have one or both of these? Or is anything much better than Van Gundy, Jennings / Pope and Monroe / Drummond?
Sure context matters. But do people think rpm, which intends to handle context, routinely does poorly with context adjustments most of time or less than 1/3rd of the time or in between or unknowable with any confidence? Want to know how worthless some think it is. The tone of the recent critique from Seth been broad, near total rejection. You sound like you go almost or as far. Is that case? Then why bother with IPV and a new version of something. If it still has value to you, how much, how often? Pretty useful to find 3-5-7 general tiers with one or not that much?
As for Josh Smith, either he was good or had a very favorable context or both.What do you and Seth say on that? This isn't too deep but looking at his context when he had strong rpm ratings he had vet guards and Al Horford or an Al Horford type. Can you really predict Smith's ratings will rise until you know if he will have one or both of these? Or is anything much better than Van Gundy, Jennings / Pope and Monroe / Drummond?