APBRmetrics

mystic wrote:There were actually people arguing or taking side with WP and pointing out the good things the metric is supposed to do.

There were few people who tried... yet none of them said a) they use this metric and b) they think it's a good metric. Not exactly someone I would like to take as my attorney in any case. They were more like a curious by-stander.

mystic wrote:That's how it works. Seriously, if WP would be great at all those things, much more people would actually say that. It is just a weird idea that people would argue against WP without a very good reason.

Come on, overall more people argue for watching basketball as an evaluation tool than using advanced stats so I don't think popularity is a good argument in any debate of quality.

mystic wrote:When you name a blog after a book title, what do you think you want to accomplish with that?

As I've said, this argument IMO was valid in the beginning when Berri was responsible for all of the content but no longer is. Why would they suddenly change a name?

mystic wrote:When you constantly refer to the books, what purpose has that?

Constantly? In how many recent posts have you seen such suggestion?

mystic wrote:And when people only using your metric in their articles and other things are said to be irrelevant, why do you think that is the case?

They think it's a garbage. When you don't see any pluses you won't talk about them.

mystic wrote:For sure I don't have a copy of their paychecks, but I know that I got money for writing articles, and a lot of the stuff they are doing on WoW is pretty time consuming, if those people are not getting paid, they are even more naiv than I thought.

But that's actually a great point and something I haven't thought about - wouldn't such prove be more damning than all arguments against WP combined?

mystic wrote:Look at the reaction by the WoW staff when someone asks too many questions or raises reasonable doubts about WP. They constantly get attacked personally.

As people from WoW here! I mean the guy who started this topic got offended literally in the first reply... and he started with a premise of making changes in WP! Not surprisingly he quickly left.

mystic wrote:How many articles have you found on WoW which are critical with the methodology?

Criticising your own work on your own blog to me seems masochistic at best.
How many articles have you wrote on your blog which are critical with your methodology?
I know I haven't.

For sure I don't have a copy of their paychecks,

I can assure you that no one is getting paid to write posts for the WOW website. Books like Berri's (both remaindered at this point, I'm sure) don't generate anywhere close to the revenue needed to justify paying people to promote them. I'm sure everyone there is writing on their own time, and has a good-faith belief that Berri knows what he's talking about and that WP is the best boxscore metric. (You can decide for yourself whether this gives you more or less respect for these posters.)

I meant your content, which is entirly based on the pattern "WP vs. APM".

Exactly right. While perhaps entirely innocent on wilq's part, he has framed this in Berri's terms. Berri wants to believe that all of his critics are committed to another metric, which is why they criticize WP. In fact, he has even suggested -- outrageously, and with zero evidence -- that some of them do this for financial reasons, so they can sell their preferred metric to NBA teams. In reality, the category "WP critics" is enormous and varied, encompassing people who see value in a wide variety of different metrics and analytic approaches (after all, it includes basically every basketball analyst in the world except those who post on the WP site).

Which is why wilq is wrong, IMO, to say that "Both sides are convinced their way is the only right way." That is an accurate description of most of the people in the WOW community (and Berri, of course). But it is not true of the APBR community, which contains a range of views and features many internal disagreements. Moreover, I don't think anyone here would claim that any single metric comes close to providing a definitive measure of player performance. The Berrites, in contrast, think they've got performance measured just about perfectly. They are somewhat trapped by their famed .95 R^2 -- once you've explained 95% of outcomes, then by definition your metric can't really be improved upon. So in addition to being much more diverse in outlook, the community here is quite a bit more modest in the claims it makes.....

Guy wrote:I'm sure everyone there is writing on their own time, and has a good-faith belief that Berri knows what he's talking about and that WP is the best boxscore metric. (You can decide for yourself whether this gives you more or less respect for these posters.)

Which is again a not so subtle stab at those people.

Guy wrote:Berri wants to believe that all of his critics are committed to another metric, which is why they criticize WP.

He's an economist so he strongly believes in the incentives behind actions?
BTW, is there someone here who doesn't have a metric of choice?

Guy wrote:category "WP critics" is enormous and varied, encompassing people who see value in a wide variety of different metrics and analytic approaches (after all, it includes basically every basketball analyst in the world except those who post on the WP site). [...]
Which is why wilq is wrong, IMO, to say that "Both sides are convinced their way is the only right way." That is an accurate description of most of the people in the WOW community (and Berri, of course). But it is not true of the APBR community, which contains a range of views and features many internal disagreements.

So on one hand you argue everybody hates WP but on the other you disagree that opponents of WP think their way of judging quality of a metric is the right way? IMO that's a contradiction unless everyone has a different reason to dislike it.

Guy wrote:Moreover, I don't think anyone here would claim that any single metric comes close to providing a definitive measure of player performance. [...]
the community here is quite a bit more modest in the claims it makes.....

That's definitely true.

wilq wrote: There were few people who tried... yet none of them said a) they use this metric and b) they think it's a good metric. Not exactly someone I would like to take as my attorney in any case. They were more like a curious by-stander.

There seems to be the misguided idea that all opinions have to be presented equally. Sorry, but that is an argument creationists also using. You can't use the fact that WP is presented not equally as evidence of bias. It could just simply be the case that the variety of people around here found that WP is not worth much for completely valid reasons!

wilq wrote: Come on, overall more people argue for watching basketball as an evaluation tool than using advanced stats so I don't think popularity is a good argument in any debate of quality.

Sorry, but that is a strawmen. We are talking about APBR here, and I don't see the majority arguing with "watch the game instead of using advanced metrics".

wilq wrote: As people from WoW here! I mean the guy who started this topic got offended literally in the first reply... and he started with a premise of making changes in WP! Not surprisingly he quickly left.

So, because one poster makes a semi-appropiated comment and a couple are making some suggestion, you take it as if "all people from APBR are attacking WP people when they asking questions"?. No, sorry, but that is again just based on your way too simple view on those things.

wilq wrote: How many articles have you wrote on your blog which are critical with your methodology?
I know I haven't.

I don't write any articles on my blog anyway, neither do I promote my method as the only valid method nor do I attempt to be critical. BUT, when I write posts and people are asking questions I ALWAYS point out the limitations of the boxscore itself and the overall limitations of my metric. You can find MULTIPLE examples of that on RealGM, for example.


Guy, I take your word on that, but I can't imagine so much work without getting paid. Ok, some have their own projects and maybe they are using that to get more people to their own websites. That might work. But they have to know that Berri at least gets some money out of that by promoting his books (very prominent at the top).
And I agree with your second part, completely.

mystic wrote:You can't use the fact that WP is presented not equally as evidence of bias. It could just simply be the case that the variety of people around here found that WP is not worth much for completely valid reasons!

I don't deny your reasons nor I suggested you have a bias, I'm just trying to point out that discussions here about WoW seem very one-sided because nobody takes a WP's side. What's even worse after those topics you like the argument "hey, nobody defended it so how terrible it must be?".
IMHO both those facts greatly contribute to a poor quality of the discussion. And by "poor quality" I don't mean your merits or your opinions but the form of piling up arguments without any attempt of counterarguments.

mystic wrote:So, because one poster makes a semi-appropiated comment and a couple are making some suggestion, you take it as if "all people from APBR are attacking WP people when they asking questions"?

No, I presented an example where you treated someone from WoW they way they [reportedly] treat you which is another factor in a quality of this discussion. I don't care who would "win" and I don't care who is right, I'm just disappointed I can't read it anywhere and based on a worsening situation I don't think I ever will be able to.

mystic wrote:

Guy, I take your word on that, but I can't imagine so much work without getting paid. Ok, some have their own projects and maybe they are using that to get more people to their own websites. That might work. But they have to know that Berri at least gets some money out of that by promoting his books (very prominent at the top).
And I agree with your second part, completely.

I'm sure Berri makes some money, but I doubt the others are. But is it so surprising that people put in a lot of work without getting paid? Heck, I'm not getting paid and I feel like I put a lot of effort into this stuff.

And let's be honest, how hard is it to write a WP article? Hell, you really only need one template. Any of us can do it. In fact, we don't even need to read the articles anymore. You see the title, and you immediately know everything that follows.

wilq wrote: I don't deny your reasons nor I suggested you have a bias, I'm just trying to point out that discussions here about WoW seem very one-sided because nobody takes a WP's side.

We just established that people have taken a WP's side. That they don't have strong arguments doesn't mean they are nobodies. So, stop relying on wrong statements.

wilq wrote: What's even worse after those topics you like the argument "hey, nobody defended it so how terrible it must be?".
IMHO both those facts greatly contribute to a poor quality of the discussion. And by "poor quality" I don't mean your merits or your opinions but the form of piling up arguments without any attempt of counterarguments.

Honestly, the quality of the discussion degraded over time, like it is always the case when someone puts out a hypothesis and sticks to it even though it was shown that he is wrong. What else do you expect? You are just late to the party, nothing else.

wilq wrote:No, I presented an example where you treated someone from WoW they way they [reportedly] treat you which is another factor in a quality of this discussion.

I treated the op with a personal attack? Seriously, you are confusing things here. Too much Żubrówka?

wilq wrote: I don't care who would "win" and I don't care who is right, I'm just disappointed I can't read it anywhere and based on a worsening situation I don't think I ever will be able to.

Well, it is a pretty simple thing, at least to me: Do you think that you can treat a basketball game as if 5 seperated 1on1 games happen on the court or are those people actually playing one 5on5 game?

mystic wrote:We just established that people have taken a WP's side. That they don't have strong arguments doesn't mean they are nobodies. So, stop relying on wrong statements.

You think you've established it even though it is just not true.
Here's a breakdown of posts by different authors from the last 10 page discussion about WP:
mystic 39
EvanZ 19
Mike G 16
xkonk 15
Crow 13
Chicago76 11
motherwell 8
greyberger 6
bbstats 5
DSMok1 4
Italian Stallion 4
huevonkiller 3
Guy 2
bchaikin 2
Statman 2
LA Blue Devil 1
J.E. 1
Metsox 1

Yup, very diversified group in terms of opinions about the WP. I think the only one with a different point of view was xkonk and even that may have been the accident because he was asking questions along the lines not defending the position of WP per se.

mystic wrote:Seriously, you are confusing things here. Too much Żubrówka?

ROTFL, sure and I also stole your car because I hate you for WWII

WP was debunked within 20 minutes of its first introduction to this forum.

You're wondering why nobody here is working to verify it, and I'm wondering why anyone is still trying to take anything useful from it.

I guess it could be given to students, as an exercise in explaining what's wrong with it.
I've always figured those WoW authors were grad students, either working for Berri or for someone he knows.

wilq wrote: Yup, very diversified group in terms of opinions about the WP. I think the only one with a different point of view was xkonk and even that may have been the accident because he was asking questions along the lines not defending the position of WP per se.

Honestly, even 1 is still more than 0. That can't be so hard to understand, can it?

And also, what exactly do you expect? WP was published years ago, the first longer discussion about WP happened about 7 years ago. And if you want a discussion, why don't you start one? If you are so interested in it, you should be going a different way, I guess.

wilq wrote: ROTFL, sure and I also stole your car because I hate you for WWII

To nie jest możliwe, ponieważ moja dziewczyna była szybsza. Poza tym nie nienawidzi mnie za drugą wojnę światową.

Mike G wrote:You're wondering why nobody here is working to verify it, and I'm wondering why anyone is still trying to take anything useful from it.

I'm wondering why discussions were and still are so different from any other topics. Even if someone presents something mediocre at best you don't automatically use this trashing mode as with anything related to WoW. I don't know, maybe it's an allergy at this point ;-)
BTW, how many of you were banned via e-mail from commenting on WoW?

mystic wrote:Honestly, even 1 is still more than 0.

Who is the strawmen now? ;-P Especially when those questions couldn't count as a full supporter.

mystic wrote:And also, what exactly do you expect? WP was published years ago, the first longer discussion about WP happened about 7 years ago.

Which I've read and the form of discussion was similar.

mystic wrote:And if you want a discussion, why don't you start one? If you are so interested in it, you should be going a different way, I guess. ;)

I'm not interested in defending WP for the same reason I won't defend principles behind your metric - I don't think I could make a good enough case to counter scrutiny for more than a couple of good posts.

mystic wrote:To nie jest możliwe, ponieważ moja dziewczyna była szybsza. Poza tym nie nienawidzi mnie za drugą wojnę światową. ;)

Nice. BTW, I think it qualifies as a spam... ban him!!! ;-)

Yup, very diversified group in terms of opinions about the WP. I think the only one with a different point of view was xkonk and even that may have been the accident because he was asking questions along the lines not defending the position of WP per se.

wilq: I sympathize with your frustration over the "debates" that now occur at both sites. They are very one-sided, and arguments are dismissed as often as refuted. They do not remotely resemble the kind of balanced exchange you obviously want. What I don't understand is why you seem to think this site should provide such an exchange to you. You're very late to the party, and most/all of the issues have been hashed over at length. Are half of the posters here supposed to pretend to like WP for your entertainment/edification? Why? Would you go to a biology website and expect a "balanced" discussion of intelligent design?

But if you're willing to be a little industrious, you can find many exchanges where both sides of the WP debate are well represented. Arturo's "silly stats" site has numerous threads on the topic (see for example http://arturogalletti.wordpress.com/201 ... -equation/. Back in the day, WOW.com itself had many, many exchanges between Berri and people critical of WP (one thing you can't fault Berri for is refusing to respond to criticisms). The pages of this site recently recovered by Daniel include at least 2 long threads on WP from 2006 and 2007. There are probably others.

OK, that's a fair analogy with biology and at this point I'm just bothering you over my own imagination.
Let's call it my unnecessary rant of the day and move on.
Though I find it really ironic that in a aforementioned link your own first words were "I’m sure you agree that this discussion can only be productive if everyone engages the actual arguments made by the other side" ;-))

Just curious: do any of the writers of wagesofwins.com or its various related sites ever attend the MIT Sloan conference? I know most of them rarely participate on this board. I for one would be curious to meet one of those folks and talk about these issues.

Jon Nichols wrote:Just curious: do any of the writers of wagesofwins.com or its various related sites ever attend the MIT Sloan conference? I know most of them rarely participate on this board. I for one would be curious to meet one of those folks and talk about these issues.

Yes; if you search 'sloan' on the site there are a couple posts from March when the conference was going on. I don't know if Berri has been.