How to do "comprehensive" player evaluation w/o one metrics
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:04 am
I assume it goes one of two ways:
I got 17, 57 or 117 partial stats that I have looked at and considered. Let's see... I'll give this guy a bit of credit for this, some for that, something in between for this, but deduct a tad for this, a lot for that, more for that other thing, a smidge for this, etc., etc. etc., oh wait I better go back and adjust that one thing and maybe that other, etc., etc. etc. whew! I got thru it all! But wait, I dunno if is right, right. My gut says higher or lower.
OR... my brain has considered all 17, 57 or 117 and... at this moment it seems like this is the well-considered answer... TaDa! I am skipping all that ratcheting up and down because I am confident that some part of my brain did all that without me having to explicitly be aware of it. And I think it probably did all those summations in a reasonably consistent way. That is its job right? It must know. That's a nice simplifying, time-saving belief. I am glad I decided to go this way.
If you really want to do either of these, you can do it on top of one metrics rather than instead of them.
Neither may be fully defensible as the perfect way but one has the appearance or the probable greater likelihood of consistency and completeness than the other major approach. At least for what you put in the one metric. And if you presumably put everything into consideration with RPM... that seems useful. But go ahead and ruminate and refine on top of that if The Math isn't adequate for you. Art overlay on science. Better than analysis without weights or calculations or either? Probably. Weights and calculations seem worthwhile in other decision making exercises.
I got 17, 57 or 117 partial stats that I have looked at and considered. Let's see... I'll give this guy a bit of credit for this, some for that, something in between for this, but deduct a tad for this, a lot for that, more for that other thing, a smidge for this, etc., etc. etc., oh wait I better go back and adjust that one thing and maybe that other, etc., etc. etc. whew! I got thru it all! But wait, I dunno if is right, right. My gut says higher or lower.
OR... my brain has considered all 17, 57 or 117 and... at this moment it seems like this is the well-considered answer... TaDa! I am skipping all that ratcheting up and down because I am confident that some part of my brain did all that without me having to explicitly be aware of it. And I think it probably did all those summations in a reasonably consistent way. That is its job right? It must know. That's a nice simplifying, time-saving belief. I am glad I decided to go this way.
If you really want to do either of these, you can do it on top of one metrics rather than instead of them.
Neither may be fully defensible as the perfect way but one has the appearance or the probable greater likelihood of consistency and completeness than the other major approach. At least for what you put in the one metric. And if you presumably put everything into consideration with RPM... that seems useful. But go ahead and ruminate and refine on top of that if The Math isn't adequate for you. Art overlay on science. Better than analysis without weights or calculations or either? Probably. Weights and calculations seem worthwhile in other decision making exercises.