Vincent

History

Member for
46 weeks 3 days

Karma

Current value
2

Recent Comments

Date Title Body
40 weeks 10 hours ago 2 geeky questions/comments

 

Thanks for the post. It's nice to get some insight into your work and methods. I'd like to hear what you think of these two potential issues: 
 
1- "Recursivity" of the opponent strenght adjustment: You adjust the value of each play by team A based on how it performed relative to the average success of Team B's opponents against B over the season. But this average value is itself conditioned by B's strenght of schedule. So if A plays against B, a good SEC team with a brutal schedule that forced it to drop lots of points over the season, PAN will weigh down A's success against B based on B's performance in all these other tough games. PAN will be pessimistic about A's success. Opponents with cupcake schedules will induce the reverse bias in PAN. 
 
2- Taking league conversion averages to assign points to the different plays/positions seems to implicitly trash a lot of interesting team-specific information. I'm pretty sure there's considerable variation in goal line conversion rates for example, so getting that goal line position may not be as beneficial for all teams. I actually don't like this approach (also taken by Football Outsiders) of assigning a priori weights to different plays or statistics. It seems to me like this strategy can't help but be ad hoc. I would advocate mushing together all the relevant stats into something like a factor analysis, where the value given to each type of play is essentially recovered inductively from the covariance structure (weights will be the factor loadings). Would you consider doing this?
 
Thanks again for the great work. I enjoy reading it very much!
 
40 weeks 1 day ago Yeah, the quote is wrong

You're right that this quote is wrong, but it doesn't mean the article is not probabilistic. This is a statistical model so you can only draw probabilistic infnce from it anyway. The author uses a lot of "on average" language elsewhere in the post, and it seems nit picky to bash him from that one lazy language slip.

But yeah, you're right, the quote gives the wrong impression.
40 weeks 1 day ago Long term coaching change

Ver y cool stuff. I love it! Do you have enough instances of coaching changes in the early years to look at 2 or 3-year effects? I réalise this is going to crush your sample size, but it might be intesting given delays for the implementation of new schemes.

 
40 weeks 1 day ago His argument was

His argument was probabilistic, not deterministic. ON AVERAGE replacing a coordinator doesn't make a difference. One outlying case never falsifies a probabilistic argument.

Also, the whole point of the second part of his piece is to highlight teams that don't fit this average pattern. You should read the rest. 
41 weeks 3 days ago yeah, he was 13 when he moved to Barcelona

This is a pretty nice article on him: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/sports/soccer/lionel-messi-boy-genius.html?_r=1&ref=sports
41 weeks 4 days ago The M you can't walk on

Pardon my ignorance, but is that the golden M that's right in front of Hatcher in the middle of the diag? If so, I had no idea you weren't supposed to walk on that thing... Anyone know the origin of this?
41 weeks 5 days ago This is cool

This is really cool stuff. The critics should chill a bit. I really appreciate this fun insider's view. Thanks dude!
41 weeks 6 days ago Asparagi, Tremendi

Plural form is easy.
43 weeks 3 days ago Suggestion

Tim, Love the profiles. Thanks for your hard work! Quick suggestion: It would be nice, for added convenience to the reader, if you could include links to the rating agencies' profiles of the players you discuss. Just a suggestion, do with it what you want
44 weeks 9 hours ago yeah man. This was *very*

yeah man. This was *very* nice
Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.