from Amazon
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Andrew Gelman on Pete Palmer
He said:
Bill James had a comment once about some analysis of Palmer that gave players negative values in the declining years of their careers. As James wrote, your first assumption is that when a team keeps a player on their roster, they have a good reason.
I responded:
Andrew,
If the average statistician makes 96,000$ a year, and you make 76,000$ a year, and I represent you as making -20,000$ a year RELATIVE TO AVERAGE, does this mean you have “negative value”? No, it only means you have negative value relative to average.
If the average statistician consultant makes 8,000$ a month, and I hire a statistician consultant for 6,000$ for one month, and I represent that guy as making -2,000$ relative to the average consultant, does this mean he has negative value?
And does the first guy have more negative value than the second guy?
This is all Pete Palmer did, to represent the performance of a player relative to the average, if the average player had the same number of opportunities as that player.
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 343 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date