This week's stats are Passing Yards and Interceptions. Complaints? Ask Tony Barriere.
I understand that there's been some unexpected continuity with Interceptions. Over the three years of play, the categories should be much more evenly dispersed. And yes, it makes sense to look at this over the three-year term vs. the one year term. If you have more complaints, I suggest you look at a Statistics book and consult the Normal Distribution.
Last week's stats will be up by 1pm today.
Uh... Pat... last weeks stats are already up.
ReplyDeletehas anyone posted the actual numbers yet?
ReplyDeleteHaving excel problems... this is going to have to wait until after I get off work. (Im on lunch)
ReplyDeleteI gotta stop committing to this stuff!
Well, I've never guest lectured a MBA class on statistics, so I'm no expert like Sir Patrick. But my guess would be that 14 draws a year for 3 years from 2 categories of 3 is not going to be a sufficient enough data set to achieve Normal Distribution. If it is not, then it is very possible that Int's or some other category will dominate the drawings.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if you roll a 3 sided die 42 times, I would guess that it isn't all that unlikely that you would get results like this- a 2 would come up 21 times a 3 14 times, and a 1 only 7 times. If you roll the die 4200 times, then it is going to level out and be about 33% of the time for each #. (This must be the normal distribution that the Wise One speaks of.)
What is the purpose of keeping it this way and having the possibility that one category will dominate? Just because you don't want to change? It seems like a much better system to take out a category after it has been used, and avoid this kind of lopsidedness. Especially considering that teams in the league are built in all different ways. (The guys like Jolly with awesome rushing teams are getting screwed to this point.) Why is fairness so important when it comes to waivers, but for a system that directly impacts the points, it can be left completely to chance?
Just my 2 cents.
I didn't realize that the actual numbers hadn't been posted...
ReplyDelete