After I posed the question (among other comments), concerning the research within games and seasons,
> > What sport are was this discussion about, > > where there was any carry-over effect at all? On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:56:36 +0100, "Sid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [ snip, some]. > > There must be a valid way of ranking one team over another or others? > > I am not interested in winning streaks per se. I am not trying to predict > the odds of the Mets winning their next five games. > > How come the same teams keep winning trophies - it's not by chance is it? Why does that first assertion end in a question mark? Do you have any question at all? The latest baseball-player model that I read (Chance, last year) was describing single players as having a few years of improvement, high performance, perhaps a drop at the end. Yes, the models do suppose that, in a given season, one team is better than another. I don't remember much about modeling across seasons, but I do see - perusing sports pages across the years - that there can be a lot of variability between years. Chance? - There's a really, really, strong human tendency to assign credit and blame. And to see patterns in the moving shadows. Is there anything sillier to saying (and meaning it), "That proves who is better!" -- after a 7-game Basketball series. Statisticians know something about the reliability of short series. I heard that comment a few years ago, after a championship series that included 3 (or so) overtime games, and various last-minute 'bounces' including balls-on-the-rim, and calls of the referee. -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." Justice Holmes. . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
