Re: quite an achievement
- From: "David North" <dnorth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 23:38:37 -0000
"Robert Henderson" <philip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:b5HW7OEfWjgHFwWw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In message <5uepc3F1hgmuoU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David North
<dnorth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Oh dear, what a ricket for a professional mathematician. The average isWhat innumerate and irrelevant distinction do you intend toYou miss the point, as usual. If you're looking for theROTFL! The discussion was about the overall quality of the players
*average* standard
then
and now. RH
draw between the "overall quality" and the "average standard"?
just that, an average which can hide a multitude of sins in terms of
difference within the population being averaged.
And it didn't take long for the "translations" to appear.
"Average *standard*", not "average. The proposal wasn't that the
population be averaged, but that we look at the standard of the
typical member of that population, rather than at the standard of
unusual members
. For the present purposes, the statistical average
is not relevant; we already know the RPW, and it tells us nothing
about the quality of the players. What we need is some *other*
evidence about players who achieved roughly that RPW, whether as
batsmen or bowlers, that we can compare across eras.
The overall standard
can be expressed in various ways, for example, the number on or near
the
median,
I would take bets that the number exceeding the median was
close to 50% both in 1955 and 2007, and that the number on or near
the median was very small both years.
Right. Off you go to test your claim. RH
the number who exceed the median by twenty per cent and so. Rh
That's a measure of dispersion. What are you claiming this
statistic would tell us about the overall standard, and why?
Easy. The overall standard can be assessed by referring to things such
as
how many players are well above average or median, how many around the
median, how many well below the median. RH
OK, here are the percentages, for three seasons, of bowlers with averages
within 20% of the median bowling average for that season, < 80% of the
median and > 120% of the median. In each case, I have excluded bowlers who
bowled less than 50 overs.
Season A
<80% - 25.6%
Within 20% - 33.1%
120% - 41.3%
Season B
<80% - 29.8%
Within 20% - 25.8%
120% - 44.4%
Season C
<80% - 30.8%
Within 20% - 26.9%
120% - 42.3%
Tell us what those figures tell you about the overall standard in each
season.
--
A single season tells you nothing. You need a series to evaluate a trend.
RH
So if I give you the same figures for three sequences of five seasons, do
you think that will tell you anything?
--
David North
Test Career Ratings: http://www.lanefarm.plus.com/cricket/ratings
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: quite an achievement
- From: Robert Henderson
- Re: quite an achievement
- References:
- Re: quite an achievement
- From: Robert Henderson
- Re: quite an achievement
- From: Andy Walker
- Re: quite an achievement
- From: Robert Henderson
- Re: quite an achievement
- From: Andy Walker
- Re: quite an achievement
- From: Robert Henderson
- Re: quite an achievement
- From: David North
- Re: quite an achievement
- From: Robert Henderson
- Re: quite an achievement
- Prev by Date: Re: quite an achievement
- Next by Date: Re: Jeez........!
- Previous by thread: Re: quite an achievement
- Next by thread: Re: quite an achievement
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|