Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8054197" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Here's the thing, in two parts:1. You made a claim that &quot;actual data doesn't matter.&quot; That's .... the worst thing you can ever say. The data always matters. It might be limited. You might want better data (more data). You might need to be concerned about whether the data is representative for your purposes. You might want the data to better reflect conditions. But actual data always matters. This such a banal point that there are countless jokes that end with the punchline of the clueless guy going, &quot;Yes, that might be how it works in practice, but how does it work in theory?&quot;2. You don't seem to understand why I am suggesting Monte Carlo simulations and regression analysis, but that's okay! I am always open to alternatives. What is weird (and concerning) is that your objection to it (which is not well founded) is based upon a purported inability to capture nuance ... as compared to DPR? Again, to the extent that looking at probabalistic outcomes is limited (as all things are), it is certainly not nearly as limited by nuance as DPR is.And that's the real problem right there; not just that DPR is incredibly limited, but that people that are proponents of it refuse to actually do real math and statistics to come up with better measures. Because that would be ... hard! It's a lot harder to do it right.Just like it's a lot harder to do advanced analytics and statistics in sports than to say, &quot;That guy went 3 for 5. Therefore, he hit 60% of the balls. I am done now, because anything else would be hard and require nuance.&quot;Either we should do things right, or at a bare minimum stop using DPR as the end-all, be-all metric for comparing unlike things.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8054197, member: 7023840"] Here's the thing, in two parts: 1. You made a claim that "actual data doesn't matter." That's .... the worst thing you can ever say. The data always matters. It might be limited. You might want better data (more data). You might need to be concerned about whether the data is representative for your purposes. You might want the data to better reflect conditions. But [I]actual data always matters[/I]. This such a banal point that there are countless jokes that end with the punchline of the clueless guy going, "Yes, that might be how it works in practice, but how does it work in theory?" 2. You don't seem to understand [I]why I am suggesting Monte Carlo simulations and regression analysis[/I], but that's okay! I am always open to alternatives. What is weird (and concerning) is that your objection to it (which is not well founded) is based upon a purported inability to capture nuance ... as compared to DPR? Again, to the extent that looking at probabalistic outcomes is limited (as all things are), it is certainly not [I]nearly as limited by nuance as DPR is[/I]. And that's the real problem right there; not just that DPR is incredibly limited, but that people that are proponents of it refuse to actually do real math and statistics to come up with better measures. Because that would be ... hard! It's a lot harder to do it right. Just like it's a lot harder to do advanced analytics and statistics in sports than to say, "That guy went 3 for 5. Therefore, he hit 60% of the balls. I am done now, because anything else would be hard and require nuance." Either we should do things right, or at a bare minimum stop using DPR as the end-all, be-all metric for comparing unlike things. [/QUOTE]

Verification