theogt;1437902 said:
Do you have a hard time reading? Did you not miss the point where I said it was anything but "rigorous academics?" It's a book by a very well known economist, who actually does credible economic work outside of the book. He's not some wack-job. It was just an example of non-"dollar" economic study. You had a misconception that is very common among ignorant people. You don't quite understand what it is that economists do. I can see that now.
And you have any notion of what economists do? Excuse me but I gather from reading this that you are NOT an economist. I mean here is a synopsis of his book
Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool? What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? How much do parents really matter? What kind of impact did Roe v. Wade have on violent crime?
These may not sound like typical questions for an economist to ask. But Steven D. Levitt is not a typical economist. He is a much-heralded young scholar who studies the riddles of everyday life-from cheating and crime to sports and child-rearing — and whose conclusions regularly turn the conventional wisdom on its head. He usually begins with a mountain of data and a simple, unasked question. Some of these questions concern life-and-death issues; others have an admittedly freakish quality. Thus the new field of study contained in this book: Freakonomics.
Through forceful storytelling and wry insight, Levitt and co-author Stephen J. Dubner show that economics is, at root, the study of incentives - how people get what they want, or need, especially when other people want or need the same thing. In Freakonomics, they set out to explore the hidden side of — well, everything. The inner workings of a crack gang. The truth about real-estate agents. The myths of campaign finance. The telltale marks of a cheating schoolteacher. The secrets of the Ku Klux Klan.
What unites all these stories is a belief that the modern world, despite a surfeit of obfuscation, complication, and downright deceit, is not impenetrable, is not unknowable, and - if the right questions are asked - is even more intriguing than we think. All it takes is a new way of looking. Steven Levitt, through devilishly clever and clear-eyed thinking, shows how to see through all the clutter.
Freakonomics establishes this unconventional premise: if morality represents how we would like the world to work, then economics represents how it actually does work. It is true that readers of this book will be armed with enough riddles and stories to last a thousand cocktail parties. But Freakonomics can provide more than that. It will literally redefine the way we view the modern world.
Now I am interested as to exactly what part of all this demonstrates how he is taking ambiguos economic terms and applying a numerical value for it. I just want one example not some reference to a book that supposedly includes that. I mean the books arms you with riddles and stories is not exactly what I would call a method of statistical analysis which is what we are talkinga bout here.
This book is a bunch of anecdotes.
And furthermore i would add that you are now talking about how your not talking about rigorous academics whereas you before criticized me because you said i had no experience doing a academic study. I prove you worng and then you come back with this tripe. im going to start calling you IHOP, waffler.
Well I asked for an example of how economists set arbitrary values to ambiguous concepts in their forecasting. I mean after all that is what I am attempting to do is forecast WRs in the first round. You tell me theres a book. A halfcocked book at that.
No, I didn't. In fact, I said it was a "fantastic starting point" for a much larger analysis that would be necessary.
Yeah Its a 'fantasitc starting point' that you give zero credence to.
It's quite obvious to so many people but yourself. I call this the "Fuzzy is too ignorant to know he is wrong" syndrom.
That is so weak. I doubt if there ar 20 people that read this and have enough background in statistics or economics to be able to comment much less have preconceived notions as to what is wrong or right. Its not self evident by any stretch.
Here's the logic problem in this. You're saying that because we can never possibly know the true extent of some variable (which I disagree with), we must be able to draw any conclusion we like from whatever small information we do know. Sorry, but that logic don't fly. You can't say, "I don't know if I can get to point C from point B, therefore I must be able to get to point C from point B." I guess you missed that class in logic.
once again you deign to present my argument and completely screw it up. My argument is that there are parrallels between what Bill James and other sabermetricians have been trying to do with defensive statistics and what you are proposing to do with placing value to WR, OL, etc.
Bill James couldnt do it in a manner that was acceptable and hes the greatest sports statistician of all time but hey you say we can......
Oh, how ironic that you follow this statement with the following:
Uh...what? In English please? Could you try setting down that bottle of glue?
Hey, buddy, if you make the assertion you must prove it to be true. You can't offer a statement and say, "Until theo proves this to be false, it is true." I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
Ironic? Ill tell you wahts ironic: you not understanding what reductionist and wholistic paradigms are and then making these statements. They are ways of looking at a problem. You can either REDUCE it to its constituent parts or you can look at it as a WHOLE.
I looked at it from both perspectives and came to the same conclusion. That proves an argument. You dont even understand that so how could you hope to refute it.
Yup, here's that pattern again. You think something is true because you "feel" it is true. No need to prove anything when you can simply say it is true unless Theo proves it to be false. That is beautiful logic.
Once again, you want to make a statement, claim it's true, and require anyone questioning it to prove it's false.
Ive clearly stated why I think this with a ton of information and analysis. Ill include this in the summation because most of the rest of your drivel boils down to this.
It's logic. If your logic was sound it would apply regardless of the position. Your logic is very simple: Because WRs bust at a higher rate, it is a terrible idea to draft them in the 1st round. If that same logic doesn't apply to other positions, there must be something inherent within the WR position or any other position that changes the conclusion. If that is the case, then there MUST BE further study to see why that is. From my example, it seems quite obvious there are inherent differences between the positions. Thus, it's entirely cogent.
The reason you don't like it, and claim it's "emotional appeal," is because it so easily refutes your argument.
The only way that you would refute my argument is if you could show that WR had SIGNIFICANTLY more value that an OT or a DE/OLB. Thats what your whole argument rests on. If that is not the case and DE, WR and OT have roughly the same value then my premise holds true when you consider the bust rates. Im sorry but I would put WR, OT and DE at roughly the same 'team value.' Im actually being generous because weve seen what losing each one will do in the past three seasons and losing Glenn clearly hurt the least.
You're simply incoherent here. You're not really even replying to the quoted part.
Apparenly you dont know what ad hominem is.
Ok. So? The fact still stands that out of the 12 teams, 5 had a 1st round receiver in the starting lineup.
You probably think it did, but that doesn't make it so. How's this: I think it made it worse! Oh no, did I just prove a point?!?! Of course I didn't. Neither did you.
Fact is that teams start 1 QB and 2 WRs. Put that in with how teams selected twice as many WRs and its clear that you have to look at all the starting WRs in order to form a clear picture.
Only 6 out of 24 starting WRs of the playoff teams were first rounders. If you really want to play by looking at only half of the players that are important to the team then this statement holds true: The majority of playoff teams did not have a starting WR selected in the first round.
This gets us to another great point, one that was brought up by others including Hostile, I believe. Even if you knew (1) the bust rate of all positions and (2) the value of "booms" at each position (or combine both and call it "expected value"), that analysis still wouldn't be complete. You would then obviously have to take into account team need.
And again I ask did it ever occur to you why we selected OT and DE to look at? Its because those two positions are team needs as well. Here is a summation of why I think WR in the first is a bad idea:
1) The horrible bust rates of 1st round WR especially when you look at recent history.
2) The inherent difficulty in evaluating WR as evidenced by the bust rate.
3) We have needs at CB, OT, DE/OLB, ILB and S as well.
4) The only positions that clearly have less team value than WR are S and ILB.
5) Of the 24 starting WR on playoff teams only 6 were selcted in the first round.
6) Of the top 50 WR in receptions as many wre selected in the second round as were in the first.
So my argument is niot simply bust rates but rather a culmination of evidence and as time goes by the evidence only mounts.
