Yesterday, Scott Alexander posted his annual predictions review post. I always enjoy this post because it’s externalized introspection. Scott takes the time to formally look at things he thought, consider how right he was about these things, and consider how it should update his thinking moving forward. Most people don’t do this informally let alone formally! I want to respond to two things in the post, the latter of which is answering the question Scott only implies of whether he’s well-correlated or not.

I wanted to talk a little bit more about how different metrics account for variation in player performance, and some various flavors of NBA plus/minus statistics provide nice examples. This is building a bit off of some concepts I discussed in Choosing the right metric for sports. Plus/Minus Metrics One approach for estimating individual player contribution to overall outcome is to look at the net points scored while an individual player was on the court.

When I was in school, I was an applied Statistician, but now folks would probably call me a “Data Scientist.” I’m empirical in my approach and generally skeptical of emminence-based decision-making. I’m a fan of Nate Silver, Douglas Adams, and Boris Diaw. I work in Defense, so the content of this blog will about things that are mostly or entirely unrelated to my day job. I’m hoping that forcing myself to write things down will help me interogate my own thought processes and biases.

I think its great that sports statistics are a big thing in popular media. It makes fans and media better informed about their team and players, and it provides an entry point for people to get interestd in statistics. That said, there seems to be a perpetual innumeracy in the way folks talk about a lot of these metrics. One thing I see come up repeatedly is the distinction between metrics that look at a player’s past performance and say, “How important was that player to the team’s success?

From what I understand, teaching professors (maybe all professors?) write a “Philosophy of Teaching Statement”. The goal of this documen is to describe the individual’s approach to teaching and why they use that approach. It basically says, “Here’s what I do, and here’s why I do it,” and maybe you get into a little bit of how they got there. In my view, it’s akin to a teaching world-view. It’s an opportunity for a professor to organize (and interrogate a little) their entire approach to their chosen profession.

Nate Duncan’s “Dunc’d On” is probably my favorite NBA podcast. He and frequent co-host Danny Leroux are analytical and comprehensive, covering the whole league. About every other week, they’ll go through ever team in a conference (East or West) and talk about how each team is doing, where they’re projected to finish, etc. They call these episodes “15 in 60”, although they don’t always get to all 15 teams in the conference, and I don’t think they’ve ever done one of these in 60 minutes.

Not the bit about plays, the bit about sonnets. Writing song parodies is like writing sonnets Sonnets are an interesting because of how restrictive they are. According to American poet Aaron Kramer First, you are handcuffed by having to write fourteen lines. Then, you are shackled by having to write with a set meter. They put you into a sack called rhyme. But think what a magic act it is if you can set your meaning free!