shrink wrote:My "boredom" with the thread, and these statistics in particular, is because I'm trying to avoid going into the depth that would put everyone to sleep. My undergraduate thesis was based on statistical modeling that specifically tried to discover the interactive effects on a conglomerate value, which is exactly what your +/- stat is. However, on a superficial level, I've posted because I've disagreed with your posts, and your characterization that I have not demonstrated why I don't give +/- much credence.
After your initial trade idea, on page two of this thread, you were the one who brought up +/-. You have said you believe that Foye and McCants are incompatable ("death match" I think you said) and that one had to go. You then went into great detail about McCants +/-, and how it was a factor that could indicate great things for him in the future.
However, let's just skip all that. If the discussion on +/- is not based on this trade, then its off topic for this thread and we can both just drop it, right?
I think you mean "incompatible". Thank god for spell checks on those undergrad papers
Again, you continue to literally pull stuff out of a hat. The very original post here said quite clearly that Shaddy and Foye could both be put in this trade. The stuff on page 2 of this thread clearly states that adj +/- is just a part of the overall evaluation and that injuries and other stats (on the links provided) play a part in the big picture.
While I don't disagree that you don't give adj +/- much credence, acceptance never has been the gold standard of your original claim: a lack of credibility. I can accept all sorts of things without them being credible. Hell, I've learned to live with the 2000 election. Writing an undergrad paper doesn't excuse you from the fact that you fundamentally mis-characterized the purpose of adj +/- stats or that your objections, while clearly expressing your distaste for what adj +/- has to offer, never addressed the credibility of what the stat was designed to do: measure the on/off value of a player in the context of his team's overall play. (Just to play along with the degree-measuring, I majored in polisci with a dual in Religious Studies. I followed it up with a Masters in Public Policy.) It has nothing to do with who is "best". It's hard to say that you're addressing the credibility of something when you have shown signs that you misjudged its original purpose. Regardless of what I may believe in terms of Shaddy/Foye, you are crossing all sorts of streams here and confusing a bunch of different ideas. It's ultimately led you to literally put words in my mouth.
That being said, I completely take the solid point you make about how I've taken this thread way off the tracks. Point taken and I'll shut up about it now. I know how things can appear on the internets; no disrespect meant.