Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
What methods did you use to come up with the various scaling factors applied?
|
I didn't have any special methods for coming up with the scaling factors... just closely examining specific samples (NH and New England in particular years, occasionally the global set) to try to see how they impact the ranking from top to bottom. Some of the scaling factors I studied more (# of events; 1.7x for CMPs) than others (/15 to scale the top teams to have aWAR of about 7; *16 for OPR).
To all, please do investigate what you think of the various factors... I'd like to get them "right!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
Also, your link to the spreadsheet on box seems to not work.  |
I (and others) have downloaded it... let me know if it continues to not work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XaulZan11
And, I'm glad you only did the past four seasons so you didn't include our 08 and 09 robot.  |
Hah, I am too... our team got significantly better from 2009 to 2010! :-)
Regardless of personal preference, I think 4 years makes sense in a lot of ways... it's a cycle of HS students and provides significant history without going so far back that it stops being relevant. That said, I think 3 years may make more sense as a predictor, as the 4th year (that you're predicting) would still have many of the same students from the last two or three. Doing only 2 or 3 years would also help the rookie or up-and-coming teams who are hurt by the length of 4 or more year averages...