Is "roll under %" a disdained mechanic?

Phillip · February 21, 2014, 06:19:49 PM

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732414If you're a star performer in your company, and the next guy above you is 50% more productive, and the guy above him is 150% more productive, do you think it makes sense that your next "skill level" should only give you a 2% increase?

The observations of this kind of pattern I've seen don't have anything clearly to do with skill improvement. They have to do with popularity, and with the commonality of rubbish versus the rarity of excellence, and the frequency of those who get into something just a little versus obsessives -- the perhaps vastest population ignoring or unaware of the thing not getting counted at all -- and suchlike things.

There do seem to be fields in which a class of 'great' geniuses are tremendously more productive than merely 'good' talents; but those are "born, not made." Not only do they learn more quickly from similar experiences, but they learn things beyond what the merely good attain with any amount of effort.

Herr Arnulfe · February 21, 2014, 06:23:23 PM

Quote from: Black Vulmea;732419So what you're saying is, you know even less about baseball than you do statistics.

How would you describe the performance curve for batting then? It's impossible to achieve better than a homerun, so assume that's the top end and "out" is the bottom end.

Herr Arnulfe · February 21, 2014, 06:28:54 PM

Quote from: Phillip;732420The observations of this kind of pattern I've seen don't have anything clearly to do with skill improvement. They have to do with popularity, and with the commonality of rubbish versus the rarity of excellence, and suchlike things.

There do seem to be fields in which a class of 'great' geniuses are tremendously more productive than merely 'good' talents; but those are "born, not made." Not only do they learn more quickly from similar experiences, but they learn things beyond what the merely good attain with any amount of effort.

Of course, the nature of the task also influences its performance curve, but in these new studies they've observed that movement of employees in and out of the elite group does occur (i.e. it's not static) so being a natural genius might help you reach the elite level, but it doesn't explain the entire picture.

Black Vulmea · February 22, 2014, 02:03:22 AM

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732424How would you describe the performance curve for batting then? It's impossible to achieve better than a homerun, so assume that's the top end and "out" is the bottom end.

The goal of an at bat is not to hit a home run. Usually the goal is to reach base safely, but it may also be to move a runner to the next base or to drive in a runner already on base.

That said, there is a category of productive outs - bunts, sacrifices - that your analogy completely overlooks.

And then there are walks, which are neither hits nor outs but get the batter on base and may score runs.

Batting does not conform to a "performance curve" because the goals of an at bat vary, by batter and by situation.

Old One Eye · February 22, 2014, 02:08:52 AM

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732424How would you describe the performance curve for batting then? It's impossible to achieve better than a homerun, so assume that's the top end and "out" is the bottom end.

Now baseball is not my game, but pretty sure the statisticians use batting average where a home run and getting to first base count the same.

Now under bro code stats, the home run is worth way more.

Black Vulmea · February 22, 2014, 02:42:24 AM

Quote from: Old One Eye;732486Now baseball is not my game, but pretty sure the statisticians use batting average where a home run and getting to first base count the same.

Slugging percentage is one measure used to differentiate between singles and extra base hits.

In my son's last tournament, his batting average was .600 but his slugging percentage was .800.

Herr Arnulfe · February 22, 2014, 04:49:34 AM

Quote from: Black Vulmea;732485The goal of an at bat is not to hit a home run. Usually the goal is to reach base safely, but it may also be to move a runner to the next base or to drive in a runner already on base.

That said, there is a category of productive outs - bunts, sacrifices - that your analogy completely overlooks.

And then there are walks, which are neither hits nor outs but get the batter on base and may score runs.

Batting does not conform to a "performance curve" because the goals of an at bat vary, by batter and by situation.

Sure, the goals of a batter are different in every situation. In some cases Chris Carter might be trying to get on base instead of hitting a homerun (although usually he's going for the big hit; likewise Shane Victorino is usually just trying to get on base). Yes there are "productive outs" and triples are exceedingly rare for all hitters etc. I wasn't making a scientific claim here, just describing a general trend.

Herr Arnulfe · February 22, 2014, 04:53:51 AM

Quote from: Old One Eye;732486Now baseball is not my game, but pretty sure the statisticians use batting average where a home run and getting to first base count the same.

Now under bro code stats, the home run is worth way more.

Ah yes, but if you look at the batting averages, the "base hitter" types usually have higher averages meanwhile the "sluggers" have lower ones (albeit with more homeruns). The sluggers sacrifice overall success rates for higher rates of critical success.

Herr Arnulfe · February 22, 2014, 05:13:21 AM

Here's a challenge for any bell curve proponents who feel up to it. Find one set of raw human performance data (either for a group, or repeated attempts by an individual) that resembled a bell curve before a researcher got his hands on it and squished the data into a bell shape for analysis.

If you can find one set of data matching this criterion, I'll concede a pyrrhic thread victory. If you can find two sets, I'll concede total thread victory. I'll also be curious to know how many data sets you stumbled across in the process that resembled nothing like a bell curve (e.g. slopes, partial parabola etc.).

Black Vulmea · February 22, 2014, 10:40:45 AM

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732495I wasn't making a scientific claim here, just describing a general trend.

And you were doing it wrong.

Herr Arnulfe · February 22, 2014, 12:51:35 PM

Quote from: Black Vulmea;732525And you were doing it wrong.

And I'm fine with being proven wrong. How about if we change "out" to strikeout, which removes sac flies from the equation. We could also remove triples since they're so rare.

Fail = strikeout
Below average = single
Above Average = double
Success = home run

Using Victorino and Carter's stats from last year, we then have the following numbers:

Code Select

	SO	1B	2B	HR
victor	75	97	26	15
carter	212	58	24	29

Using these criteria Victorino's batting curve is more "hump-shaped" while Carter's is more "valley-shaped". If you have a theory explaining how both of them are actually operating on a bell curve, I'm open to that as well.

Old One Eye · February 22, 2014, 01:29:29 PM

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;732537Using these criteria Victorino's batting curve is more "hump-shaped" while Carter's is more "valley-shaped". If you have a theory explaining how both of them are actually operating on a bell curve, I'm open to that as well.

You cannot complain about other statisticans massaging numbers into a bell curve while at the same time massaging numbers into your own preferred curve.

Herr Arnulfe · February 22, 2014, 01:35:56 PM

Quote from: Old One Eye;732541You cannot complain about other statisticans massaging numbers into a bell curve while at the same time massaging numbers into your own preferred curve.

My original claim was based purely on qualitative experience playing summer softball for 15+ years and watching games on TV. The number-crunching was just a secondary attempt to quantify Black Vulmea's objections to that claim. If you have an alternative quantitative model in mind, I'm all ears.

Gronan of Simmerya · February 22, 2014, 02:42:52 PM

* stations archers covering all exits *
* sets thread on fire *

Gronan of Simmerya · February 22, 2014, 02:45:19 PM

Also, my congratulations to everyone, you've proven there is something worse than "story-gamer wankery." Well done, all.