BuzzerBeater Forums

It is perfect that you doubt if that moves you to study math.

Still waiting for an explanation though.

Even a super agressive player with 50% chance of fouling out can finish a game with 0 faults.

You just don’t carry out a decent statistical study with one single observation.

Still waiting for an explanation though.

It is in Spanish. You are supporter, look for "teorema de bayes" in the forums and I can translate. I don't want to write it from scratch again.

Still waiting for an explanation though.

It is in Spanish. You are supporter, look for "teorema de bayes" in the forums and I can translate. I don't want to write it from scratch again.

My spanish is not great but still good enough to understand. And again, I don't agree with you, at all. Whatever statistical model or framework you use, it is impossible to draw conclusions from a single observation analysis. It's just statistics 101.

Your analysis would become relevant after, say, 5 games. And as I said, after 5 games it's already way too late, your player has lost most of his value.

Anyway just say for the example that I agree with you. I pay 1 million for a rookie and he has 4 fouls during his first game. Looks like he's an aggressive guy, what do I do next? Sell him straight away? He already lost value and he could very well not be aggressive after all, because the statistical significance of his aggressiveness is low (1 observation!). Keep him for a few more games and then sell him if he's, indeed, aggressive? The loss is even bigger. So, do I keep him and train him for years? That would make me stupid according to you.

So in this situation, I either lose money or keep training him even though that makes me stupid. The very fact that I can lose a potentially large amount of money in just one or two weeks, because of something I couldn't have avoided since it was impossible to know the player was aggressive, proves that there's something wrong with the foul system right now in BB (or at least until last season, let's see how things are different now).

You talk about "long-term choices" and managers being rewarded for their sound "long-term" strategy while we're talking about a totally random process, where you can buy a player and instantly lose money because of a hidden attribute.

As I said in my first reply to you, it doesn't make sense. You're just pushing elitism beyond limits, if you ask me.

However, consider what the price of such a trainee would be after a suitable number of games where the trainee has demonstrated they are not a foul menace. I submit that the price would be higher - that is, buying a trainee with no game history comes with a discount that reflects that risk.

I do think a less aggressive player should be sold at a premium. But I also think that the seasonality effect more than offsets this premium. After 2-3 weeks, most rosters are full and basic economics tell you that when there's less demand, the price of a good falls. All in all, the value of any rookie, aggressive or not, is lower 3 weeks into the season than at the beginning of it.

It makes no sense to have a hidden skill that can make a player useless, and discussing how you can prevent yourself from ending up with one of these duds misses the point. The BBs have indicated the intent of the hidden aggressive skill is to have pro's and con's, and I think a more useful direction of the discussion is whether it is balanced (which it's obviously not), and how it can be better balanced. We'll see if the current changes are sufficient.

Yeah that was exactly my point.

My spanish is not great but still good enough to understand. And again, I don't agree with you, at all. Whatever statistical model or framework you use, it is impossible to draw conclusions from a single observation analysis. It's just statistics 101.

If you had understood as you say, you would say to which concrete point in my model you disagree. But you don't so I know you are lying either to yourself or to me.

I don't know what statistics 101 says. Statistics 301 says that you have to make the most out of the information you have, no matter how scarce it is.

If you had understood as you say, you would say to which concrete point in my model you disagree. But you don't so I know you are lying either to yourself or to me.

I told you what's wrong with your model quite a few times already. But I'm going to try one last time: the number of observations you use is way too low. I don't have any issues with your statistical development, using both a Poisson distribution and then Bayes' Theorem, but the lambda you use is based on one single observation, which makes the whole model totally irrelevant. As I explained a few times already, your lambda should be computed on at least 5 observations, which is still a pretty low number to be honest.

Compute your lambda with 1 observation = the model is statistically irrelevant, so you're going to make decisions based on irrelevant data. That's pretty bold to claim that other managers are stupid after considering this.

Compute your lambda with 5 observations = the model is more relevant but you're already 2-3 weeks into the season and your rookie has lost some of his value.

This shows why you were wrong in your first message.

Besides that, considering that 25% of the players are aggressive is a pretty bold assumption too. Have you processed the data in order to come up with such a number? Or is it just a guess? Because that number has a lot of impact on your conclusions. Garbage in, garbage out.

I don't know what statistics 101 says.

Yeah I can see that. That's an issue.

Statistics 301 says that you have to make the most out of the information you have, no matter how scarce it is.

1 observation is not "scarce information", it's basically no information at all. Find me one Statistics lecturer who says that you can conduce a decent statistical analysis based on one observation. I'll wait.


Last edited by Veoz at 5/7/2022 9:10:50 AM