Irving Scheffe wrote:
> First, you're addressing the wrong question.
> We are not interested, in the example, in the "ability" of the
> players. We are interested in whether, over the course of the
> preceding 162 games, the Yanks outhomered the Tigers by a substantial
I think that illustrates my point. There is no single "we" here. My question
can't be wrong, except when contrasted with the question someone else asked or
wants to ask. (I repeat that the thread had moved off its original narrow
frame of reference, which I was most definitely not addressing).
> amount. They did. [This is not to say that "ability" isn't an
> interesting question. But your proposed randomization test doesn't
> address that issue well at all.]
I think this is a crucial point. Yes, it doesn't address it particularly well,
but it isn't irrelevant. I'd lump it with quick and dirty exploratory and
descriptive stats that people do when eye-balling data for the first time.
> Second of all, you have chosen a suboptimal unit of analysis, if
> you are really interested in assessing "ability."
To be be fair, I didn't choose any units of analysis at all. I wrote in
responses to the units of analyses already being discussed. The implicit
assumption was that that this is the data you have.
Thom
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
