Posts
519
Joined
2/8/2017
Location
PA
US
Casting
7/4/2017 9:38am
7/4/2017 9:38am
Edited Date/Time
7/6/2017 12:10pm
Statistics don't lie, but people can present statistics in a misleading manner (sometimes unintentionally) to misinform their audience.
http://racerxonline.com/2017/07/04/breakdown-subtle-shades-of-gray
Before I go any further further, I want to make it clear that I agree Jason Anderson is partially at fault for the collision between himself and Baggett on the opening lap at Red Bud. The part I disagree with is JT's ability to present statistics in a scientifically correct format.
After listening to the RacerX podcast on Monday I was eager to read JT's Breakdown on RacerXOnline. He sounded very confident and repeated "Number don't lie" or some variant of that phrase while hinting that he had used some statistics to back of his difference of opinion with Grant Langston.
Full disclosure, JT is obviously a smarter and more talented racer than I could ever have dreamed of being. No doubt about that. To use a cliche, he has forgotten more about the topic than I probably will ever learn. That being said, I disagree with his use of statistics in his column this week and I even feel a bit awkward attempting to challenge the work of someone who so easily outranks me in terms of knowledge. I mean no disrespect, I only wish to open a dialogue about how I (And potentially others) see this situation.
My first concern is that there is no Inter-Rater Reliability. This basically means that because JT was the only person collecting time's for the section, his times cannot be compared to anyone elses to determine if his times are accurate. To know for sure, it is good to have another person time the section too.
Secondly, and most importantly, JT writes "After analyzing the numbers, I hypothesized that Anderson indeed slowed just a touch in order to make sure Baggett’s intersection point would be filled by a Husky 450.". and here we identify a cardinal rule being broken as JT declares his hypothesis after analyzing data.
Why is this important? When following the scientific method, or attempting to, you always declare a hypothesis before collecting and analyzing data, so as to ensure you do not bias yourself, or participate in what we call "confirmation bias" whereby someone looks for information to confirm an already held belief.
A hypothesis is declared and then tested with the data that is collected, not the other way around.
Thirdly, JT proposes these statistics in a vacuum. Where is the baseline for comparison? How many other riders lap times in this section did JT watch "hundreds" of times, measure, and analyze? None, it seems. Which goes back to the previous point, he was only looking for data to back up a preexisting belief rather than analyzing the totality of the situation (more than a single rider).
People may wonder why I would go through the trouble of posting all this if I generally agree with JT that Anderson did indeed slow slightly to cause contact with Baggett and my reason is this: he claimed "numbers don't lie" on the podcast repeatedly which fools people into thinking that so long as you have numbers to back your point you are more-correct than others.
My thought is, if you are going to go the extra mile and attempt to add statistics to the journalism, at least do it in a scientifically correct manner.
I wonder, am I totally off base and an idiot here? I could be. Does anyone have any similar or differing thoughts on the topic?
Just want to hear the thoughts of other community members.
http://racerxonline.com/2017/07/04/breakdown-subtle-shades-of-gray
Before I go any further further, I want to make it clear that I agree Jason Anderson is partially at fault for the collision between himself and Baggett on the opening lap at Red Bud. The part I disagree with is JT's ability to present statistics in a scientifically correct format.
After listening to the RacerX podcast on Monday I was eager to read JT's Breakdown on RacerXOnline. He sounded very confident and repeated "Number don't lie" or some variant of that phrase while hinting that he had used some statistics to back of his difference of opinion with Grant Langston.
Full disclosure, JT is obviously a smarter and more talented racer than I could ever have dreamed of being. No doubt about that. To use a cliche, he has forgotten more about the topic than I probably will ever learn. That being said, I disagree with his use of statistics in his column this week and I even feel a bit awkward attempting to challenge the work of someone who so easily outranks me in terms of knowledge. I mean no disrespect, I only wish to open a dialogue about how I (And potentially others) see this situation.
My first concern is that there is no Inter-Rater Reliability. This basically means that because JT was the only person collecting time's for the section, his times cannot be compared to anyone elses to determine if his times are accurate. To know for sure, it is good to have another person time the section too.
Secondly, and most importantly, JT writes "After analyzing the numbers, I hypothesized that Anderson indeed slowed just a touch in order to make sure Baggett’s intersection point would be filled by a Husky 450.". and here we identify a cardinal rule being broken as JT declares his hypothesis after analyzing data.
Why is this important? When following the scientific method, or attempting to, you always declare a hypothesis before collecting and analyzing data, so as to ensure you do not bias yourself, or participate in what we call "confirmation bias" whereby someone looks for information to confirm an already held belief.
A hypothesis is declared and then tested with the data that is collected, not the other way around.
Thirdly, JT proposes these statistics in a vacuum. Where is the baseline for comparison? How many other riders lap times in this section did JT watch "hundreds" of times, measure, and analyze? None, it seems. Which goes back to the previous point, he was only looking for data to back up a preexisting belief rather than analyzing the totality of the situation (more than a single rider).
People may wonder why I would go through the trouble of posting all this if I generally agree with JT that Anderson did indeed slow slightly to cause contact with Baggett and my reason is this: he claimed "numbers don't lie" on the podcast repeatedly which fools people into thinking that so long as you have numbers to back your point you are more-correct than others.
My thought is, if you are going to go the extra mile and attempt to add statistics to the journalism, at least do it in a scientifically correct manner.
I wonder, am I totally off base and an idiot here? I could be. Does anyone have any similar or differing thoughts on the topic?
Just want to hear the thoughts of other community members.
Wow. JT seems pretty convinced. My question is - who cares?? Its two guys going very hard for a Championship! Seems like a very small incident to pick apart so much like him and the OP of this thread are doing.......nothing better to do I guess??
Bring on the action, get people talking... simple way to build things up resulting in more fan engagement and therefore series growth
It's basic marketing
Was going to hit the trails but my mountain bikes rear tire is flat and I can't find the leak to patch it. Thinking it is a valve issue.
The Shop
Inb4 something about my account join date.
But for what it's worth, statistics suggest that the average American has approximately one testicle.......
As for his analysis of the splits in that section of the track and on a given lap: I think the simple fact that he was racing with Blake on ONLY the lap in question and fighting for lines with Blake ONLY on that lap could very well explain the longer time (of the split). In a scientific sense, this would be a determining factor for any real empirical data: the only lap where all the necessary variables ARE PRESENT. Not to mention it was the VERY 1ST LAP and riders are flying into lines for the 1st time and bouncing off of crap...for the 1st time.
JT's knowledge and understanding of what's going on out there is well beyond ANY would be insider that's gonna post in here. That doesn't mean his logic for the analysis in this case is correct. In recognition of JT's own words...
"After analyzing the numbers, I hypothesized that Anderson indeed slowed just a touch..." There it is: "hypothesized". I'd introduce the simple consideration that Lap 1 was the only time when these two guys were racing each other...getting in each-other's way...zig zagging across the track...that it did, indeed, Slow Them Down. The data isn't consistent after the 1st lap.
My opinion of JT is that this is an excellent discussion and he brings really good methods to his position.
I say this study be postponed. Before that, have Jason record his thoughts and intentions during that corner, save the recording in a motocross time capsule. Then open it back up five years after his pro career is over so we can post the results in this thread.
I just hope Blake is taking notes of the big picture. What you say off the track can make your life more difficult on the track. Dungey is a great example of what to do. Now imagine if Barcia were ever in the running for a title. There would be at least a dozen guys who could easily make his life extremely difficult.
Pit Row
I realize my post was really long, probably too long, but I was trying to really explain what I was talking about.
Jason Anderson was leading Bagget at the time. In that scenario, he can go anywhere on the track he wants and at whatever speed, without any responsibility to Bagget's line choice. In fact, slowing down (if he indeed did that) is a brilliant move in that section.
This is from a guy who was genuinely bummed that Blake went down.
At least he doesn't start throwing out insults and calling people names.
Post a reply to: Statistics "Number don't lie"