Statistics "Number don't lie"

Related:
Create New Tag

7/4/2017 9:38 AM
Edited Date/Time: 7/4/2017 2:08 PM

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.

|

7/4/2017 9:50 AM

This is a LOT of speculation on a simple racing incident.

Wow. blink 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??

|

7/4/2017 9:55 AM

Incidents and the opinions that's go along with them make for great story lines and conversation. Something our sport needs more of!

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

|

7/4/2017 9:55 AM

Yawn

|

I ripped a start from Egypt and I was happy about that.

7/4/2017 9:58 AM

dirtnapper wrote:

This is a LOT of speculation on a simple racing incident.

Wow. blink 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??

Nope, nothing better :D I was mainly curious about getting feedback from other people, which you provided, so my goal is kind of coming to fruition.

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.

|

7/4/2017 10:00 AM

TeamGreen wrote:

Yawn

I think we all know your opinion of JT and the host of the podcast where he talked about this.

Inb4 something about my account join date.

|

7/4/2017 10:02 AM

Photo

|

Never try to argue with idiots; they will only bring you down to their level.....and being more experienced, they will beat you at their own game!

2020.5 KTM 450 SXF FE
2006 KX250

7/4/2017 10:03 AM

I would have done the same to stop BB cutting back, legit race move, invited by taking the wide line, Anderson did what he needed to do , made the move and covered the counter all in one go,

|

7/4/2017 10:09 AM

TL:DR

But for what it's worth, statistics suggest that the average American has approximately one testicle.......

|

7/4/2017 10:13 AM

Get a fuckin life...

|

7/4/2017 10:15 AM

Very strange.

|

much ty. How to spot a paid forum poster/artificial forum traffic producer (see list of actions/phrases below):

Copius pattern amounts of phrases like “Anyone have”..., “Anybody know?”.... and their variations.

Thoughts?
Any help is appreciated!
Thanks in advance!





7/4/2017 10:15 AM

Good grief! Back away from your computer and go ride.

|

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous. Checkout; ABetterStockMarket.com

7/4/2017 10:16 AM

Op, I agree, anyone can use numbers selectivity to prove their point. On the other hand I don't view JT as a journalist, no matter how accomplished he is on bike. Just another racer bench racing and having a platform to voice his opinion, which is neither more wrong or right then any others opinon. Journalist should be reporting what happened, not their opinion of why etc.. which is why I personally don't care, because I have my own opinion toosmile

|

7/4/2017 10:18 AM

tldnr Zzzz

|

7/4/2017 10:27 AM
Edited Date/Time: 7/4/2017 10:31 AM

TeamGreen wrote:

Yawn

Casting wrote:

I think we all know your opinion of JT and the host of the podcast where he talked about this.

Inb4 something about my account join date.

No, I don't think you do. I'm quite the fan of his analysis and opinion: I'm not a fan of the shit that it turns into...in here amongst the armchair-warriors. So, my bad for not explaining my "yawn"...

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 ripped a start from Egypt and I was happy about that.

7/4/2017 10:33 AM

I think the OP is in a research class. Seems like something I would post a few years ago. The interrater reliability is an easy fix. Just get more people to do the same experiment he did with the camera and stopwatch.

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.

|

The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good. ~ Samuel Johnson

7/4/2017 10:52 AM

OP, you happen to know anyone named Colorado2day?

|

much ty. How to spot a paid forum poster/artificial forum traffic producer (see list of actions/phrases below):

Copius pattern amounts of phrases like “Anyone have”..., “Anybody know?”.... and their variations.

Thoughts?
Any help is appreciated!
Thanks in advance!





7/4/2017 11:08 AM

Katoomey wrote:

Get a fuckin life...

You sure do seem to talk a lot of shit, name calling and putting people down seem to be a regular thing for you. Does it make you feel good or is it just a bad habit of yours ? Just curious, since you seem to come off as a tough guy and I'm guessing you're probably just a kid or maybe just haven't grown up yet....

|

7/4/2017 11:30 AM

Matt Damon!!

|

7/4/2017 11:30 AM

Racing incident.. The scientific, analysis, hypothesis etc. can be collected, but it doesn't really matter in the end as it can just boil down to one persons opinion vs. another of what happened. This is MX & there both competing for a championship. I wouldn't read to much into it.

|

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

7/4/2017 11:46 AM

Cliff notes version? I got a barbecue to start. tongue

|

7/4/2017 11:49 AM

I really don't think there was anything to this move. I don't think Anderson particularly cared that Baggett crashed, but I put more blame on Baggett than Anderson. Baggett had to know where Anderson was, he has to slow up there and drop in behind JA, I'm not really sure why he went so wide on the first lap anyway. I don't really buy that Anderson must've deliberately slowed because his sector time was slower either. You can see when he comes into the turn and gets into the rut that he gets into the rut at an angle, which unsettles the bike, after this he seems to get on the throttle pretty much as normal. We're only talking about half a second. I know JA has a reputation, but I don't really buy it on this occasion. Baggett can't blame anyone else but himself for his crash

|

7/4/2017 11:57 AM

I Like turtles.

|

7/4/2017 12:04 PM

Casting wrote:

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.

Dumb it down a few notches Mr Hawkin.... Oh and lose about 2000 words if u expect people on here to read it...

|

www.bettercallsaul.com
Die Antwoord

7/4/2017 12:13 PM
Edited Date/Time: 7/4/2017 12:15 PM

Hank_Thrill wrote:

I think the OP is in a research class. Seems like something I would post a few years ago. The interrater reliability is an easy fix. Just get more people to do the same experiment he did with the camera and stopwatch.

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.

I'm not in a research class. I work part time conducting research that we present at conferences and publish in journals.

I realize my post was really long, probably too long, but I was trying to really explain what I was talking about.

|

7/4/2017 12:16 PM

Hank_Thrill wrote:

I think the OP is in a research class. Seems like something I would post a few years ago. The interrater reliability is an easy fix. Just get more people to do the same experiment he did with the camera and stopwatch.

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.

Casting wrote:

I'm not in a research class. I work part time conducting research that we present at conferences and publish in journals.

I realize my post was really long, probably too long, but I was trying to really explain what I was talking about.

Then why didn't you notice the change in the data that makes all the difference?

|

I ripped a start from Egypt and I was happy about that.

7/4/2017 12:19 PM
Edited Date/Time: 7/4/2017 12:28 PM

Ahh who cares Jason Anderson can do what he wants. Although, that was probably one of the cleanest passes Jason has taken in the event of going for it! I think he could have really destroyed Blake in that pass if he just wanted to.

|

7/4/2017 12:22 PM

Without knowing what JT$ even said, I'm going to reiterate my "leader's prerogative" claim:

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.

|

Braaapin' aint easy.

7/4/2017 12:30 PM

Boobies are fun

|

7/4/2017 12:59 PM

Hank_Thrill wrote:

I think the OP is in a research class. Seems like something I would post a few years ago. The interrater reliability is an easy fix. Just get more people to do the same experiment he did with the camera and stopwatch.

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.

Casting wrote:

I'm not in a research class. I work part time conducting research that we present at conferences and publish in journals.

I realize my post was really long, probably too long, but I was trying to really explain what I was talking about.

Consider your audience, which in this case probably has very low IQs. And a general rule here is that you can't question Team Green because he'll point out that you're a minion. Also, I would just point out that I don't think JT$ was attempting a strict scientific methodology here; I'm sure he was being more anecdotal.

|