Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 971 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 7:11 am Post subject:
Excellent article, of course. But I'm wondering: Why do we have this 'other' site. Only a few contributors are 'authors'. After a couple of days, a conversation becomes 'buried', rather than rising to the top (as in this forum) with a new comment.
This very APBRMetrics forum allows for 'articles', just as well as any. And we can edit our mistakes and misjudgments. Is there any advantage at all in spreading our information/opinions over multiple sites? Aren't similar (or identical) topics kicked around in either place?
Courtside Times dot net would be a wonderful new thing, except that we already have this site. The preponderant subject matter over there is the use of statistics, same as here. Am I missing something?
Joined: 27 Jul 2005 Posts: 54 Location: Durham, North Carolina
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:01 pm Post subject:
Justin-
This is great stuff, I am jealous I wasn't clever enough to put something like this together. I think the most important point you make comes right up top about what you were trying to determine. Research of a scientific nature can be frustrating because you can't determine anything outside of the questions you investigate. Some of the most frustrating comments I see about sports statisticians come when outsiders try misrepresent their findings or misunerstand their interests. It's not done out of malice it's just hard to understand how smuch your research is determined by your initial inquiriy if you don't do much research yourself. I have seen at least a few pieces written about how "stat heads" claim that Wilt of '62 wouldn't succeed in the NBA of '05. Clearly this is not what you or anyone else suggest. I believe by stressing your goals and intentions you set a good example for what we all should be aiming at in making our research clear to others. _________________ Throw it down big man!
More expansive basketball babble at a slower pace The Captain of History
But I'm wondering: Why do we have this 'other' site. Only a few contributors are 'authors'. After a couple of days, a conversation becomes 'buried', rather than rising to the top (as in this forum) with a new comment.
Why have HoopsAnalyst? Why have the columns I do at 82games? Or the SI series?
Well, part of the reason is that different groups visit each site. I think, speaking generally, that this board tends to attract a purer group of believers in statistics, whereas a place like CTN has non-statistical writers and attracts a wider community. SI.com attracts a much, much, much wider group, and the columns I and others have written there tend to reflect that. Different strokes for different folks, in other words.
As a writer, there's value in taking the time to polish up an article and publish it as opposed to posting a thread here. There's also a sense of permancy with something posted as an article rather than a comment on a message board.
I'm frankly not a big fan of old topics rising to the top, as we have seen on a number of occasions recently. It's confusing if there's a large gap and you don't realize the topic is being bumped and read through the whole thing as if it's new.
Joined: 05 Jan 2005 Posts: 329 Location: Columbus, OH
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:57 pm Post subject:
Mike G wrote:
Why do we have this 'other' site.
For the same reason we have Wendy's when we already have McDonald's, Target when we already have Wal-Mart, and Sony when we already have Panasonic: It's good to have choices.
Mike G wrote:
This very APBRMetrics forum allows for 'articles', just as well as any. And we can edit our mistakes and misjudgments. Is there any advantage at all in spreading our information/opinions over multiple sites? Aren't similar (or identical) topics kicked around in either place?
Why should we constrain our thoughts to this little corner of the Internet? I wrote an article last week for SI.com. Are you suggesting I should have turned them down and published it here instead? Exposing our work to more people is a good thing. I also agree 100% with the following:
admin wrote:
As a writer, there's value in taking the time to polish up an article and publish it as opposed to posting a thread here. There's also a sense of permancy with something posted as an article rather than a comment on a message board.
I also want to comment on something else Kevin wrote:
admin wrote:
I'm frankly not a big fan of old topics rising to the top, as we have seen on a number of occasions recently. It's confusing if there's a large gap and you don't realize the topic is being bumped and read through the whole thing as if it's new.
I'm of two minds on this issue. On the one hand I like being able to keep track of the "hot topics", but on the other hand it does get really confusing when a thread from three months ago gets bumped to the top.
capnhistory wrote:
This is great stuff, I am jealous I wasn't clever enough to put something like this together.
Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad you enjoyed the article. _________________ Regards,
Justin Kubatko
Basketball Stats!
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 971 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:57 am Post subject:
admin wrote:
..
As a writer, there's value in taking the time to polish up an article and publish it as opposed to posting a thread here. There's also a sense of permancy with something posted as an article rather than a comment on a message board.
I'm frankly not a big fan of old topics rising to the top, as we have seen on a number of occasions recently. It's confusing if there's a large gap and you don't realize the topic is being bumped and read through the whole thing as if it's new.
Kevin and Justin, your points make sense as far as they go, and they are about what I figured. Sometimes a reader doesn't look at the dates on the posts. In this very thread, re-raising a topic someone (moi) thought was worthwhile may have caused someone (capn) to become exposed to it, to no-one''s detriment.
If a topic recurs, sometimes a link is posted to a previous incarnation. That doesn't seem as handy as just having all those opinions and analysis in the same thread. I (for one) very much appreciate being able to address a topic that isn't just the one (or 2 or 3) latest/greatest thing.
When a topic remains buried under subsequent posts, who's going to notice when a writer has responded? At Courtside Times, if you don't respond essentially 'when everyone else does', you may as well forget it. Conversely, I have no clue if anyone has even seen my questions, and no way to ask.
Since I don't really have the time to browse many forums, every day, I have no choice but to limit myself to 2 or 3. When Justin comes here to link to an article on another site, it's an invitation to take the conversation elsewhere -- to where topics are discussed, then dropped.
Ed K (for one) has definitely proven that articles of any depth, length, and visual elaboration can be posted right here. What is less 'permanent' about this (apbrmetrics) site -- or more permanent about another? What's the difference between 'publishing' and 'posting'? How is it better to create more sites (to reach more people); rather than just have things appear here 'first', and thus centralize information?
By attempting to reach more people with good information, some of us receive less information. Not for lack of trying, either. I just get frustrated trying to keep track of all these outlying articles/messages, mine and others
I like the new site ctn and I like this forum. I think that the majority of the posters here are the majority of the visitors of courtside. I don't believe that it is another audience that you are reaching. (If you publish on espn or si, you will reach another audience.) And I think that the people who make apbr metrics work are for a big part the same people who make ctn valuable.
The problem seems to me that you can give reactions to the articles on the new site. Because you can do that the new site is not only a site but also a kind of forum.So it replaces a bit this forum. I follow MikeG that some members of apbr are dividing their posting effort, and that is not a good thing. Why not use the site only to post articles and this forum to discuss them. Why not work closer together. There are not a lot of people who can discuss on a high level bball analysis and are active on the net. If they post a bit on this forum and a bit on the new site (with posting I mean reactions on articles ), apbr metrics and courtside both loose. You will divide the apbrmetrics community. A site is the best internet medium to publish articles. A forum like this one is the best medium to discuss them. So a merger of CTN (only articles/ no reactions) and APBRmetrics (forum/ discussions) would be ideal. But that's only my humble opinion.
By the way I'm waiting for the first Kupfer article on CTN
It's good to hear the positive feedback on the site, and let me assure you that my intention (and I won't speak for anyone else) is not to eliminate or replace this forum. In fact I think it's a real possibility for each to coexist. While there is some crossover between visitors, the goal of CTN is to get a larger audience interested in statistical analysis in basketball.
This forum is great for those who are already "in the know", but there is a whole generation of basketball fans that might be interested in this type of work that would never find APBRmeterics. At first this forum was in the unfriendly confines of Yahoo (and let's not turn this into a Yahoo vs phpBoard discussion), and now it's hidden in plain site behind Kevin's blog site. This is not an inditement of Kevin, who was kind enough to take the initiative to create this site so that we would have a better way to express our ideas.
CourtsideTimes, hopefully, will be a place where a young generation of fans can learn more than just what the mainstream is keeping from them. A good percentage of today's generation of sabermetricians first learned about statistical analysis not from Bill James, but from Neyer on ESPN and sites like Primer & Prospectus. And while John Hollinger is doing the same thing on ESPN, a lot of people don't have ESPNInsider (or a subscription to the NYSUN).
I agree that this forum is superior in being able to share opinions, but it's not the best at "recruiting" new members. Hopefully CTN can do this, and maybe turn a few people this way, making APBRmetrics a better place as well.
One final thing: if anyone has an idea (aka article) that they would like to share with a larger audience (or at best a more varied audience), feel free to contact me (there are multiple ways to reach me on CTN & KnickerBlogger.Net). CTN is not meant to be an exclusive site. _________________ KnickerBlogger.Net - now indispensable!
The new fans that you want to find can read the articles on your site and discuss them on this forum. If you should make apbrmetrics the forum of your site and only publish articles on CTN and discuss them on this forum you will accomplish exactly what you are discribing.
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 460 Location: Washington, DC
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 12:53 pm Post subject:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've have very little time to write hoop stuff this year. Very busy with the paying job and I couldn't do nearly as much as I wanted to do. _________________ If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
