One pet peeve I have with the National Hockey League is the way they record team won/loss records. Or, as they put it, won/loss/overtime-loss records. Winning in overtime gets you the full two points, so they're listed with ordinary wins with no distinction. But overtime losses get you a point, so they're listed in a separate column, after the regulation losses, where they used to record the ties.
The problem is, what constitutes a winning record? In sports life baseball and basketball have only wins and losses, so you just look at those two numbers and see which one is bigger. Or in sports like football and soccer, they have ordinary ties that you can just ignore as neutral, and compare the W and L columns.
But in the NHL, it's not as clear. Say a team has a record of 6-5-3. Do they have a winning record? They have more wins than regulation losses. But they have more total losses than wins. But they have 15 points from 14 games, so they have more than a point a game in a league where they give two points for a win. But that's not really true when they sometimes give out more than two points in a game.
The problem is, it can really warp people's expectations. Last week, I checked the standings, and there were only four teams out of thirty that had losing records, with only five more at even records. And I've heard players brush off bad seasons by saying the team is at .500 when they're really having losing seasons. No, I don't know how you fix it. Or maybe we want it this way. After all, this is the league that once had 16 of 21 teams make the playoffs; if we can't give every team hope to make the playoffs, at least let them mask how bad they really are.
Showing posts with label math. Show all posts
Showing posts with label math. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Virtual Insanity
You may have seen a posting passed around social media in the past couple of days: someone says that if we just divide the $1.3 billion Powerball jackpot among the 300 million or so Americans, everyone would get a million dollars. Of course, they are mistaken in a way that's hard to comprehend. I can accept that many people are not good calculating with large numbers. But putting the math aside, they apparently think that after we've amassed a big pile of money by having many Americans pitch in a few dollars at a time, you can then divide that pile among all Americans and get millions a piece.
The first time I saw it, it was just a screen capture of a Facebook status making this case. But then I saw the idea expressed again, this time as a nice, neat graphic, complete with a Twitter handle, presumably of the creator. That made me a little suspicious: someone went through the trouble of putting together a graphic of an obviously-ridiculous idea? I realize some people have unexpected combinations of skills and ways to apply intelligence, but I still can't believe that this idea passed through the hands of someone with computer graphic design skills without its failings being revealed. And the prominent Twitter handle? You'd go out of your way to take credit for this?
I sensed fakery, so I went looking for the Twitter user's page. It turned out to be a musician using this as an odd sort of viral marketing scheme. They either came up with the idea independently, or copied it from the original post, made it into a nice graphic, and added the Twitter handler. That was a bit of a relief - I had guessed it was an attempt to publicly shame someone by signing their name to something so stupid it would go viral. Nevertheless, the posting has attracted a large number of people attempting to correct the calculations, using varying levels of politeness. Indeed, several were using older viral memes, such as the Batman-slapping-Robin graphic, to make fun of it.
I think this is some sort of stupidity Inception. You have a clever person pretending to be stupid. Smart people correct him, but they aren't as smart as they think they are, because they can't recognize the difference between real and fake stupidity. They're even using old memes to make fun of something that has become a new meme. And after explaining all this, I feel stupider.
The first time I saw it, it was just a screen capture of a Facebook status making this case. But then I saw the idea expressed again, this time as a nice, neat graphic, complete with a Twitter handle, presumably of the creator. That made me a little suspicious: someone went through the trouble of putting together a graphic of an obviously-ridiculous idea? I realize some people have unexpected combinations of skills and ways to apply intelligence, but I still can't believe that this idea passed through the hands of someone with computer graphic design skills without its failings being revealed. And the prominent Twitter handle? You'd go out of your way to take credit for this?
I sensed fakery, so I went looking for the Twitter user's page. It turned out to be a musician using this as an odd sort of viral marketing scheme. They either came up with the idea independently, or copied it from the original post, made it into a nice graphic, and added the Twitter handler. That was a bit of a relief - I had guessed it was an attempt to publicly shame someone by signing their name to something so stupid it would go viral. Nevertheless, the posting has attracted a large number of people attempting to correct the calculations, using varying levels of politeness. Indeed, several were using older viral memes, such as the Batman-slapping-Robin graphic, to make fun of it.
I think this is some sort of stupidity Inception. You have a clever person pretending to be stupid. Smart people correct him, but they aren't as smart as they think they are, because they can't recognize the difference between real and fake stupidity. They're even using old memes to make fun of something that has become a new meme. And after explaining all this, I feel stupider.
Monday, October 5, 2015
Split The Difference
There's an old statistician's joke that points out the average person has one breast and one testicle. Well, more likely it's a joke about statisticians. I'm sure the statisticians themselves hear that and go on about the difference between means and modes, and that not everything is a bell curve, do you even know what a distribution is, etc.
But the point is that we often assume that the average thing is a popular thing, when it may actually be exceptional. An example is in poor countries, where you might see the average income listed as $1000 a year. But that's because most people get by on next-to-nothing, while a small elite are millionaires, bringing up the average. In fact, there's virtually no one in the country who actually makes $1000 a year.
Elections follow a similar pattern. When you're electing a national leader or ruling party, the people are essentially finding someone whose views are the average of everyone in the country. That sounds easy enough, but you could find that, like that gender-ambiguous average person, the average politician is hard to find.
So far in the American political process, we're seeing anything but the average. From the perspective of winning the election, it seems bizarre that both parties are ignoring strong candidates and fascinating themselves with far-from-mainstream folks that wouldn't do well in a general election.
Hillary Clinton is the best-known on either side. And Republicans don't seem to have noticed that a Jeb!-Kasich ticket would have one centre-sellable candidate from each of the main swing states. Trouble is, those folks who would come close to representing all of America don't have the passionate supporters needed to get them into the White House.
That means the election would end up being an all-or-nothing choice of the candidates that have a vocal minority with passion. Some would say that’s a good thing, but I don’t like it. Sure, I’d like to see a left-leaning guy like Bernie Sanders win the election, but I wouldn’t want to bet Western Civilization on an apocalyptic election against Donald Trump. I’d rather have a boring old election between candidates nearer the centre. Such an election would also offer the more moderate majority of Americans a choice of candidates closer to their ideology. So the election system is really messed up if it’s threatening to give us candidates that no one will be happy with.
But seriously, remember: Bush-Kasich ’16, I called it.
But the point is that we often assume that the average thing is a popular thing, when it may actually be exceptional. An example is in poor countries, where you might see the average income listed as $1000 a year. But that's because most people get by on next-to-nothing, while a small elite are millionaires, bringing up the average. In fact, there's virtually no one in the country who actually makes $1000 a year.
Elections follow a similar pattern. When you're electing a national leader or ruling party, the people are essentially finding someone whose views are the average of everyone in the country. That sounds easy enough, but you could find that, like that gender-ambiguous average person, the average politician is hard to find.
So far in the American political process, we're seeing anything but the average. From the perspective of winning the election, it seems bizarre that both parties are ignoring strong candidates and fascinating themselves with far-from-mainstream folks that wouldn't do well in a general election.
Hillary Clinton is the best-known on either side. And Republicans don't seem to have noticed that a Jeb!-Kasich ticket would have one centre-sellable candidate from each of the main swing states. Trouble is, those folks who would come close to representing all of America don't have the passionate supporters needed to get them into the White House.
That means the election would end up being an all-or-nothing choice of the candidates that have a vocal minority with passion. Some would say that’s a good thing, but I don’t like it. Sure, I’d like to see a left-leaning guy like Bernie Sanders win the election, but I wouldn’t want to bet Western Civilization on an apocalyptic election against Donald Trump. I’d rather have a boring old election between candidates nearer the centre. Such an election would also offer the more moderate majority of Americans a choice of candidates closer to their ideology. So the election system is really messed up if it’s threatening to give us candidates that no one will be happy with.
But seriously, remember: Bush-Kasich ’16, I called it.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
First Among Equals
This is shaping up to be a really close election in Canada. The parties are within a few percent of each other, and the latest projections show that they'd each win roughly the same number of seats. That will lead to some interesting political horse trading after the election to determine who has the power. Did I really just say, "horse trading?" That's how close it is! I'm using century-old slang to describe it.
But that political showdown can wait. For now the point I want to make is: please stop talking about who is "winning" or "surging" or the most this or the least that. When everyone is within the margin of error, it's misleading to talk about that. We're told the NDP is winning at 31%, while the Conservatives are languishing in last, at 28%. A report said Stephen Harper is most trusted with the economy, then we're quickly told that it was by a 35-30-25 margin.
Let's just give up on the idea that anything definitive is going to come out of the polls, or the election itself. If someone starts getting close to majority levels (say, 40%) then you are invited to make a big deal over it. But for now admit that we've got nothing to talk about. The media may as well show the pollsters drawing lots to decide who's leading in the polls today. Drawing lots? Who says that any more?
But that political showdown can wait. For now the point I want to make is: please stop talking about who is "winning" or "surging" or the most this or the least that. When everyone is within the margin of error, it's misleading to talk about that. We're told the NDP is winning at 31%, while the Conservatives are languishing in last, at 28%. A report said Stephen Harper is most trusted with the economy, then we're quickly told that it was by a 35-30-25 margin.
Let's just give up on the idea that anything definitive is going to come out of the polls, or the election itself. If someone starts getting close to majority levels (say, 40%) then you are invited to make a big deal over it. But for now admit that we've got nothing to talk about. The media may as well show the pollsters drawing lots to decide who's leading in the polls today. Drawing lots? Who says that any more?
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
All Of These Things Are Just Like The Others
You may have seen a recent article about the "Hipster Effect." That is, a scientist has mathematically explained why hipsters look the same, even though they are trying to be individual.
The explanation is this: assume that everyone in a community wants to avoid any trend. You also assume that, like most people, it takes a while for an individual to realize that a trend exists (that is, you don't assume there is a trend to wear red suspenders just because you saw one person wearing red suspenders; it takes a while to notice a pattern.) When you simulate such a community, they eventually fall into a rhythm where everyone realizes there's a trend, switches to the opposite of the trend, notices that trend, switches, and so on.
It's an interesting concept: it's a lesson in how patterns can have very non-obvious causes, and a lesson in how difficult it is for an individual in a large population to avoid being part of large movements. But I don't think it alone explains the phenomena of individualistic people looking the same.
In a world where you can easily distinguish yourself in a myriad of different ways, it's not likely you'd create a trend that way. That is, if you're tired of everyone wearing white, wearing black isn't the only way to distinguish yourself; you could start wearing 1970's style rollerskates. Or wear an ironic neckerchief. Or carry a clarinet around.
Okay, there is the possibility that avoiding trends itself becomes a trend. That is, you might try to avoid clothing trends by choosing your clothing based only on practicality and comfort. If enough people do that, then comfortable, practical clothing might be seen as a trend, and adopted by people who choose their clothing based on fashion. That's sort of what happened with Grunge era fashion.
I remember a Sociology prof observing that loners often look like other loners, though he explained it in terms of psychology: everyone has a need for both individuality and belonging, but different people have different amounts of each need. So individualistic people don't completely reject membership in any group, they just have less of a need than most people. So for them, the ideal solution is to join a smaller group. If you're in a subculture, you can feel individual while still maintaining a sense that you belong to something.
That seems to be a better explanation than some sort of comedy of errors in which people end up the same in an attempt to be different. That sounds like something that would be the premise of an SNL sketch or a Twilight Zone episode.
The explanation is this: assume that everyone in a community wants to avoid any trend. You also assume that, like most people, it takes a while for an individual to realize that a trend exists (that is, you don't assume there is a trend to wear red suspenders just because you saw one person wearing red suspenders; it takes a while to notice a pattern.) When you simulate such a community, they eventually fall into a rhythm where everyone realizes there's a trend, switches to the opposite of the trend, notices that trend, switches, and so on.
It's an interesting concept: it's a lesson in how patterns can have very non-obvious causes, and a lesson in how difficult it is for an individual in a large population to avoid being part of large movements. But I don't think it alone explains the phenomena of individualistic people looking the same.
In a world where you can easily distinguish yourself in a myriad of different ways, it's not likely you'd create a trend that way. That is, if you're tired of everyone wearing white, wearing black isn't the only way to distinguish yourself; you could start wearing 1970's style rollerskates. Or wear an ironic neckerchief. Or carry a clarinet around.
Okay, there is the possibility that avoiding trends itself becomes a trend. That is, you might try to avoid clothing trends by choosing your clothing based only on practicality and comfort. If enough people do that, then comfortable, practical clothing might be seen as a trend, and adopted by people who choose their clothing based on fashion. That's sort of what happened with Grunge era fashion.
I remember a Sociology prof observing that loners often look like other loners, though he explained it in terms of psychology: everyone has a need for both individuality and belonging, but different people have different amounts of each need. So individualistic people don't completely reject membership in any group, they just have less of a need than most people. So for them, the ideal solution is to join a smaller group. If you're in a subculture, you can feel individual while still maintaining a sense that you belong to something.
That seems to be a better explanation than some sort of comedy of errors in which people end up the same in an attempt to be different. That sounds like something that would be the premise of an SNL sketch or a Twilight Zone episode.
Monday, May 5, 2014
If I Had A Million Dollars
I think I just saw a TV commercial in which they had to explain to people the benefits of the $1 million prizes in addition to the main $50 million prize. Did I really just see that? Oh, wait, I have a PVR now...
Yes, they actually had a guy explain that he can do all the things he fantasizes about for a lottery win, even with a single million. Have we really become that inured to big prizes that we have to relearn what good a million dollars is?
I always thought that lotteries should give away a greater number of smaller big prizes, rather than one massive prize. After all, wouldn't it seem more meaningful if you could change the lives of a few dozen people, rather than just one? Of course, I don't buy lottery tickets, so I'm not in their target audience. I guess if you're the sort of person who thinks through his lottery fantasies like I have, then you'll also realize that lotteries are a losing proposition.
And that's why this commercial will ultimately fail. As the saying goes, lotteries are a tax on people who are bad at math. So trying to explain the mathematics of financial dreams is counterproductive.
Yes, they actually had a guy explain that he can do all the things he fantasizes about for a lottery win, even with a single million. Have we really become that inured to big prizes that we have to relearn what good a million dollars is?
I always thought that lotteries should give away a greater number of smaller big prizes, rather than one massive prize. After all, wouldn't it seem more meaningful if you could change the lives of a few dozen people, rather than just one? Of course, I don't buy lottery tickets, so I'm not in their target audience. I guess if you're the sort of person who thinks through his lottery fantasies like I have, then you'll also realize that lotteries are a losing proposition.
And that's why this commercial will ultimately fail. As the saying goes, lotteries are a tax on people who are bad at math. So trying to explain the mathematics of financial dreams is counterproductive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)