I'm (honestly) not trying to be antagonistic here, but I would love to know what your opinion is based on. Is it a comparison with the other ranking services? Have you seen these players play (outside of the international competitions)? Which players do you feel are badly misranked and why?
I would have to agree with your concern.All Collier did,was act like superwoman all summer,and had us,as well as others,believing she was a possibility for super stardom.In my mind,she is a top four in her class.
If you're referring to the term 'outlier', it's been around for centuries; it predates Sir Ronald Fisher (who coined the term 'variance' and wrote the seminal textbook on the statistical methods for experimenters) by well over 100 years!Possibly. BUT. . .
When you take all the rating services and examine their rankings/ratings of individual players, you can usually get a good idea of the player's potential. There is either a consensus or consistency except for an outlier (love that word, coined, I believe, by polling genius Nate Silver).
I have often posted my view of the combination of vital importance and extreme difficulty in evaluating individual athetic talent (hey, remember the trade of Jim Fregosi for Nolan Ryan?). This process is compounded when guesstimating how individuals will perform at the next level (remember Ryan Leaf?).
So the stakes are high and the margin for error is wide. And putting down any single rating service is as easy as catching fish in a barrel. But I contend that when viewed collectively they are useful.
Maybe.
You and hoophuskee make valid points however... Part of the evaluation is based on the potential of the player. IF they feel that Collier is approaching her max potential already, but others have much more room to grow, it's possible that's one reason why others are considered better "prospects" than she is. I'm not saying I necessarily agree, I'm just saying that's an added part of the equation...
I mean, I like Nate Silver as much as the next guy, but...Possibly. BUT. . .
When you take all the rating services and examine their rankings/ratings of individual players, you can usually get a good idea of the player's potential. There is either a consensus or consistency except for an outlier (love that word, coined, I believe, by polling genius Nate Silver).
I have often posted my view of the combination of vital importance and extreme difficulty in evaluating individual athetic talent (hey, remember the trade of Jim Fregosi for Nolan Ryan?). This process is compounded when guesstimating how individuals will perform at the next level (remember Ryan Leaf?).
So the stakes are high and the margin for error is wide. And putting down any single rating service is as easy as catching fish in a barrel. But I contend that when viewed collectively they are useful.
Maybe.
LOL, I daresay that statisticians coined the term "outlier" long before Nate Silver.Possibly. BUT. . .
When you take all the rating services and examine their rankings/ratings of individual players, you can usually get a good idea of the player's potential. There is either a consensus or consistency except for an outlier (love that word, coined, I believe, by polling genius Nate Silver).
I have often posted my view of the combination of vital importance and extreme difficulty in evaluating individual athetic talent (hey, remember the trade of Jim Fregosi for Nolan Ryan?). This process is compounded when guesstimating how individuals will perform at the next level (remember Ryan Leaf?).
So the stakes are high and the margin for error is wide. And putting down any single rating service is as easy as catching fish in a barrel. But I contend that when viewed collectively they are useful.
Maybe.
We shall see.
Don't be hard on yourself. In the grand scheme of things he is a superb statistician, so I can see where you'd think that. I pride myself on my statistical analysis, too.