Comments on Twofer Time Again. Or: Another Lost Weekend

Go to notapoet on blogging - Add a comment - Go to Twofer Time Again. Or: Another Lost Weekend

Thank you, Friar

Alas, I'm probably too technically incompetent to interest Shaycom. Mine is just a knack for collecting data about what I'm interested in and making connections that seem obvious to me, but evidently are not to others. Many think I'm too wrapped up in meaningless numbers. To me, the numbers represent human achievement and the directions it takes, and an answer to what the accomplishments actually are. It is a gift that I may be wasting on sports statistics and blogging statistics. But it is no longer fun when I take it elsewhere. I was once an accountant who could hardly wait to change professions. I was encouraged to be a mathematican, but was not interested in esoteric advanced mathematics. I am drawn by the connection to people and their athletic and artistic endeavors. Thus, my fascination with sports statistics -- and the stats of Blogit that I play with.

posted by notapoet on March 20, 2004 at 4:29 AM | link to this | reply

Wow!

Just spotting new bloggers -- to me -- is quite difficult already. Observing how numbers go up or down? And you just get that off the limited data given at Blogit's index page? Man, Shaycom should ask you to work for them.

posted by Friar__Tuck on March 20, 2004 at 4:05 AM | link to this | reply

Foxy

As I've said before, I try to stay busy to keep myself out of trouble. I noticed you've started posting some poetry. I usually don't read the stuff unless its funny. You wouldn't happen to be the reincarnation of Ogden Nash, would you? If not, please bring back your other fabulously wacky and funny blogs.

posted by notapoet on March 19, 2004 at 11:44 AM | link to this | reply

Friar

I just realized I only answered part of your questions. Dave and Kay-Ren ("Irrelevant Observations") both track new members. Anyone can pick up on new members and returning members by clicking on "More in New Posts" at the bottom of the home page. You can scroll and click back for months here. Clicking on the name of any blogger unfamiliar to you will take you to their home page where you can learn the date they joined and all other kinds of neat info in addition to a list of their blogs.

posted by notapoet on March 19, 2004 at 11:40 AM | link to this | reply

No, I don't work here.

Although I'm available if Shaycom should ever be interested. I use a combination of the Top 100 (over the last seven days), the category rankings, and the member profiles to get all of my information. I start with the Top 100 because it gives a lot of the data I use in one place with a minimum of effort. The category of each blog is given here along with its rank, author, title, and the subject line of the most recent post (and when it was posted). I use a notebook with a list of all 24 categories on the far left. Each day I enter the rank of all the blogs in the Top 100 along side the appropriate category name. Then I go to each category. The first page lists the Top 25 for that category, the title of each blog, when the last post was made, the subject line for the last post (important if the blogger has more than one blog in the category), and the author's name. The category rankings do not give the overall rank of the blogs, but the member profiles do. I click on the author's name to go to his member profile where I can find the current rank of the blog I'm interested in. After I've made all the necessary notations for the category's Top 25, I go to the last page of the category where the rank of the last blog listed tells me the current population of that blog and enter this in my notebook. That is it except for doing the math and posting the results (which I don't do every day so it doesn't get too boring for everyone except me). Most of this is explained in greater detail in some of my old posts.

You'll find out, if you ever read any of my posts about baseball, that I'm something of a stats freak. I'm fascinated by the numbers and what they can tell you if you know how to interpret them properly. I'm also a firm believer in relative stats -- a concept I use quite frequently in baseball. Relative stats also may be applied to basketball, although to a lesser extent because the game has changed so much from what it used to be even 30 years ago. For instance, although there is now a shot clock and 3-point basket in both pro and college basketball, offense has actually declined gradually since they were introduced at each level -- the reverse of what was expected. Yet you can still determine performance as a plus or minus over league averages. A guy who scores at 10% above the current league average for his number of minutes played has the same level of performance as a guy who scored 10% above the league average 50 years ago. It doesn't matter if his scoring average is 15% lower than the old-timer -- the whole league's scoring average is 15% lower. Once you understand this concept it gives you a valid method of comparison for players of different eras.

Pardon me for bringing sports into this reply. Its a compulsion I can usually control except when I'm talking to a fellow sports fan.

posted by notapoet on March 19, 2004 at 11:12 AM | link to this | reply

You are one busy guy, Sheesh!

posted by FoxyBlue on March 19, 2004 at 10:36 AM | link to this | reply

How do you get the figures?

And I have also been wondering how Dave_Cryer knows the newbies. Do you work here?