BuzzerBeater Forums

Dude you have to account for the standing of the team they play and record of the team and recent win/loss cup etc.....

Unfortunately this makes it impossible to determine PR manager effect to any accuracy at all.

Is true, but I hope that over time can clarify something really interesting.

It is a study that can last a long time, if it ends like now that I have not yet received any BBMail.

The effect of public relations if I can find many results, but also try to find time between now and the% who earns more or less if your team loses in the world ranking positions.

This is a topic that apparently can be very interesting for all users.

But that as I said, need the help of many users and so far I find the first part: the% improvement of an employee at a higher level or lower level.

On the basis of the coach who gives these improvements, I hope to find out if you really are the same for a public relations

minimal - 0.84
basic - 0.88
Competent - 0.92
advanced - 0.96
top - 1.00
exceptional - 1.04
world-renowned - 1.08

I think a similar level public relations can give the same as a coach, but with time and hope to receive many mails to know the % difference between each level.

This discussion has come up before, only last time it started to turn into a philosophical debate over whether or not induction or deduction should be used to build the theory. For the record, I'm against the use of inductive observations like those suggested here, and I think LA-Wolph just touched on one of several flaws. Yes, you are also leaving out probably a number of other important pieces of data. A quick example would be the number of domestic vs. foreign players. Large data samples wouldn't just help or increase precision. They avoid the additional assumption that effects are not gradual. Good luck with building the house of cards.

Last edited by bonespawn at 11/13/2010 3:41:55 PM

That's the thing, with a true random sample, those wouldn't matter. You would need a control group for those who did not change PR managers, but that's not too difficult.

The reason for introducing random sampling is to reduce the likelihood of bias. In the case of disease research, you are looking for anything that will result in changing of condition, and when you find it you may have something. PR effects, attendance levels, merchandising and such are not just on/off states. They are values that fluctuate with or without changes to PR manager staff levels and are influenced by other factors. You are making an apples to oranges comparison.

Last edited by bonespawn at 11/13/2010 10:03:33 PM

In order for that type of research to work the sample most be pulled from a homogeneous population, you grab a group, split it in two or more and subject the different groups to a change to observe the effect of the change.

Not really. It would defeat the whole purpose in having a double-blind study if you manipulated variables in your control group.

It works in a large volume to look at the overall effect, but all of the oddballs also need to be looked out and accounted for, for example-

I'll skip quoting your verbose analogies and commentary, and I think you went a little overboard in trying to make a a very simple point (that anomalous data can result in confirmation bias). Point taken.

There are many different approaches to experimentation in medicine. Some are quantitative and others are qualitative. A descriptive study for example, does not deal with the intentional manipulation of variables at all. I'm not going to debate the usefulness of a particular method of experimentation or how to structure it, because I think that is already jumping ahead. To start with, the basic assumption has been made here that inductive reasoning is more useful or appropriate.

As the saying goes, "If you only have a hammer"... PR manager's aren't a neurological disease. They are a bloody algorithm in a computer program with a finite number of parameters. One of the biggest reasons why deduction is commonly used in math is because there is a small number of unknowns. In medical science and many other fields you are dealing with a large or seemingly infinite number of unknowns where inductive observations are more useful.

I gavea long list of factors which impact attendance. Unfortunatley there are a lot of them. So it is getting similar to trying to put a pulse on an actual organism.

In the same way folded paper is similar to an F-22 Raptor, sure.

I am not against trying to figure it out anyway, but since as you point out it is a finite mathematical problem, we might as well as identify and account for the variables.

Might as well pick out what animals we are going to test on. That is also very important

I think you guys scared the OP off.