The SoapBoxers

This will likely become a mini-series … statistics are great, but can be abused.

Today’s focus is on the “transitive” property of statistics. My example will be an issue that many people are well aware of. The issue is important and is a problematic societal issue. I am definitely not suggesting that the problem doesn’t exist – but I am suggesting that the arguments have at times been twisted to say things that the number don’t necessarily support.

Fact 1: Members of group A are paid less than members Group B for the same work
Fact 2: Members of group A, on average, have salaries that are 50% of those of members of group B

thus, the creation of
“fact” 3
Members of group A on average make, on average, 50% of members of group B, for the same work.

The only problem with this is that this is overly simplistic. You cannot blend the first two facts. Too many other variables exist.

Let’s illustrate:

Group A, 100 people
6 brain surgeons @ 135,000 = 810,000
94 engineers @ 45,000 = 4,230,000
Total = 5,040,000

Group B, 100 people
50 brain surgeons @ 150,000 = 7,500,000
50 engineers @ 50,000 = 2,500,000
Total = 10M

Let’s test facts 1 and 2

Fact 1: Are members of group A paid less than members of group B for the same work? Yes. They make 10% less.
Fact 2: Are members of group A, on average, paid ~50% of the salary of members of group B? Yes. 50.4%

But when we come to “fact” 3:
Members of group A on average make, on average, 50% of members of group B, for the same work.

This is not true. Members of group A make 90% of what members of group B make for the same work.

Keep an eye open and you’ll see occasional use of the “transitive” property by otherwise reputable sources. Why? Either because the person doesn’t know any better, or because it’s easier than delving deeper to find the “split” statistics – and 90% of people aren’t going to see the problem. The key point here – when you read the news, you should not only scrutinize the facts for accuracy, but also the logic used to piece the story together. The best statistics in the world cannot undo the harm of illogical thinking.

End note: With this particular example, there is the issue of why members of group A tend to have less than members of group B. Is this due to personal preference, lifestyle choices, or a lack of opportunity. This is a good topic for discussion, but it is beyond the point of this article – that people need to analyze the statistics more closely.

Did you stay away from the polls because you didn’t think your vote counted? One effect of the apathy caused by the electoral college is the down-ticket effect. If you are a Democrat in Texas or a Republican in California, you are correct that your presidential vote would not have swung the state. However, your vote may have changed the results of local races – and this can also have an impact on you. In my state, a candidate in one race currently holds a lead of 6 votes.

If you don’t like the electoral college, there is a way to fix it. Contrary to popular belief, a state does not need to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. The state has complete control over how their votes are awarded.

There is currently an effort underway to functionally abolish the electoral college. A number of states have formed an agreement to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote. This will only occur once enough states have joined to ensure 270 electoral votes (meaning that if a candidate won the popular vote and had this bloc of states give him/her their electoral votes, he/she would achieve an automatic electoral college majority.. Until then, the states will continue to assign electoral votes via the current method.

Read more at this web site:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

Contact your state legislators regarding this.

I can’t believe I forgot this one. Announcers who interview people, and miss a good chunk of the game in the process. If you want to interview a guy between the action, that’s fine. But I don’t want to miss an at bat because of the interview.

I heard an interview a few months ago. I want to say it was Mike Schmidt, but I might be wrong. Anyway, the guy be interviewed would always wait until the end of the play before he would answer the question. That is awesome – everyone should do that.

8. Not enough luge on TV. I absolutely love the sport – it is second only to baseball. Yet, I get to see it only once every four years.

7. Prices. Seriously, toss me some sort of a bone. The ticket prices are absurd, I pay to park, and concessions and gift shops are overpriced. Some stadiums have all-you-cam-eat-without-puking sections, which is nice. Some places have family deals (4 tickets, 4 dogs, 4 sodas), but usually only for less popular games. Really, do a bit more. If I’m paying $75 a ticket for my family of 4, let me park for free. Don’t make me buy overprice preseason tickets as part of a season ticket package.

6. College athletes who want to get paid. First of all, you are getting paid. Full tuition, room and board, books. I would have loved to have gotten these benefits from my college job. Second, the vast majority of athletic departments do NOT make a profit. The majority of schools are not getting rich on athletics; they are breaking even or losing money. Sure, some sports might make a profit, but do you really want to pay a bad QB and not pay an All-American volleyball player, simply because football makes money and volleyball doesn’t?

5. Efforts to shorten games. MLB has done this. NCAA football has done this. I like sports. Why would I want to shorten the games? The NCAA’s tactics resulted in fewer plays per game, which is a loss for the fans. If I am a roller coaster fan, do I want to see the amusement parks shorten the ride time? No, of course not.

4. Lack of NCAA football playoff. Some of the NCAA’s arguments might make more sense if there wasn’t a playoff in every other division. It’s OK for 1-AA (FCS) players to play all the extra games, miss class time, etc, but it’s not OK for 1-A (FBS) players?

3. Baseball teams are not allowed to trade their draft picks. The results in players often being chosen based on signability rather than talent. In other words, I use the #1 pick to draft the 4th best player, because he will sign for a reasonable amount. Why not allow me to trade my pick the the team with the #4 pick. This allows them to grab a guy they wouldn’t have been able to get at #4. At #4, I get the same guy I would have taken at #1 – plus I get some additional value from the other team.

Alternately, perhaps I trade a 2nd round pick for an aging veteran for a playoff push.

Draft picks could become currency, and allow a lot more trades to occur. Some opponents say that this would not be a panacea. OK, sure. But I haven’t heard anyone making a solid argument that it would hurt any teams. If there is a good chance of it helping some teams, and a very small chance of it hurting anyone, do it! This is a great cost/benefit scenario.

2. The “down without contact” rule in NCAA football. A player can trip over his own feet, 20 yards from the nearest defender, and he is immediately down. Come on, people, this makes no sense. I can understand this in cases where the player is at the risk of injuries, but there are many cases where a player could easily jump up and continue running.

1. The designated hitter. Don’t get me started on this one …

Why do people feel the need to use the phrases “all of the sudden” or “all of a sudden” when “suddenly” conveys the same thought much more smoothly?