07 Jul 07
Originally posted by ArchaeopteryxThey would have to be players who have a relatively similar game load and a relatively balanced level of opposition in both environments. Ratings go out of date when people play infrequently and they can be skewed by consistently playing higher or lower rated opposition. But limiting the sample group like this might create other imbalaces which would bring you back where you started.
There will be a non-zero correlation. If you can get enough people to volunteer their RHP rating and OTB ratings, you could calculate the correlation. It would be interesting to see the numbers.
07 Jul 07
Originally posted by ArchaeopteryxThere may well be a correlation (it would be surprising if there were not) but the relationship between the two could well be non-linear. There would also be a problem with the sample in that the two ratings are not actually referring to the same thing. An OTB rating cannot be directly compared to a CC rating because the ratings are obtained under different conditions. Comparing OTB ratings to CC ratings is a bit like comparing the performance of a sprinter to a distance runner.
There will be a non-zero correlation. If you can get enough people to volunteer their RHP rating and OTB ratings, you could calculate the correlation. It would be interesting to see the numbers.
07 Jul 07
Originally posted by Keplerwell said
There may well be a correlation (it would be surprising if there were not) but the relationship between the two could well be non-linear. There would also be a problem with the sample in that the two ratings are not actually referring to the same thing. An OTB rating cannot be directly compared to a CC rating because the ratings are obtained under different c ...[text shortened]... atings to CC ratings is a bit like comparing the performance of a sprinter to a distance runner.