Comments on: A Response to My Critique of the Mitchell Report Study http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/09/a-response-to-my-critique-of-the-mitchell-report-study/ Economic Thinking about Baseball Sun, 09 Jan 2011 17:16:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: JC http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/09/a-response-to-my-critique-of-the-mitchell-report-study/comment-page-1/#comment-104561 JC Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:23:34 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/?p=970#comment-104561 I don't have a problem with panel data/mixed effects. I run panel data models  frequently, I just don't normally employ mixed effects.  In my critique I stated that I believed that mixed effects would work. I was noting that I would not address whether or not this method would work, but to assume that it would work without agreeing that it would work. The confusion is understandable, I probably should have excluded the sentence. I'll try and post my full comments on Monday. This Gwinnett County business is taking up quite a bit of time.  I don’t have a problem with panel data/mixed effects. I run panel data models  frequently, I just don’t normally employ mixed effects.  In my critique I stated that I believed that mixed effects would work. I was noting that I would not address whether or not this method would work, but to assume that it would work without agreeing that it would work. The confusion is understandable, I probably should have excluded the sentence.

I’ll try and post my full comments on Monday. This Gwinnett County business is taking up quite a bit of time. 

]]> By: A.West http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/09/a-response-to-my-critique-of-the-mitchell-report-study/comment-page-1/#comment-104558 A.West Sat, 06 Sep 2008 04:24:40 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/?p=970#comment-104558 I just looked at the original paper. Is it possible that this just proves that the authors of The Mitchel Report focused their investigations on players who had good seasons, because they assumed that a good seaon was presumably associated with steroid use. If they had focused their investigations on weak teams with losing records and poor player performance, they would have still found some steriod use, and the report would have shown steriods hurting performance. However, I'm quite fond of panel data/mixed effects models, and think it ought to be used more in baseball statistical analysis.  Seems a natural match for the structure of the data - tracking multiple individuals over time. Why don't you like it, JC? I just looked at the original paper. Is it possible that this just proves that the authors of The Mitchel Report focused their investigations on players who had good seasons, because they assumed that a good seaon was presumably associated with steroid use. If they had focused their investigations on weak teams with losing records and poor player performance, they would have still found some steriod use, and the report would have shown steriods hurting performance.

However, I’m quite fond of panel data/mixed effects models, and think it ought to be used more in baseball statistical analysis.  Seems a natural match for the structure of the data – tracking multiple individuals over time. Why don’t you like it, JC?

]]>