Comments on: Is Jeff Bridges most likely to win best actor? http://flowingdata.com/2010/03/07/is-jeff-bridges-most-likely-to-win-best-actor/ Strength in Numbers Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:57:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Is Jeff Bridges most likely to win best actor? « f.majakovskij http://flowingdata.com/2010/03/07/is-jeff-bridges-most-likely-to-win-best-actor/#comment-40222 Is Jeff Bridges most likely to win best actor? « f.majakovskij Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:02:33 +0000 http://flowingdata.com/?p=5911#comment-40222 [...] Is Jeff Bridges most likely to win best actor? via flowingdata.com [...] [...] Is Jeff Bridges most likely to win best actor? via flowingdata.com [...]

]]> By: tgroleau http://flowingdata.com/2010/03/07/is-jeff-bridges-most-likely-to-win-best-actor/#comment-39852 tgroleau Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:04:30 +0000 http://flowingdata.com/?p=5911#comment-39852 Matthew, I think I reached your conclusion through a different path. As a univariate prediction model, the theory isn't bad. In bivariate regression a 34% r-squared is decent. Sure, 66% of the outcome variability is explained by something else but you can't cover the 66% by a single variable. All you've got is that one of the 5 or so nominees who did NOT have the most nominations won. We could build a better model with more variables (exact number of nominees each year and the total number of prior nominations for each), but 34% isn't bad for a single variable. After trying to write that as clearly as I could, I think your conditional probability approach is cleaner (and easier to explain to my students). Matthew,

I think I reached your conclusion through a different path. As a univariate prediction model, the theory isn’t bad. In bivariate regression a 34% r-squared is decent. Sure, 66% of the outcome variability is explained by something else but you can’t cover the 66% by a single variable. All you’ve got is that one of the 5 or so nominees who did NOT have the most nominations won.

We could build a better model with more variables (exact number of nominees each year and the total number of prior nominations for each), but 34% isn’t bad for a single variable.

After trying to write that as clearly as I could, I think your conditional probability approach is cleaner (and easier to explain to my students).

]]> By: Paul Ehrenreich http://flowingdata.com/2010/03/07/is-jeff-bridges-most-likely-to-win-best-actor/#comment-39840 Paul Ehrenreich Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:00:02 +0000 http://flowingdata.com/?p=5911#comment-39840 I voted for the Jeff Bridges...he is "The Dude" for crying out loud! I voted for the Jeff Bridges…he is “The Dude” for crying out loud!

]]> By: Matthew http://flowingdata.com/2010/03/07/is-jeff-bridges-most-likely-to-win-best-actor/#comment-39839 Matthew Sun, 07 Mar 2010 15:16:48 +0000 http://flowingdata.com/?p=5911#comment-39839 As always, it's a nice visualization, but in this case I think it fails to communicate a key piece of information: the fact that in most years, there have been five nominees. So the probability of winning is about 1/5. But the chart indicates that the probability of winning conditional on having the most nominations in that year is 1/3; we should therefore consider this to be a piece of information in Jeff Bridges's favor. The relationship is clearly not as strong as suggested in the CNN piece, but it's there. As always, it’s a nice visualization, but in this case I think it fails to communicate a key piece of information: the fact that in most years, there have been five nominees. So the probability of winning is about 1/5. But the chart indicates that the probability of winning conditional on having the most nominations in that year is 1/3; we should therefore consider this to be a piece of information in Jeff Bridges’s favor. The relationship is clearly not as strong as suggested in the CNN piece, but it’s there.

]]> By: Nathan Yau http://flowingdata.com/2010/03/07/is-jeff-bridges-most-likely-to-win-best-actor/#comment-39837 Nathan Yau Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:38:58 +0000 http://flowingdata.com/?p=5911#comment-39837 @Tenzil - sure, that could be another way of doing it. @Tenzil – sure, that could be another way of doing it.

]]> By: Tenzil http://flowingdata.com/2010/03/07/is-jeff-bridges-most-likely-to-win-best-actor/#comment-39835 Tenzil Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:29:06 +0000 http://flowingdata.com/?p=5911#comment-39835 Should the bars show the winner's previous nomination count, less the count of the most-nominated (or next-most nominated, in 10 cases) contender? Should the bars show the winner’s previous nomination count, less the count of the most-nominated (or next-most nominated, in 10 cases) contender?

]]> By: Jim http://flowingdata.com/2010/03/07/is-jeff-bridges-most-likely-to-win-best-actor/#comment-39833 Jim Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:11:43 +0000 http://flowingdata.com/?p=5911#comment-39833 Whoops! I just reread the graphic and realized you already did this. The sentences at the top distracted me. Well done! Jim Whoops! I just reread the graphic and realized you already did this. The sentences at the top distracted me.
Well done!
Jim

]]> By: Jim http://flowingdata.com/2010/03/07/is-jeff-bridges-most-likely-to-win-best-actor/#comment-39832 Jim Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:10:05 +0000 http://flowingdata.com/?p=5911#comment-39832 Nathan, Great question, but I read the theory and story a little differently. To me, I thought author was referring primarily to the total number of nominations received during their career. Although, she was not always clear about this. I wonder how looking at the total number of nominations received over time would change your results. Jim Nathan,
Great question, but I read the theory and story a little differently. To me, I thought author was referring primarily to the total number of nominations received during their career. Although, she was not always clear about this. I wonder how looking at the total number of nominations received over time would change your results.
Jim

]]>