Part 1:
Alright,
what better way to show a function than to tweak an existing example from class
and tailor it to my interests! Using
data compiled from the NHL’s website, I’ve decided to look at the goals scored
by Corey Perry of the Anaheim Ducks since his debut at my home town in the
2005-2006 season. Note that these are
only regulation goals, excluding goals made during playoffs. Also excluded are goals made last season, as the
series was atypically shorter.
X
(Season) Y
(Goals Scored)
2005-2006 13
2006-2007 17
2007-2008 29
2008-2009 32
2009-2010 27
2010-2011 50
2011-2012 37
This data represents a function because each input
(the season played) can only ever have one output value (number of goals
scored). It is physically impossible for
Corey Perry to have two different sets of recognized goals for any given
season.
Clearly,
this graph is non-linear. While there is
an overall trend upwards, the rate of change has not been consistent from any
one point to the next, as well as the presence of steep declines.
To
explain:
The
ROC for this particular graph is:
37-13
/ 2012-2006 = 24 / 6 =
4
While
this matches with the first given interval between the 2006 season and the 2007
season.
17 –
13 / 2007 – 2006 = 4/1 = 4
Clearly,
we can see that, visually, the rate of change is not constant.
This is not a mathematical model. There is no way Corey Perry’s performance can
be explained by a simple y=f(x) model, using y as the number of goals and x
being the year he plays. There are too
many factors that go into any players performance in a year: too many to possible list, but several common
sense ones should come to mind. While
advanced math may roughly guestimate short-term performance, such an
all-encompassing prediction of a players goals would be ridiculous and
futile.
The California highway patrol lists the recorded traffic
accidents every year on the roads in California, in addition to the causes of
each death. When looking at the
aggregated data, we can see that this is not at all a function. Any death could’ve been caused by overlapping
reasons that another death was recording having. If a driver was listed as being drunk and
driving without front headlights, and another was listed as driving without one
headlight yet was talking on the phone, there really is no correlation at all
between the two deaths.
Looking at these numbers makes you realize that cars are much more dangerous than you'd think!
ReplyDeleteI like the NHL usage as I did the same with Patrick Sharp's numbers. The only thing I found off was that your AROC and ROC was the same (4), maybe you should have shown some other examples to make it not seem that they aren't the same along the whole chart.
ReplyDeleteInteresting about the california deaths, if only we could predicate with a math model how people die in car accidents to help prevent less
stewart,
ReplyDeletei really love your first example! i love hockey, also. i'm glad that you took something of interest to you and explain the mathematics behind it. your explanations were spot on!
for your second example, it would have been good to explain which relationships you were looking at. in reality, each of these relationships is a individual function. some are with respect to time, some time of day, etc. there are a lot of relationships here. next time just choose one to look at and determine whether or not it is a function.
professor little