This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Hi Baba, as for what to do with the outliers, the easiest by Fighting_Artichoke

solution is to drop the highest and the lowest scores and average the rest. That doesn't require you to make any decisions as to what constitutes an outlier, but utilizes slightly more information than the median. But if you have only 3 or 4 data points, the median and the mean (after removing the first and last values) are identical because there are exactly 4 values total. If there were 5 ratings, the number would NOT be the same.

Another candidate would be to take the geometric mean (Nth root of the product of N numbers), a nice way of finding central tendency because it tends to mitigate outliers.

An aside on the ratings: I would just use the 4 main ratings because most players aren't rated on Sports Madness and Dan Olsen's CGBR is redundant if you are already using Hoopgurlz. Dan Olsen's pay site (CGBR) updates more frequently than Hoopgurlz, but it's the same guy's rating. So CGBR would be preferable, but it's hard to get it unless you are a subscriber. Because CGBR ratings are highly dependent on WHEN the ratings were acquired, it seems less valuable than the Hoopgurlz rating. For example, Shelby Calhoun was highly ranked earlier in her development, but sank in the ratings over time. Dan Olsen didn't find her worth a top 100 rating in the final rankings of the 2020 class, but your listed CGBR rating was 15th! Maybe you got that rating from some time in the past when she was more highly regarded. I checked the VTech site and they only mention her high school accolades, but never mention her high CGBR rating. Maybe it's an old rating? (Don't really know.)

So here are the ratings of the women you listed, only counting ratings from HG, BS, PN and ASGR. The numbers are MEAN, MEDIAN, GEOMETRIC MEAN:

Edwards 84 87 49
Abdur-Rahim 113, 117, 108
Hayes 62, 43, 52
Calhoun 76, 72, 72
Todd-Williams 58, 45, 51
Thompson 103, 101, 101
Levings 75, 73, 70
Hutcherson 54, 46, 40

Sonia Citron (2021 of course) has one outlier among her 4 scores (14, 15, 16, 33) but but her mean (19.5) is not too different from her median (15.5) or geometric mean (18.2).

So which one is your favorite?