Comments

  1. GBSimons said...

    I think “size” is vague enough that it can be interpreted in more than one way.  I agree “area” is probably a better interpretation than “diameter,” but I also think that’s nit-picking.  The graph tells the story well.

  2. dfan said...

    Well, my point is not so much that the legend is inaccurate but that the graph distorts the story. When you use a circle that’s 36 times the size of another one (that is, uses 36 times as many pixels) to illustrate a six-fold disparity in runs, it paints a misleading picture.

  3. Kevin Dame said...

    Thanks for the comments.  You’re right about the misleading nature of using diameter instead of area.  My 7th grade math teacher would be disappointed.  I adjusted the visual using the actual area of the circles to represent scoring.

  4. dfan said...

    Your chart says “Size of circle = number of runs scored” but you made the diameter, not the size, of the circle proportional to the number of runs scored. That makes the size of the circle proportional to the square of the number of runs scored.

    This is most obvious in the rightmost “6-1” pair of circles, where the size of the blue circle is actually 36 times the size of the black circle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>