SUMMARYA common method for measuring the drug-speciÿc minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of an antibacterial agent is via a two-fold broth dilution test known as the MIC test. Because this procedure implicitly rounds data upward, inference based on unadjusted measurements is biased and overestimates bacterial resistance to a drug. We detail this test procedure and its associated bias, which, in many cases, has an expected value of approximately 0.5 on the log 2 scale. In addition, new bias-corrected estimates of resistance are proposed. A numeric example is used to illustrate the extent to which the traditional resistance estimate can overestimate the true proportion of resistant strains, a phenomenon which is remedied by using the proposed estimates. Published in 2005 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Existing paired comparison models used for ranking football teams primarily focus on either wins and losses or points scored (either via each team's total or a margin of victory). While reasonable, each approach fails to produce satisfactory rankings in frequently arising situations due to its ignorance of additional data. We propose a new, hybrid model incorporating both wins and constituent scores and show that it outperforms its competitors and is robust against model mis-specification based on a series of simulation studies. We conclude by illustrating the method using the 2003-04 and 2004-05 college football seasons.

When faced with protecting a three-point lead in the waning seconds of a basketball game, which is a preferable strategy: playing defense or fouling the offense before they can attempt a game-tying shot? Gonzaga University head coach, Mark Few, was faced with such a decision against Michigan State in the semi-finals of the Maui Invitational (November 22, 2005) and elected to play defense. The strategy backfired, as Michigan State's Maurice Ager made a three-point basket at the buzzer to force overtime. (Gonzaga eventually won in triple overtime.) Was this failure to hold the lead at the end of regulation bad luck or bad strategy? Put another way, which strategy (conventional defense or intentionally fouling) maximizes the defensive team's chances of winning the game? Drawing on the Gonzaga/Michigan State game for inspiration, this paper addresses this question and concludes that, contrary to popular belief, intentionally fouling is preferable to playing tight defense.

No abstract

No abstract