MHHers and Hawerchuk: are we really overreacting?
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 12, 2010 12:26 PM MST
Email
Print
With all this new resurgence of the animosity between some MHHers (me included) and Behind the Net, I wanted to do some investigative analysis to see if we (more particularly, I) were blowing things out of proportion. Are the articles Hawerchuk writes about the Avs really that much more negative than those he writes about other teams? Given that I know he's a numbers guy that needs quantitative proof for any argument, I generated a numbers-based analysis to answer that question.
As the newest arguments center around his "Better Late than Never" articles (linked below), I used those as my samples. When I have more time, I hope to be able to do this with a larger sample size.
For each article, I evaluated every sentence and gave it a rating of Positive, Neutral or Negative. The criteria was uniform: positive statements were any commentary that complimented the team, a player or a performance; neutral consisted of statements of fact and statistics; a negative rating was given to any sentence that gave criticism to the team, a player or a performance. For example, saying that a team's forward line outperformed its opposition got a positive rating. A sentence that told how many shots on net occurred in a game received a neutral rating. Negative ratings were given to sentences like, " They were continuously outshot." The latter sentence could be taken as a neutral comment out of context; but because it does not include actual figures and is more a commentary on the statistics, it fell into the negative category. This was true of positive statements, as well: They stopped the shots at a higher-than-average rate.
I tried to keep out bias by looking solely at the nature of the words. It's a test-taking strategy to assign "charges" (+, -, N) to words and one that I've taught for many years. Given my experience, I'm confident I was able to do this. Unfortunately, this is a subjective analysis at its heart; this is also true of home-team bias when recording such things as shots on net, blocks, hits, etc. Therefore, I believe this analysis cannot be discounted outright for that possibility of bias. Everyone must make their own decisions about this, however.
Here are the raw numbers from the data:
|
Article |
Positive |
Neutral |
Negative |
|
Minnesota Wild
|
15 |
23 |
16 |
|
Columbus Blue Jackets
|
16 |
26 |
15 |
|
Colorado Avalanche
|
8 |
24 |
32 |
|
San Jose Sharks
|
15 |
22 |
18 |
|
What is Evgeni Nabokov worth in Russia?
|
3 |
21 |
4 |
These numbers show that the Wild, BJs and Sharks all received a similar number of positive commentary with Nabokov receiving the fewest. Neutral comments were farily even across the board. This isn't surprising as the articles are statiscally-focused. Where the big descrepancy comes in, however, is the number of negative comments made in each article. The Avalanche had double the negative commentary that the other articles did. Because the articles were of varying lengths, I calculated the percentage of each article dedicated to positive, neutral and negative statements so that they could be more easily compared.
|
Article |
% Positive |
% Neutral |
% Negative |
|
Minnesota Wild |
28 |
42 |
30 |
|
Columbus Blue Jackets |
28 |
46 |
26 |
|
Colorado Avalanche |
13 |
37 |
50 |
|
San Jose Sharks |
27 |
40 |
33 |
|
What is Evgeni Nabokov worth in Russia? |
11 |
75 |
14 |
The conclusions are similar. The article on Nabokov is an outlier; given the high percentage of neutral comments, it's reasonable to conclude that it was a fact-focused presentation of ideas rather than a commentary on his performance. This holds true as the main idea was a comparison of the monetary value between NHL and KHL goalies. The articles for Minnesota, Columbus and San Jose are incredibly similar in make-up. However, we once again have an overwhelming difference when viewing the Avs article. Only 13% of the comments in that article were of a positive nature while 50% - a full half of the article - were negative.
When looking at the figures this way, it is easy to see why Avs fans would get upset at the treatment their team received during this analysis. Furthermore, while reviewing the articles, I found a startling difference in how the statements were worded. This, as I have noted many times, is my biggest issue with Hawerchuk's presentation of his statistical data for my team.
For the following chart, "over-the-top descriptors" are those that are extremely harsh adjectives used to describe the team, players or a performance: ugly, awful, terrible, disastrous. Sarcasm is simply that: using a snarky remark to comment on the stats.
|
Article |
# over-the-top descriptors |
# sarcastic comments |
|
Minnesota Wild |
2 |
0 |
|
Columbus Blue Jackets |
2 |
0 |
|
Colorado Avalanche |
3 |
3 |
|
San Jose Sharks |
1 |
0 |
|
What is Evgeni Nabokov worth in Russia? |
0 |
0 |
Hawerchuk used sarcasm only with the Avalanche. He made comments like, "And just to instill confidence for the playoffs, went on an 0-7-6 slide to close the season." I believe it is comments like these that make Avs fans angry when reading his articles. The snarky commentary belies his claim that he's an unbiased presenter of facts. In no other article did he use that style of writing.
As for me, I have never found his conclusions unreasonable. I have always, however, disliked the way he presents them. I had a general feeling of negativity from the articles, one that I could not quantify. Because I couldn't, Hawerchuk dismissed my criticism outright. Now that I have quantified it, I feel reassured in my belief that there is a decidely negative tone to his articles about the Avs. Whether he gives my assessment any respect is up to him.
"Better Late than Never" articles: Minnesota Wild, Columbus Blue Jackets, Colorado Avalanche, San Jose Sharks, What is Evgeni Nabokov worth in Russia?
MileHighHockey.com is a fan community, allowing members to post their own thoughts and opinions on the Colorado Avalanche and hockey in general. These views and thoughts may not be shared by the editors of MileHighHockey.com.
522 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Why start a war with BTN when there are “blogs” full of snarky comments and douchebags like EZ?
Personally, I think a war with EZ would be much more fun. Of course, anytime someone tries something at KK Paul Kukla usually ends it and everyone from EZ are too scared to come here.
I know my name is spelled "Luxury Yacht" but it's actually pronounced Throatwarbler Mangrove.
Member of the PFJ and the Spanish Inquisition.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!
I’m trying to answer questions he has posed to me before. Not start a war.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 12, 2010 12:37 PM MST up reply actions
Ah. Okie dokie then.
I know my name is spelled "Luxury Yacht" but it's actually pronounced Throatwarbler Mangrove.
Member of the PFJ and the Spanish Inquisition.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!
by Luxury Yacht on Nov 12, 2010 12:43 PM MST up reply actions
Negative ratings were given to sentences like, " They were continuously outshot."
Incidentally, do you dispute this fact? Was Colorado not continuously outshot? The problem isn’t my tone, it’s that the team – aside from Anderson and Stastny and a few others that I pointed out – wasn’t very good.
When a team isn’t very good, then you would expect a description of it to be negative.
You said you were just as negative about those other teams as you were about the Avs in a previous comment. If that is the case, then assigning negative ratings to those kinds of comments across the board would show that. It doesn’t. I tried to explain to you why I (and perhaps others) am bothered by your articles. You asked for quantitative reasoning. I gave it to you. Insult it or use it to go back to your articles and take an honest assessment of how you have presented the facts. I’ve given you props when you deserved it; I have called you out when I felt it needed to be done. Take it or leave it, insult me or respect the effort I went to in order to show you my point. Whatever. I’m really over this.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 12, 2010 12:54 PM MST up reply actions 3 recs
Why? It’s a statement of fact. I’m not taking offense that he doesn’t think my Caps last year were an elite team, even though in terms of goal differential, goals for, and points the team was historically good (considering the times).
Worse teams who appear like they’re better require more explanation of why they’re not as good as they seem. Everyone knows the Wild weren’t that good last year. Hence, Hawerchuk doesn’t have to explain why they weren’t and why Corsi doesn’t equate with points in that case. On the other hand, teams that are better than they appear (Chicago, Boston) probably require positive explanations.
by red army line on Nov 12, 2010 1:11 PM MST up reply actions
A valid argument. Like I said, I’d like to see his writing on a team that was in the same boat as the Avs. That would be a better comparison. I still take issue with the sarcasm, though. So unnecessary.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 12, 2010 1:20 PM MST up reply actions
Beachie,
Right here:
http://www.behindthenethockey.com/2010/4/11/1415830/the-washington-capitals-and-their
Obviously the Caps were better than the Avs (and the Habs), but the story is the same.
1 in statement +/ there. You’re biased against the Caps too!!!1
by red army line on Nov 13, 2010 6:48 AM MST up reply actions
Aww, forgot about the strikethrough with two dashes.
In terms of percentage, that’s 55.6% negative.
by red army line on Nov 13, 2010 6:49 AM MST up reply actions
They were good enough to make the playoffs, and things might have turned around had Mueller not been hurt.
Living in the D, but It's All About The A.
by Avalanche318 on Nov 12, 2010 2:24 PM MST up reply actions
Actually, the Avalanche probably weren’t “continuously outshot”. I suspect they were regularly outshot. I’m tempted to go through all of your articles to evaluate grammatical inconsistencies and give them +/- ratings based on objective Websteristic criteria.
However, I’ve come to the conclusion that I could care less.
by Dario on Nov 12, 2010 7:54 PM MST up reply actions 4 recs
How much less
Could you care? 20% less? 80% less? Do you, in fact, care a lot? Or perhaps you could care just 1% less, as you already care just 1%.
by eltharion_doa on Nov 20, 2010 1:25 PM MST up reply actions
precisely 0.01 %.
It cannot be shown that luck actually exists, hence luck is nothing more than a word used by one in a self delusional assumption of understanding events of which one is informed or which one witnesses. As such, it is a word which superstitious people use to simultaneously presume to have insight into events and, paradoxically, to cease efforts to understand the causes and effects of those same events.
Do you really think this proves anything? Umm…just guess what the ratios might be if he wrote a similar Blackhawks article, or Oilers article.
If he had done a “Better Late than Never” article on those teams, I would have reviewed them. I hope to get a chance and I honestly hope I’m wrong.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 12, 2010 12:56 PM MST up reply actions
So…… if Gabe were to do an article over-viewing the 09-10 Oilers, I predict he will be negatively biased with many negative statements because he is a Flames fan.
by Corey Pronman on Nov 12, 2010 12:50 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
I have no idea what’s going on, but it’s fascinating.
"We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese!"
by Paul X on Nov 12, 2010 1:13 PM MST reply actions 4 recs
My head hurts.
It’s like a BCS system that rates other BCS systems.
"I'm gonna fix that last joke by taking out all the words and adding new ones." - MH
I do have to say, I read the Av’s article and now need a tylenol. Am I the only one that’s never heard of some of those statistical terms?
"We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese!"
It’s a good read, he just delivers it with his usually dick-ish-ness (may or may not be a REAL word).
Matt Duchene, better at STUFF than OTHER PEOPLE!!!
"FUCKINGUGLYBABYKYLEKOCIWOLSKIJESUSBARBRASTREISAND!!!!" - Angry MHH member After An Olli Jokinen Goal.
fixed. I misunderstood the tone behind it.
I am the most humble blogger of all time
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Nov 12, 2010 3:30 PM MST up reply actions
Well, the tone is analytical. He, as he often does, asked me to show how he spoke differently about the Avs than the other teams. I presented my case as a way to back that up. There is a combative mood about it only in that it’s a long-running argument. I tried to keep it logical and objective, though. I do appreciate you moving it back! I don’t think we need to promote this issue any more than it already has been. In retrospect, I probably didn’t help matters, but it’s a discussion point. =)
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 12, 2010 3:36 PM MST up reply actions
well, I thought it was a brilliantly funny idea to do it. I didn’t realize (until after) that people are bent out of shape (again) about BTN.
I am the most humble blogger of all time
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Nov 12, 2010 3:49 PM MST up reply actions
I’m impressed at all the work you did Beachie!
Winnik is a fucking Win!
by Sandie Gauthier on Nov 12, 2010 3:59 PM MST up reply actions
Yeah, I thought it was brilliant too. That’s why I front-paged it. I would never have thought of quantitatively analyzing my writing…
Except that’s what you asked for.
Mile High Hockey: Significantly better than the experts predicted, just like the Avalanche.
From Beachie’s comment above:
I tried to explain to you why I (and perhaps others) am bothered by your articles. You asked for quantitative reasoning. I gave it to you.
Mile High Hockey: Significantly better than the experts predicted, just like the Avalanche.
Sample size = one.
Bettman's Nightmare: Hypothesizing that Cooper-alls were the Jorts of the 80s.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
You can also catch my work occasionally at www.behindthenethockey.com
by Bettman's Nightmare on Nov 12, 2010 3:34 PM MST reply actions
I’m going to use all of those Avs numbers and buy a lottery ticket. Suckers.
by Pinchy The Lobster on Nov 12, 2010 4:50 PM MST reply actions
I <3 u, Pinchy.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 12, 2010 8:14 PM MST up reply actions
If I win I wil be sure to make it worth your while!
by Pinchy The Lobster on Nov 13, 2010 10:40 AM MST up reply actions
There are three kinds of untruth. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Many other fans (myself included most of the time) find hockey a wonderful escape from the ultimately futile effort to reduce everything to mathematical expression. You dig the order, I dig the entropy – or at least that which defies (to date) quantification. Hockey’s big enough and grand enough to allow for both. Neither is inherently correct, nor is either inherently incorrect, save for when it seeks to assert authority beyond its scope.
Hops, that is the best thing I have read in a while, and I wish I could have boiled it down to that essence myself. Sorry but I don’’t have the energy to sign up for a site I won’t ever use to rec it, but…
Neither is inherently correct, nor is either inherently incorrect, save for when it seeks to assert authority beyond its scope
I think this is the root of the problem. Both of the parties involved are seeking to assert an absolute that does not exist.
IMHO, people who overanalyze the game reduce the game to an unenjoyable drudgery. If that’s what gets them off, so be it. As I said to Jibbles a while ago, if stats could really be used to predict more than jack shit, there would really be no reason to watch any games. We’d already know the outcome. What then is the point in watching?
Hockey- goddamn it's cool.
by TheRed on Nov 13, 2010 2:46 AM MST reply actions 5 recs
Fair enough. I think stats enhance our understanding of the game by eliminating confirmation and groupthink biases (for example, Marc Staal can’t be great because he doesn’t hit!!!) and showing us things we may not have realized before (who really is getting the tough minutes, who is carrying the load on their line, etc).
if stats could really be used to predict more than jack shit, there would really be no reason to watch any games.
They predict more than you think, apparently.
I figure most of the discussing we do on non-BTN-type blogs is trying to describe luck, which I think is a perfectly valid exercise (though not very productive in the long run). Hawerchuk probably wouldn’t even bother. Watching the games also helps to, say, get the idea to check whether Lemaire’s trap helps limit scoring chances against (which it does, if shots are any indicator). That’s how you get the ideas on how to better models.
by red army line on Nov 13, 2010 6:59 AM MST up reply actions
I do slightly exaggerate when I say “jack shit”. The point I’m trying to make is that at the end of the day, all the stats in the world won’t tell you who’s going to win tonight in any given game. I do see that they are a useful tool, and I have said as much in other places. They are especially good in seeing trends, picking fantasy players, and backing up internet shit talking. I just think they are limited, open to a lot of interpretation, and not the end all be all that some people claim.
Hockey- goddamn it's cool.
See, I don’t get this. I do analysis of the game, but it’s hardly “stats” – it’s all just counting events. I explained this system to one GM and he was like “WTF? You mean you’re just counting? There’s nothing more complex here than arithmetic? And we don’t need a guy with a PhD in stats to do this?”
All I’m advocating for is watching the game systematically and taking notes. You should see what NHL teams keep track of – scoring chances, breakouts, forechecks, passes, touches. They’re collecting data and trying to figure out what’s going on in the game. Is that “stats”? Would NHL teams be better off if they didn’t collect data?
As to what you enjoy about the game, to each his own. But if people are going to make assertions about what’s driving the outcome of the game, they should make an effort to back them up. Falling back on “this idea isn’t perfect” or “you didn’t watch the game” is just lazy.
by Hawerchuk on Nov 13, 2010 4:05 PM MST up reply actions 2 recs
Look, I’m not a stats nerd, and I don’t want to get in a pissing match with you. I think a lot of what you do is interesting, it just doesn’t really enhance my personal experience that much. Sometimes it can even detract from it. But I know what you say about NHL front offices is true, and I’m not saying THEY wouldn’t be better off. My point is just that while the data (if you don’t want to call them stats, fine, but I view “counting events” as stats, and so do most other average people) is useful to a point, it is imperfect, and the nature of life is such that you can gather all the stats, numbers, data, etc, and it STILL won’t tell you definitively what the outcome is going to be, only what is probable or likely.
Hockey- goddamn it's cool.
by TheRed on Nov 14, 2010 11:19 AM MST up reply actions 3 recs
"WTF? You mean you’re just counting? There’s nothing more complex here than arithmetic? And we don’t need a guy with a PhD in stats to do this?"
This is the best thing to come out of this whole thread.
And I hear you talk the talk, but I don't see you walk the walk and I still don't believe a thing you say.
My problem with those guys is that they come across as arrogant and condescending pricks. And when one gets questioned, another lapdog usually comes along to defend the original position and add to the snark. Reynolds usually seems to be the guy who comes along to stick up for Hawerchuk.
I’d really rather that they stick to that stuff on BTN. If someone goes over there and disagrees with them or trashes them or calls them douches or whatever then they should feel free to have a field day. But I hope they understand that this site isn’t really about rational, numbers-based analysis of the Avs. Sometimes (though not often) that comes up here, but most of the time, as I’m sure most of us are well aware, this is a site to act like a fan in the true sense of the word – not a lot of rationality involved in many of the comments.
As an Avs fan, I don’t want to be talked down to or have other fans talked down to because we make positive comments about the team that aren’t based in deep statistical analysis. Really, is it so difficult to let us say that the team has grit and speed and plays a puck possession style and has a top-tier goalie and all that stuff? Even if it’s not true, what the fuck do you guys care if Avs fans say it or believe it?
I love Fire Joe Morgan because it’s funny as hell, and because it takes on professionals. Nobody over here is a professional, we’re fans, so let us act like fans. Let us say stuff that’s just batshit crazy. If we go over to BTN and disagree with you, feel free to fire away with both barrels blazing. But why come over here to respond to what’s being written? You look really thin skinned when you do that. Didn’t this whole thing start with a fanshot from BoB that you came over here and responded to? Couldn’t you have just stayed out of it, or do you have to respond to everything that’s written about you?
Hawerchuk, if Beachie’s article is truly one of the funniest things you’ve ever seen, then you’ve confirmed my suspicion that you’re a humorless, boring, miserable know-it-all.
Finally, I wanna thank God, because God gave me this Dundie. And I feel God in this Chili's tonight.
by Dan Winkler on Nov 13, 2010 5:24 PM MST reply actions 8 recs
Couldn’t help yourself at the end there, could you? Or at the beginning, really?
Anyways, it’s pretty sad that you think this site isn’t the place for rational analysis of the Avs. I think the site’s creators would disagree with you.
by Hawerchuk on Nov 13, 2010 5:37 PM MST up reply actions 2 recs
Are you serious Hawerchuk? You are telling us what the purpose of this site is? Your condescension is basically unmatched in the hockey world. I am not a numbers person, I’m a lawyer, and I do not get into purely numerical arguments with numbers people, like Jibbles. However, the game is not played on paper, even you know that. Everyone, including us, admits the Avalanche got lucky last year. But you do not just say that. You basically act like it was the greatest anomaly in the history of anomalies and ran counter to every single facet of math and science that exists.
You offer no response to the claim that your tone is the issue, not your “statistics”. I am sure your statistics are almost always sound, but your tone is that of someone on some ivory towered pedestal who gives glimpses of the “true” knowledge to us lower beings. You are not the beacon of all hockey knowledge. The Avalanche made the playoffs. 14 other teams did not. They gave a “superior” team a run for their money. Even if you say luck was involved, or the only reason, we still did it. If and/or when we make the playoffs this year I am sure you will have some pedantic reason why it should not have happened, but if it does, it happened. End of story.
No matter how hard your thick-headed math brain tries, you cannot convince the NHL to strike the name Colorado Avalanche from the 2010 playoff history. Sorry.
Jimmy Howard invented the All-Star Game, yet he's not on the ballot.
by c6hor8 on Nov 15, 2010 4:53 PM MST up reply actions 3 recs
“Your condescension is basically unmatched in the hockey world.”
Hyperbole, much?
You may think that every Avs fan admits that the Avs got lucky last year, but that is decidedly not the case. Here’s what Dario wrote:
“Avs fans are offended by a term like luck”
But yeah, I’m just a guy with a “thick-headed math brain” on an “ivory-towered pedestal” who can’t be bothered to actually watch any hockey.
hopefully this closes the bold tag…
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 16, 2010 2:25 PM MST up reply actions
Everything from Gabe’s most recent post down is bolded on my comp. I tried closing it by inserting a < /b > but it didn’t work.
of course, that might be because the command is strong
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 16, 2010 2:34 PM MST up reply actions
hey that worked
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 16, 2010 2:34 PM MST up reply actions
didn’t realize a bold tag could carry like that. guessing maybe it shouldn’t.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 16, 2010 2:38 PM MST up reply actions
Nowweirdblockquotes.thingsthearewithgoingon
Your 2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: Reaching Up to the Cap Floor
by Bob in Boulder on Nov 16, 2010 2:49 PM MST up reply actions 4 recs
lol
GHOSTS!!!!!!!!
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 16, 2010 3:01 PM MST up reply actions
Your 2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: Reaching Up to the Cap Floor
by Bob in Boulder on Nov 16, 2010 5:10 PM MST up reply actions
Now that’s what I’m talking about!
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 16, 2010 8:40 PM MST up reply actions
Nope.
The Avs defense is "air tight"....so tight it's gasping for air and turning purple.
by Americanario on Nov 17, 2010 8:57 AM MST up reply actions
You mean you want to put on the red light?
Your 2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: Reaching Up to the Cap Floor
by Bob in Boulder on Nov 17, 2010 9:22 AM MST up reply actions
Of course it was hyperbole but at least it got through to you. Everybody would admit we got lucky, the same as every team gets lucky and every player does at some point. We refuse to accept our entire season was luck. You are forced to twist words as a way to avoid the real issue that Beachie presented.
And, you are a math person who deals with sound mathematical logic. Do not drop a straw man argument, which is a pretty common debate tactic fallacy, and claim that I said you do not watch any hockey. I pointed out that numbers explain a lot but do not always dictate the end result. I never claimed you did not watch hockey nor did I aver your statistics were even usually wrong. This is about your tone and general demeanor in the way you present statistics about the Avalanche.
But, having studied debate tactics rather extensively, I will give you credit on your ability to skirt the issues I brought up in my original post and only focus on the ones you feel you can defend.
Jimmy Howard invented the All-Star Game, yet he's not on the ballot.
as a former debater myself, it’s too bad this isn’t being flowed or judged. it’s incredible how he drops and tries to avoid good points against.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
I didn’t realize you were a MasterDebater
fixed!
and with that in mind…. TWSS.
by Dario on Nov 16, 2010 7:46 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
This made me chuckle…
Winnik is a fucking Win!
by Sandie Gauthier on Nov 16, 2010 8:40 PM MST up reply actions
Classy as always. Nothing displays intellect or objectivity like middle school insults.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
I think you’ve shown your true colors nicely. You’ve no intention of actual discourse. You’d prefer to insult others (that never insulted you) and bash straw men.
I could care less about your oh-so-clever and original attempt at insulting me. My only feeling is sadness for you. How petty and low will you stoop?
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
Dunno. I’ll probably go on twitter and say there’s this weird guy who was going on about correlation not being in the same as causation and ask if anybody can figure why he’s so obsessed with that. Something like that.
They can always visit you on twitter at “HawerchuksProblems…”
Matt Duchene, better at STUFF than OTHER PEOPLE!!!
"FUCKINGUGLYBABYKYLEKOCIWOLSKIJESUSBARBRASTREISAND!!!!" - Angry MHH member After An Olli Jokinen Goal.
by i2strange97 on Nov 17, 2010 12:21 AM MST up reply actions
Were the two of you in LD or Policy? LD for me.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 17, 2010 7:42 AM MST up reply actions
As the site creator, in the interest of accuracy, Mile High Hockey is a place for both rational analysis AND outright Avs homerism. The two may live in harmony if everybody drops the nonsense self-righteousness and snobbery.
Mile High Hockey: Significantly better than the experts predicted, just like the Avalanche.
by Joe Dunman on Nov 18, 2010 12:21 PM MST up reply actions 13 recs
rec'd
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2010 12:24 PM MST up reply actions
Yes, please. As said previously, the argument has made both sides seem petty. Difference being, MHH tends to self-indulgently wallow in pettiness as a favorite past-time (I really do mean this in the best of ways. It’s a good time).
by MalachiConstant on Nov 18, 2010 1:19 PM MST up reply actions
Rec'd
and don’t forget the butthurt.
2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: pretty good at hockey since they can't get into the bars yet.
but I can still have my pinky out when I drink brandy with my monocle and cigar, right?
Each of my replies is a work of art, each more brilliant than the last.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Nov 18, 2010 1:46 PM MST up reply actions
Dear God man!
Don’t you have your valet do that for you? This is a civilised forum and such!
2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: pretty good at hockey since they can't get into the bars yet.
Geeves holds the cigar but I like to hold the brandy and I bring in some peons to be an ottoman. I make them cry when I light the cigar with $100 bills. Well much like you I guess.
Each of my replies is a work of art, each more brilliant than the last.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Nov 18, 2010 1:50 PM MST up reply actions
typical night:
Each of my replies is a work of art, each more brilliant than the last.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Nov 18, 2010 1:59 PM MST up reply actions
#DanEllisProblems
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2010 1:53 PM MST up reply actions
Wow.
The term quantitative refers to a type of information based in quantities or else quantifiable data (objective properties) —as opposed to qualitative information which deals with apparent qualities (subjective properties).
So, tell me, how exactly are the conditions positive, negative and neutral quantities?
YOU determine what you THINK is a positive, negative or neutral statement, and conveniently, these “quantities” match your previously held belief that Mr. Desjardins hates the Avs.
I’m sorry, this is ridiculous. Your team squeaked into the playoffs and was beaten by a dominant team. While this was happening, BTN was vigorously trying to find an explanation beyond “luck and a hot goalie” to explain the strange run of the Habs. Does that mean he also hates the Canadiens?
I have never, in all my time reading BTN glimpsed even a remote hint of homerism from Desjardins. He attacks ideas he thinks are baseless (like the idea that Anderson having a great year and a few players over-performing were not the main reason the avs edged out St. Louis and Calgary) and has little tolerance for cliche notions like “grit, heart, compete level, etc.” that are used to describe non quantifiable outcomes that are seemingly random. He just calls that stuff “luck”. Because it is. Stomach flu hitting on a road trip is bad luck. A fluke bounce from a blueline dump on net scoring is luck. A team rallying behind a captains pregame speech is luck. And why are they luck? Because all these things could happen to the other team in an equally random fashion. Sidney Crosby scoring 90 points isn’t luck, it’s talent. The Washington Capitals making the playoffs isn’t luck, it’s talent. Is luck minorly involved? Sure. And we’re all lucky that an asteroid doesn’t fall from the sky and obliterate us.
We love to create narratives in sport. It’s why it’s entertaining. We love to see Matt Duchene outperform Tavares and Hedman, because he was an underdog who made good. We like to see Craig Anderson breakout as a #1 goalie after living in Vokoun’s talented shadow. We like to see the Avs go toe to toe with the “over-rated” sharks, because Cinderella teams are just that, Cinderella stories about people beating the odds.
Montreal excited a lot of canadian and canadiens fans with their improbable run over two of the eastern giants. But statistically the odds were against them. And they wound up losing. Hell, Carolina is the closest thing to a Cinderella team that’s won the cup in recent history. Plenty of Cinderella finalists, or conference finalists, but eventually the luck gives out, the hot hand goes cold and real, consistent talent sweeps over overperformance or the underperformance of opponents. It’s more fun to describe these runs as being about “grit, heart, effort, compete, leadership”, but more often than not, they are just luck. A hot streak at the right time. Sometimes they turn out to be true (Halak is looking more and more like a real deal), but most often they are false (Calgary and Edmonton were never elite teams during their playoff runs, or after).
The Avs may make the playoffs this year, but they’re going to need some luck. On the other hand, the canucks, the wings and the kings are likely in the playoffs, unless they get incredibly unlucky. This isn’t me being a homer (though I am admittedly a canucks fan), this is me looking at the rosters, past performance and a general consensus amongst the illuminati about who will perform well. But maybe I’m wrong, the avs take the division and the canucks bottom out below the oilers. Stranger things have happened.
What this boils down to is you created a post that publicly tars and feathers Desjardins as a biased jerk who hates your home team and you truss it up in dubious methodology that is based on your opinion of positive and negative, which as a clear cut Avs fan, you are in no position to decide objectively.
Personal attacks are silly at best, and shameful at worst. The Avs aren’t part of the big boys club any more. It’s a shame, as I was a big fan of Burnaby Joe and always enjoyed watching the nucks play you guys, but Stasny and Duchene are not ready to fill his shoes (And may never, you guys were blessed with a legend for 15 years), plus your D core needs work and Anderson is good, but he’s no Roy. Your team is still rebuilding, and other projects like St. Louis and LA are much closer to being there than the Avs are. Tough medicine perhaps, but at least you aren’t the oilers.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
by Nanodummy on Nov 13, 2010 11:57 PM MST reply actions 8 recs
Too long. Hopefully it was pro Avs.
by Pinchy The Lobster on Nov 14, 2010 12:45 AM MST up reply actions
I tried to slog my way through it. In the end, I think this is a good summary.
Your 2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: Reaching Up to the Cap Floor
by Bob in Boulder on Nov 15, 2010 2:48 PM MST up reply actions 2 recs
and yet you still take time out of your day to comment. my work here is done.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 17, 2010 10:19 PM MST up reply actions 3 recs
How many recs for a green post? One closer.
by red army line on Nov 14, 2010 6:07 AM MST up reply actions
Desjardins’ “bottom-line conclusion” was that “the Avs were lucky”. That’s a subjective statement based on ostensibly objective data. If the fans here want to disagree with Desjardins’ opining, that is their business. If it was just left at that there would be no fuss. Instead, the pedants decided to patronize everyone with their self-righteousness.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 16, 2010 12:43 PM MST up reply actions
’Instead, the pedants decided to patronize everyone with their self-righteousness.
I’ve tried to stay pretty quiet with this (I like pretty much everyone involved in this tussle). But the exact same thing could be said over at Behind the net. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but it takes (at least) two to fight. I don’t think either side of this argument should be proud of the way they have approached this disagreement at all.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 16, 2010 1:16 PM MST up reply actions
Coincidentally, I did just post pretty much the same thing over at BTN this morning. And really didn’t mean to direct my comments at MHH, let alone anyone, in particular here.
Widely-based disparaging marks are convenient in that when I find I said something stupid when my comments are applied to a specific circumstance (or person in this example), I can deny its application to that circumstance.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 16, 2010 1:28 PM MST up reply actions
For my part, I’m just prodding because I think that objective layer of ice has lots of cracks in it. I’m not doing it because I totally discount his findings. I’m doing it because I think there’s some legitimate logical flaws in the conclusions of their hypothesis. I don’t there there would be too much to argue if the conclusions were more neutral in tone. I mean, stats are stats. There’s nothing to argue with there.
I do too, and I’ve argued them over there plenty of times without it coming to self-defeating pissing matches. I think part of the domino is that many fans perceived “luck” as an inherently negative term. It’s not.
But we’re well past arguing those semantics now. The lines have been drawn.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 16, 2010 1:52 PM MST up reply actions
AND ON THIS SIDE OF THE LINE... WE AIN'T GAY!
Matt Duchene, better at STUFF than OTHER PEOPLE!!!
"FUCKINGUGLYBABYKYLEKOCIWOLSKIJESUSBARBRASTREISAND!!!!" - Angry MHH member After An Olli Jokinen Goal.
I’ve thought BTN has done a great job of pulling together interesting data and analyzing them in an interesting and uncommon way. It’s why I keep up with the blog.
This is the idea/statement I disagree with:
Luck drives any outcome other than the most likely one.
Basically saying, “luck” is whatever our independent variables and model can’t explain. That’s just not a sound conclusion and has no practical merit. It’s like saying, “well, my model doesn’t offer an answer and I know that’s perfect, so what else could it be but magic”.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 16, 2010 3:12 PM MST up reply actions
Several people (Ferrari, Likens, others) have simulated team shooting percentage and have shown that it’s mostly luck.
For the talent portion, numerous people have looked at the role of “shot quality”, chance quality, turnovers, arena bias, individual and team shooting talent and man-advantages. There are a probably a few other things that have been studied. No one has ever found a significant amount of talent there. So I think your characterization of the team-level shooting model is an over-simplification.
Don’t forget to apply the same rigor and standards to the non-analytical explanations: grit, heart, determination, nothing to lose, gripping sticks loosely, psychological advantages, I watched the game, etc…
For some reason, I can’t delete my comment and re-post it. But I wanted to add that I don’t think the entire story of shooting percentage is understood. And really, it never can be. But the error in the model is bounded tightly enough that an outlier like the Avs is interesting to consider.
HC, we are mortal enemies.
But despite that, I agree with you on shooting %.
I just want o say, I’ve seen the replays and I’m an expert. So there’s that.
I will try to read up on Ferrari and Likens. My experience with statistical analysis has been entirely in economic development and social policy, not with sports. In an academic setting though, if your results cannot be explained by your model you don’t simply slap a label on it like “luck” and assume you’ve found the answer. Maybe that’s as good as you can get in analyzing shooting percentage; but just because that’s the best anyone can do doesn’t make it valid. The analysis has not found that “it’s mostly luck”, it’s only found that it’s not easy to analyze. All you’ve done is taken intangible results and slapped another intangible title on it to simplify things. It might make sense to you logically that it’s luck, but the data itself does not say that. It’s a leap and a conclusion that you have speculated. Hence, your arguments are subjective and hence when people critique your subjective opinion, you shouldn’t cite your statistics/model as gospel.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 17, 2010 7:57 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
What you’re doing might be the norm in the “hockey stats” world, I wouldn’t know. If that’s the case, then excuse my pointing out the particulars. But you’ll also have to except that I, and apparently some other consumers of yours, don’t place a lot of validity on some of the conclusions made.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 17, 2010 8:01 AM MST up reply actions
I think part of what he’s trying to say is that stuff like shot quality exist, but teams have been unable to show much ability to control their shot quality. Anything that makes a difference that a team is unable to control is labeled as “luck”
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 17, 2010 8:02 AM MST up reply actions
Yeah, fair enough. Injuries to star players could be used as another example. No injuries and your lucky. Certainly there are some things a team can do to control for injuries as well as shot quality, but in aggregate it’s fair to treat them as “luck” (covariance becomes a worry here though).
by MalachiConstant on Nov 17, 2010 8:52 AM MST up reply actions
Like JS noted, people split outcomes into two parts: talent and luck. Everything that’s not persistent is luck. You can argue (as others have) that there’s essentially some transient talent in that luck component, but if a player’s or team’s performance is inconsistent (and unpredictable), that’s luck.
Fundamentally, because you are sampling, a single-season worth of outcomes will have a large non-persistent component. You need only look at the top 20 scorers in the league – they will necessarily do worse as a group in their next season. They got lucky one year and their true talent is not as extreme.
Thanks for the 101. I would be skeptical of the robustness of results produced with this framework, but this certainly helps put things in context for me.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 17, 2010 10:28 AM MST up reply actions
Are you suggesting that talent doesn’t play a significant role? My mind is blown man.
Did you ever play sports?
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Nov 17, 2010 12:01 PM MST up reply actions
Apparently this is something of a standard in hockey statistics circles, but you really shouldn’t take “talent” and “luck” literally as he uses them.
He’s using the term “talent” as a generalization for data that offer a good correlation to a dependent variable without lot’s of error. He refers to the error as “luck”.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 17, 2010 12:31 PM MST up reply actions
He’s not saying that, at all. He’s saying that there’s little talent difference (at the NHL level) in shooting and the talent is in creating shots.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 17, 2010 12:46 PM MST up reply actions
because that’s the only difference between varyingly talented players, the amount of shots the they create. /eyeroll
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
You’re the only person saying that. As JS notes elsewhere, individual players have varying abilities to create shots and goals.
ignoring the fact I wasn’t even responding to you (are you so sensitive to any discussion of statistics that I’m not even allowed to talk with other people about it?), didn’t you just say in the above that all the other individual metrics like shooting percentage all didn’t correlate to talent? Now you’re saying they can? Or are you just referring to outliers like The Tanguay?
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
Hey
Leavs Tangs out of it! ;)
Winnik is a fucking Win!
by Sandie Gauthier on Nov 17, 2010 9:56 PM MST up reply actions
We keep trying,
but Sutter won’t let us!
2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: pretty good at hockey since they can't get into the bars yet.
I wouldn’t say he’s the only one saying that exactly. There would be at least two of us, counting myself thanks.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 17, 2010 6:57 PM MST up reply actions
There’s the amounts of shots they deny as well.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 17, 2010 7:35 PM MST up reply actions
Over the course of 82 games, observed outcomes do not match individual talent. That should be obvious – otherwise the best team would always win the cup and players would put up the same numbers every year during their peaks.
I also thought the whole point here was that things like grit, determination, psychological readiness, nothing to lose and gripping the stick loosely were what determined the outcome of the game.
lol
I also thought the whole point here was that things like grit, determination, psychological readiness, nothing to lose and gripping the stick loosely were what determined the outcome of the game.
I don’t think anyone here has ever said that those are the sole things that determine the outcome of a game. It’s just something some people (I’d even say a lot) believe is a factor.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 17, 2010 3:22 PM MST up reply actions
Why can’t teams and players reproduce these things on a regular basis then?
If a player is gripping his stick too tight, why doesn’t he loosen his grip? If he is capable of showing grit, why doesn’t he show it all the time?
If he is a clutch goal scorer, why doesn’t he score that clutch goal?
Answer: Bad luck.
These X factors are mostly just illusions we create to make the story more exciting.
Certainly there are explanations to bad luck: The ice was bad, the puck was the player has an injury, they ate a big meal and it’s bogged them down, whatever.
Luck isn’t magic, it’s the things that can’t really be controlled by the players on the ice at that moment. A team gets a bad schedule? Tough luck. back to back games? Tough luck. Somebody painted the dressing room hours before the game? Tough luck, you’re playing Scotty Bowman.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
by Nanodummy on Nov 17, 2010 9:29 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
I think they do, I just think it shows up in their shot numbers. There’s a reason why guys like Wolski, 1st round talent, 8th round effort, have decent, but not great Corsi numbers when they have the talent for so much more. Yet guys like Laperriere have decent Corsi numbers while being no where near as talented.
I think Grit, Determination, etc happen, I just think they are pretty well quantified.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 17, 2010 9:55 PM MST up reply actions
I agree.
For example, Kovalchuk and Crosby are probably equally gifted, physically.
Crosby is clearly the more mentally disciplined of the two, which is why he is a consistent team player who is a model for the ideal hockey player and Kovalchuk is being benched for missing team meetings.
But clearly, after playing hockey for probably 25 years, Kovalchuk isn’t going to magically create that mental discipline. If he has a 100 point season, I’d say he’d been lucky and fall back to 70-80 pretty quickly.
Kovalchuk cannot control his 100 point puck luck. He can only keep doing what he does and hope it works.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
Spoken like someone who watches sports but never played.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Nov 17, 2010 10:04 PM MST up reply actions
Please
I can attest that some games I’m “feeling it” and other times I’m not. I can attest that some games I’m panicky with the ball (this is soccer, but hockey shouldn’t be too different) but other games I’m not.
by red army line on Nov 18, 2010 11:43 AM MST up reply actions
I can’t tell if we are agreeing or disagreeing in the grand scheme of things, but I agree with this post. In particular the soccer part as I am in the same boat. :)
Incidentally, I may play better when I think I feel like crap. Maybe it loosens me up.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Nov 18, 2010 12:01 PM MST up reply actions
I was agreeing with Nano. That last part = luck.
by red army line on Nov 18, 2010 12:13 PM MST up reply actions
Hockey from age 4 til 16
And I’ve played pickup for the last 3 years.
So, I dunno 12 seasons plus 3 years of drop ins. Does that qualify me to know that sometimes I have a shitty game because I’m in a shitty mood? Or sometimes the ice sucks? Or I have the flu and and all tuckered out after a couple shifts? Or the guy in net in the other end seems to be on fire and it’s frustrating me?
Guys who play hockey BELIEVE in luck.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
by Nanodummy on Nov 18, 2010 6:14 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
So tonight it’s pure luck that the Avs came back from a 3-1 deficit and being completely out played in 2 periods against the Sharks to dominate play in the third and win? There’s no talent there? Their ability to stay focused and not give up is just luck? That’s bullshit. Not all players nor teams can bounce back after being down by two or more goals. Last year, the Avs were able to do that frequently. It’s not luck that kept them in the game mentally. There’s an intangible skill in that.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 17, 2010 10:24 PM MST up reply actions 3 recs
Well said
But I disagree where you said luck didn’t keep them in the game. I think it factored in, but sheer talent and intangibles alone helped drive us to defeat the Sharks.
I sometimes think the reason I love the Avs is their ability to defy logic and quantifiable results. Last year I relished that math couldn’t break down our team’s performance and that drove the number-crunchers bananas. That seems to be the root of the argument – nothing personally representative of the BTN guys and their team affiliations, but the sheer ability of any team to win in spite of what solid math and predictive analysis indicate. Are the Avs lucky? Certainly. Would I trade that luck to post better CORSI percentage? Never in a million years! As a believer of the school of thought that says luck is the intersection of talent and opportunity, I’ll take luck any day of the week. I have to disagree when you don’t think luck had anything to do with our win.
"Take it away, Paul J!" - Jeff Caves, KBOI radio announcer, Fiesta Bowl 2007
by TCJohnnyHotPocket on Nov 17, 2010 11:36 PM MST up reply actions
I don’t think anyone is saying that any win is pure luck. But that there can be luck on top of skill, That seems like a bit of a straw man.
And the Avs had plenty of luck on their side tonight. McGinn’s bat in could have easily been called a goal initially (and it probably would have stood in review, I thought the review was inconclusive). Also, the avs were pretty lucky that Nittymaki was terrible tonight, and that Vlasic decided to screen his own goalie for no reason on Stastny’s goal. Obviously there’s talent on capitalizing on luck, but no one has ever said that all the Avs success, this season or last, is luck.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2010 7:45 AM MST up reply actions
So tonight it’s pure luck that the Avs came back from a 3-1 deficit and being completely out played in 2 periods against the Sharks to dominate play in the third and win? There’s no talent there
I don’t think anyone is saying that. However, what if that high-stick goal wasn’t waved off and the game went 4-1? Do you really think the Avs would have come back to tie the game? Personally, I doubt it.
I think the refs made the right call, but we’ve all seen refs make the wrong call there, particularly if the call on the ice had been “good goal” rather than “no goal.”
That’s luck. Chris Stewart making Nittymaki look like a Squirt goalie, or Porter undressing Huskins – that’s skill/talent.
And I hear you talk the talk, but I don't see you walk the walk and I still don't believe a thing you say.
Yeah.
You’re lucky the sharks let up on you and lost focus.
What did the Avs do to make them do that?
If the answer is “Get outplayed so they let their guard down”, I wouldn’t advise it as a strategy that will win you a lot of hockey games.
The sharks are not a lazy team and more often than not they go for the kill. It’s why their a winning club that makes the playoffs a lot.
The Avs have talent. They are definitely not the worst team in the league. I don’t dispute this.
But I wouldn’t bet money that the Avs beat the Sharks in points this year. It’s not because I hate the Avs or love the sharks. It’s because the Sharks have a better team.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
But I wouldn’t bet money that the Avs beat the Sharks in points this year.
Nor would I. I really think you are under the impression that I think the Avs are a Stanley Cup winning team. I have never even hinted at that. But the Avs’ ability to not give up on that game is a part of what’s good about them. That is a talent these kids have that other teams may not.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 7:57 PM MST up reply actions
I think...
…you think the Avs are a playoff team.
Maybe my assumption is wrong.
But I disagree with statements like this:
Not all players nor teams can bounce back after being down by two or more goals.
I think every team has the possibility to do this. This is a story I’m sure every fan has been on either side of at some point in their fandom.
I’m sure a story like this has been used to explain a sudden comeback or a sudden collapse many times. “You know, they are really good at playing the full 60 minutes, so the comeback wasn’t as random as we thought.”
Again, without the kind of research Desjardins does to demonstrate the veracity of these claims, they are just make believe in the big book of hockey tales.
It’s fun to believe your team has the secret to big comebacks and that secret gives them an edge that other teams don’t possess; the data supporting that story is likely suspect.
I think this is one of the reasons Desjardins gets under people’s skin. He tells us there never was a Santa, and when we disagree with hollow rhetoric, he provides the corpse of a mall Santa and then pulls off the beard to prove Santa isn’t even dead, he’s just played by an actor, whom he killed just to spite us.
But Santa still isn’t real, even if the messenger can be a little rough in breaking the news.
The silver lining in this, however, is that once Santa is forgotten, one can learn about the true meaning of christmas, or some other collapsing metaphorical structure, meaning there are a lot of incredibly interesting stories with real analysis that actually help one understand the real game instead of the imagined one.
Thanks to learning about corsi and fenwick, Mike Gillis’ moves with the Canucks have made a ton of sense for me and made me excited about what I think his plan is. I also enjoy the way oiler’s fans twist with every dagger their management stabs into them, frequently with full analysis from their great blogosphere.
I’m no math head, but Desjardin’s work, amongst many others like Ferrari, Dellow and Awad, has made me a real partisan for analysis-based analysis instead of scatter shot anecdotal analysis that is supplemented by Don Cherry’s big book of hockey cliches.
And once again I let a snowball become an avalanche. Congrats to those who made it this far.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
by Nanodummy on Nov 19, 2010 5:19 AM MST up reply actions 2 recs
(warning: long post. pass over as you please!)
It’s fun to believe your team has the secret to big comebacks and that secret gives them an edge that other teams don’t possess; the data supporting that story is likely suspect.
Okay, please don’t take this the wrong way because I don’t intend to be insulting, but are you fucking serious? Do you really think I believe the Avs are the ONLY team that can do this? If so, and again I don’t mean this in an insulting way, but you’re far less intelligent than I would hope. Your whole post about Santa is ridiculous. The point of my comment is that having mental toughness and resilience (sp?) is indeed a skill. And I should fix my statement to read that not all teams nor players have the ability to make comebacks on a regular basis. That is a basic truth.
You seem to think that the only truths in this world are those you can support with numbers. Again, that’s a ridiculous notion. How do you support with numbers that an actor is talented? Box office draws? If that’s true, then The Rock and Keanu Reeves are two of the most talented actors in the world. There may be folks who disagree with me, but I think it’s a pretty safe assertion that they aren’t. What about musicians? Record sales? If so, then Lada Gaga is a Julliard candidate. The idea that you have to quantify every single aspect of the game to determine if it’s valid or not is fallacious in nature; moreover, it would be impossible to do.
As far as believing if the Avs are a playoff team or not, there was a poll that was done here before the season started. I put the Avs at 8th in the West, making them a playoff team. But it was on the condition that the team stay healthy. That didn’t happen. Thus, I would not be the least bit surprised if the end up 9th or 10th in the West. They are scoring at too high of a pace, however, to fall much below that as long as they can maintain it. The way the team is dealing with these injuries makes me believe that they can. Last year’s team? I thought they had a chance until the post-Olympic melt down. At that point, I figured they’d be 10-11th in the West come end of business day. I was happily surprised. I think you will find, if you read any of my assessments on the team, that I am pretty objective about their level of play. I’m, of course, a total homer because they’re my team. But I am always honest about how well they play.
I also think, if you read my posts, you will realize that my issue with Gabe (and he knows this) has NEVER been about his numbers. It’s been about the way they’re presented. I discovered in the process of doing this post, which was quite valuable no matter how much flack I’ve gotten for it, that it was not the idea of “luck” that upset me. It was actually the sarcasm used to describe it. Now that I know that, I can disregard that crap and focus on the numbers. Again, valuable experience here.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 19, 2010 9:18 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
The problem with comparing sports to music, poetry and art is that there’s no way to quantify those abilities because what’s "good"is entirely subjective. It’s a moving target.
Take music for example. If you played the Beatles in the 1500s they would have hated it. Those get judged on a matter of taste.
Sports, well those with counting stats, aren’t judged on taste, they are result oriented. There’s ways to quantify what goes into making those numbers.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 19, 2010 10:10 AM MST up reply actions
Gonna disagree with you hear Jibs and for entirely pedantic reasons. Science is able to measure the qualities of paintings, songs, etc. that people generally respond well too. By tracking those qualities (i.e. the color blue, or certain notes transitioning to other certain notes) and aggregating them you can very easily perform a quantitative analysis.
As for sports, and hockey specifically, individual data points like hits, or shots on goal can be pretty subjective. In aggregate they can be treated as objective, but then again so can “subjective” data from art, music etc as mentioned above. It all just depends on how you define your question (i.e. what makes a good song?) and how you design your model. Of course, it certainly helps if you assume your model is god’s-gift-to-man even if it doesn’t produce particularly good results.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 19, 2010 10:27 AM MST up reply actions
Science is able to measure the qualities of paintings, songs, etc. that people generally respond well too.
Yeah but why do they respond well to them? Because of subjective criteria they grew up with. If you took a classic Bollywood film and showed it to an Indian Audience it may score well, but show it to an American audience and it will perform poorly. Same with music, poetry, art, etc.
The basis of what’s “good” changes from cultures, time etc… but, the way shots are defined, aren’t really all that subjective. I mean a shot hits the goalie. It either hits him or it doesn’t. It’s a nice binary number.
Quality of shot may be more subjective, but again there’s a science to it where you can determine what location is more likely to score from, and assign a quantitative value to it based on probability.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 19, 2010 10:36 AM MST up reply actions
For starters, there are some innate qualities in color, sound, etc. that all humans respond to in a similar way. It may be that culture, background, etc may carry more significant influence, but I can’t speak to how much that might be (granted, a lot). But in theory anyway, you could control for background experience, culture, etc. It’s just not all that practical.
Say you have a European hockey official tracking the same data (hits for example) as an NHL. Could their data look significantly different because of their different backgrounds? It’s pretty plausible.
As you point out, you can weed out the subjectivity by having clearly defined rules and/or parameters in place. Point is you CAN do this with things more commonly perceived as subjective, it just takes a more complex set of parameters.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 19, 2010 10:45 AM MST up reply actions
agree. I think there’s some stats that are certainly subjective (turnovers and giveaways on NHL are awful). And there’s even arena bias in shots (Gabe has tracked that before as well).
But I think, in general, something like shots is a lot easier to quantify. Which is why you can "measure"a good hockey player but can’t really measure" a good artist.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 19, 2010 10:52 AM MST up reply actions
One is indeed easier than the other. Told you my point was pedantic to begin with.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 19, 2010 10:57 AM MST up reply actions
Except that the stats are twisted all over the place, Jibs.
Standings? Apparently that’s not a good enough stat.
Corsi? Apparently that only even tries to measure 5/6th of every game (excluding the last ten minutes). So, what you get is a stat that gives you a lot of info about 5/6th of how a team does. How incredibly arbitrary is it to discount a team’s effort in the last ten minutes of every game? Actually, not even discount it. Ignore it altogether.
Some teams really excel at the shootouts. Like it or not, that is a talent that really moves teams up the standings. But because some people don’t like the shootout, they exclude consideration of the shootout from the numbers they keep, thus excluding what is a very definite team plus and a necessary skill in today’s game. A part of the game is disliked. I get that. Is that any reason to ignore that part of the game when trying to capture what makes a good team?
“Shot quality” defined as “how close to the goal the shot was taken,” yet we’ve seen Stewart show over and over again this season that he has no trouble beating goalie’s from farther out with a slap shot. Doesn’t the fact that it’s a repeatable skill he has that doesn’t seem dependent on the goalie he’s facing make it a “quality shot,” and much more so than a guy banging a puck over and over again into a goalie’s pads from 6 inches?
I think it’s admirable that people are willing and able to try to capture meaning from the game through abstraction and numbers. The problem arises when people think they’ve captured all and only the important things from the game in the process. Especially when they use their models as bludgeons against other people’s enjoyment of the game. (Not that I’m accusing people here of doing that. That was more of a general rant comment.)
Abstraction is fine, but you have to realize that the numbers you generate tell you more about the model you’ve created than the game you are measuring.
standings are a stat, but they aren’t a reliable one for prdicting future performance. They are a result, and over a long time (> 82 games) would be a very accurate indication of a teams true talent.
Corsi? Apparently that only even tries to measure 5/6th of every game (excluding the last ten minutes). So, what you get is a stat that gives you a lot of info about 5/6th of how a team does. How incredibly arbitrary is it to discount a team’s effort in the last ten minutes of every game? Actually, not even discount it. Ignore it altogether
I hope you know that was a complete joke when that was mentioned before. Corsi stats don’t discount the last 10 minutes of games. (I would agree that if they did it would be completely arbitrary, but they don’t)t.
Some teams really excel at the shootouts. Like it or not, that is a talent that really moves teams up the standings. But because some people don’t like the shootout, they exclude consideration of the shootout from the numbers they keep, thus excluding what is a very definite team plus and a necessary skill in today’s game. A part of the game is disliked. I get that. Is that any reason to ignore that part of the game when trying to capture what makes a good team?
No team, or person, excels at shootouts. Over short term yes, but hell Wolski was great one season and then awful the next, for no discernible reason. Shootouts are almost the textbook example of luck (especially since a team only goes through ~10 per season.)
I don’t think anyone’s trying to say they’ve captured everything about the game and knows what there is. But there are factors that go into the game (like Shot quality) that teams, and players, have shown very little ability to control (relative to their peers). I mean you say Stewart has shown an ability to take a slap shot from far out and beat a goalie…. but So did Derek Boogard recently. My eyes tell me that Stewart can better control his shots, but it’s very possible that I just see him take a hell of a lot more shots and only remember the ones he scores on.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 19, 2010 12:20 PM MST up reply actions
I didn’t. Thanks for correcting me. I’m actually really happy to hear it. I’ve never really studied Corsi so I took the comment at face value.
Wolski is not a good example, honestly. We all know that he’s perfectly willing to rest on past laurels instead of continuing to develop his talent. I am certain that, if the shootout continues to be a part of the NHL game, that over time some kid will come up with a way to specialize in them and will score a ton of shootout goals over their career. And some team will give them a job, even if they are just average in other aspects of the game because being good at that part of the game really can make a huge difference in the standings.
At this point, I think the thing you can bank on in the shootout, if any, is goalies like Lundqvist and Brodeur playing well. After a while the goalies look to be able to read the shooter’s move.
by red army line on Nov 19, 2010 6:59 PM MST up reply actions
The problem with comparing sports to music, poetry and art is that there’s no way to quantify those abilities
Which is also true of things like mental strength….which I have mentioned and is part of my initial point. I give up on this issue. It’s become exhausting.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 19, 2010 12:43 PM MST up reply actions
I’m not disagreeing with you, there’s no measurement for it. But I think that it would show up in the data, because a mentally strong player is going to have strong stats all the time. A mentally weak one will have weak one’s all the time. You won’t be able to say “and 8% of that Corsi data is directly due to the players mental strength”.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 19, 2010 12:50 PM MST up reply actions
Which is one reason why Corsi is such a limiting stat when evaluating players and teams. It also doesn’t take into account how that mentally strong player affects his teammates and their production.
I wish I was able to figure out why a team is able to come back from a huge goal deficit to win. That can’t be attributed to only random chance. If it could, all teams would have the same chance at doing it and over a large enough sample size, we’d see the statistics refletc that. But the reality is that some teams are better at it than others. There must be some other factor (which I suspect to be mental strength) involved, one that we cannot measure or have not found a way to measure. Like I said, I wish I could. It would be fascinating.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 19, 2010 1:01 PM MST up reply actions
I wish I was able to figure out why a team is able to come back from a huge goal deficit to win. That can’t be attributed to only random chance. If it could, all teams would have the same chance at doing it and over a large enough sample size, we’d see the statistics refletc that. But the reality is that some teams are better at it than others.
I don’t think this is correct. Some teams are better at it, obviously Washington’s more likely than Edmonton to come back from a defect because of talent. But I would think it’s proportionate to the ability to get the lead etc…
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 19, 2010 1:29 PM MST up reply actions
Long reply, skip to preference.
The point of my comment is that having mental toughness and resilience (sp?) is indeed a skill.
I never disagreed with this. However, you seem to think that this “skill” is something the Avs have in spades based on… your undocumented observations. Here’s a great read on the problem with that method
Show me the research, then I’ll buy it. Not the numbers, per se, but the research.
not all teams nor players have the ability to make comebacks on a regular basis. That is a basic truth.
A basic truth based on what? Some teams don’t need to make regular comebacks, they win a lot. I’ll believe that making regular comebacks is a talent when you show me a team that does it for 5-10 seasons straight. And how much is regular? And what constitutes a comeback? Is it winning after trailing at any possible point in the score? Or is it something more defined?
It’s just a nebulous statement that makes a great narrative: Underdogs have mental resilience that give them the strength to battle back.
Prove it.
You seem to think that the only truths in this world are those you can support with numbers.
No no no. Facts. You can only prove a truth with facts. Otherwise they are opinions, which people are entitled to, but they are not entitled to be true.
When it comes to art, that is subjective. There is certainly criteria for judging “good” and “bad” art, but those criteria are flexible, mutable and cultural.
The idea that you have to quantify every single aspect of the game to determine if it’s valid or not is fallacious in nature; moreover, it would be impossible to do.
It is impossible. What I’m asking, and what Desjardins often asks for is for people to prove their observations. It’s wonderful to say “the avs are really good at comebacks”, but why should I believe you until you show me some facts proving it?
It will involve numbers, like counting how many times the avs have come back in the last 5 seasons, but this isn’t rocket science, it’s proving a thesis with evidence. As an english teacher I’m sure you can appreciate the requirements of rhetoric.
Your whole post about Santa is ridiculous.
It was intended as a joke, sort of.
The point was that there are these myths that exist in hockey culture. Myths about Grit, Tightly Gripped Sticks, Playing the Full Sixty Minutes, etc. These stories are told and retold within our culture and held as truth.
What the Statterati are doing is debunking those myths, and sometimes, I agree, in a less than diplomatic fashion. But their tone, which you take issue with, is irrelevant to the truths they are revealing.
Your article seems to undermine Desjardins analysis by accusing him of bias, because of his sarcastic tone. That’s not cool. His article is full of well researched facts and to dismiss them because there are sarcastic jokes scattered amongst them is foolish.
I’m not trying to shit disturb, I’m legitimately trying to defend and advance the idea that “sports truths” should have facts to support them. Why is that idea outrageous?
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
It’s wonderful to say "the avs are really good at comebacks", but why should I believe you until you show me some facts proving it?
They are second to the Washington Capitols for the most comebacks in one season in NHL history: 8 (to Washington’s 9). Come back in 4 years, when this team has actually been together for 5 years total (only 5 players have been here as a regular member of the team more than 2 years, so it’s a completely different team) and I will show you that data.
However, you seem to think that this "skill" is something the Avs have in spades
Please quote me where I’ve even indicated that. I’ve used the Avs as an example for my theories, but I’ve also used Steve Yzerman, a player on the team of my mortal enemy. And I don’t think the Avs “have it in spades.” I think they – along with a bunch of other teams in the league – have a high number of skaters that fit the profile. Since this is an Avs board, and I know them the best, of course I’m going to use them as an example. That’s common sense.
Your article seems to undermine Desjardins analysis by accusing him of bias, because of his sarcastic tone. That’s not cool. His article is full of well researched facts and to dismiss them because there are sarcastic jokes scattered amongst them is foolish.
You need to fucking read things. I have said REPEATEDLY in this post that I DO NOT discount his findings. My issue has nothing to do with his findings. My only issue is the unnecessary use of sarcasm. Now STOP using this as a point because it is FUCKING MOOT.
Really, you are stirring the pot because you are not really reading what I’m saying; you’re just finding ways to disagree with it or try to debunk it. And I’m starting to get pissed off about it. So say what you want in response to this, but know I’m disengaging from this discourse.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 20, 2010 12:22 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
I have said REPEATEDLY in this post that I DO NOT discount his findings.
Yet you accuse him of bias and write an article trying to prove he has a negative attitude towards your team.
I don’t think it’s unfair to conclude that you are trying to undermine him with an ad hominem.
“Gabe Desjardins wrote an article saying the Avs sucked”
“Gabe Desjardins is a jerk who is biased against the Avs”
“Therefore, the article about the avs is biased”
Is that a screwball way to read this article? You attack the author and by doing so, you undermine his authority. Why else do you try to prove he is a jerk?
I’m sorry if you think I’m trying to upset you, I’m not. What I’m trying to do it point out the fallacy in attacking the man.
I hope you do write that article in five years, because that kind of research is good for the game. You’ve used a lot of hockey cliches in your arguments defending the avs and deriding “numbers” in sports. I encourage you to think about the “basic truths” you hold to and test them against the facts. You’ll probably be surprised. I know I was when I discovered BTN.
I regret you feel this discourse is too charged for you to continue, I’ve enjoyed discussing hockey with you.
Cheers.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
No, Beachie has not out right made the ad hominem.
But what is the motive behind trying to prove Desjardins has a bias against the Avs?
It seemed, and still seems, to me that Beachie is trying to say that Desjardins is a jerk in order to undermine his work, and it seems to me this stems from her distaste for “stats” and the attitude that “intangibles” is a gobbledeygook expression.
Why else do you attack an authors character?
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
Why else do you attack an authors character?
You are clearly mistaken on what it means to criticize writing. When someone writes a review of a book and totally pans it, there is no attack on the writer. It’s an assessment of the presentation of the ideas. You’re making an unfounded assumption (and you know what they say about assuming) that the intent of my article was to rip Gabe to shreds. It is your opinion, of course, so you have the right to think that. But don’t state it as fact because it’s not.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 23, 2010 9:36 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
The snarky commentary belies his claim that he’s an unbiased presenter of facts.
So:
1. He is snarky.
2. He lies.
3. He is a biased presenter of facts.
These are your conclusions.
Please explain how calling someone a snarky, biased liar is not an attack on his character?
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
I can’t resist responding. This is too entertaining.
1. He himself admits he can get snarky.
Jibblescribbits: It was probably unfair to call her on it when others snark has been far more detrimental.
(speaking of which Gabe, I think you’re guilty of this at times…)
Gabe:I won’t deny that and I appreciate your perspective
I get snarky. This whole freaking site is often snarky. It’s not an attack on anyone to say that.
2. First, I said his commentary belies, not he belies. Oh, and belies doesn’t mean lie. It means to contradict or misrepresent. To lie means to deliberately try to deceive.
3. Yeah, this whole post is about how I feel he is biased. I also admitted that I’m biased multiple times throughout this post. Does that mean that I’m attacking my own character?
Seriously, you’re reading into things so hard core it’s getting ridiculous. Stop grasping at straws and hear me when I say I am not attacking him as a person. I’m questioning how the facts are presented. Now, if you can’t accept that, then it’s your problem.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 23, 2010 6:40 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Belies his statement
You are saying his statement is false, regarding himself.
So he is too stupid to realize he isn’t biased?
He says he’s unbiased, but you “prove” he isn’t.
So he’s lying or he’s stupid. Or am I missing the third?
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
Seriously, dude? Just let it go.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 24, 2010 11:08 AM MST up reply actions
lol
This is the funniest thing you’ve written in this entire thread.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 21, 2010 4:21 PM MST up reply actions
Glad you're laughing.
Instead of being pissed off.
Trying to be polite, even if I disagree with your distaste for well researched facts and your penchant to attack the character of people who do that work.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
It ain’t his work she’s attacking, it’s his presentation. It’s other people who are attacking his work.
No
It’s him she’s attacking. She accuses him of bias, and complains he is sarcastic.
That’s ad hominem: Attack the man nor the material.
There’s no other reason to publicly defame him, other than to undermine the material, at least that I can think of.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
I find it even funnier that you are getting more upset at my comments about Gabe’s presentation of the materials than he is.
Seriously, let it go. This article wouldn’t have gotten any attention outside MHH if Gabe hadn’t put it on his board. If he thought I was “publicly defaming him,” he wouldn’t have put it there.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 23, 2010 9:37 AM MST up reply actions
Don't start a flame war
If you don’t want to be criticized Beachie.
He posted it, and it did get attention outside of this site. Welcome to the internets.
I’m not really upset, I’m just a partisan for facts. Demagoguery gets me fired up.
Again, write that article in 5 years, or just test some of your “basic truths” from time to time. It may help you get over percieved biases in factual essays.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
lol. “If you don’t want to be criticized….”
I’ve been criticized over and over again about this and have not once gotten upset about it. The only person I’m having issues with is you because you’re making assumptions about my intentions in this article that are just not true. And despite how many times I tell you that, you refuse to believe it.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 23, 2010 6:43 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Well said Beachie :)
Winnik is a fucking Win!
by Sandie Gauthier on Nov 23, 2010 6:45 PM MST up reply actions
So, set me straight.
If you weren’t trying to undermine his findings by proving he’s a biased, snarky liar, why did you set out to prove it?
Unless, that was the point. To prove he’s a jerk.
And if that was the point, I’ll go back to my original point that personal attacks are foolish and shameful.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
Matt Duchene, better at STUFF than OTHER PEOPLE!!!
"FUCKINGUGLYBABYKYLEKOCIWOLSKIJESUSBARBRASTREISAND!!!!" - Angry MHH member After An Olli Jokinen Goal.
by i2strange97 on Nov 23, 2010 8:47 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
I fail to see what Dater’s childhood has to do with this discussion.
Fuck you Mr. Potatohead
by Randy Time on Nov 24, 2010 7:27 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
That one has 3. Just sayin’.
2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: pretty good at hockey since they can't get into the bars yet.
Have I told you recently how much I adore you? =)
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 24, 2010 11:10 AM MST up reply actions
His writing is his work and it’s bias in his work that she’s talking about. I seriously doubt if Beachie cares one way or the other if Gabe is biased as he slouches around the house.
Bias in presentation of ideas, sarcasm in presentation of ideas. Ideas do not equal the man. Ideas are given lives of their own upon publication (no matter how hard you try to squeeze them like a teddy bear) and are fair game for criticism.
But the ideas
are not being criticized.
She effectively calls him a snarky writer who is biased and misrepresents himself.
There is no critical attack of his ideas at all. She does not refute them, she does not present rebuttal, she just accuses him of snark and bias. That is exactly why this is an ad hominem.
1. He is a biased person
2. Biased people do not represent facts accurately (Fallacy)
Therefore, his articles do not represent the facts accurately.
This is where the thought train goes. Again, I look for a better motive to publishing an article accusing a writer of bias, especially after Beachie has made comments deriding “numbers” and other stats based observation, preferring to believe in pure non documentational analysis.
She wants to bitch about Gabe being a snarky, biased writer, well, be prepared to get criticized for publishing a post that reeks of bias and is a direct attack against one person, as opposed to a particular idea she disagrees with.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
How can you say that a biased person does not represent facts accurately? To suggest that one causes the other is the fallacy. I can be biased about my team and allow it to color how I say something, but it doesn’t mean what I say is incorrect. Example:
Chris Stewart is a freaking BEAST! His stats this year are smokin. The fact he’s more than a point per game player is testament to how damn good he really is.
Okay, Stewart is performing at above a point per game pace and that is evidence of his skill as a player. Clearly, though, I’m not objective about those things. Yet, it doesn’t make them any less true.
I could not care less that you’re criticizing my post. I do care that no matter how many times I, or anyone else, tell you that your assumptions are incorrect, you refuse to believe it and keep saying the same things over and over.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 23, 2010 6:51 PM MST up reply actions
How can you say that a biased person does not represent facts accurately?
I didn’t. I accuse you of inferring this. The rhetorical equation was an example of where I perceive the two facts of:
1. You think Desjardins is a biased, snark who misrepresents himself.
2. You think analytic observation is a dubious form of evaluation of hockey players and teams.
go with the act of publishing proof that Desjardins is a biased snark who misrepresents himself.
Is it truly crazy for me to associate these two facts about yourself and conclude that you published this article to further your own belief that “numbers” are wrong when it comes to evaluating your avs?
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
Dude, re-read her article. She never says any of that, so I’d say you are correct that you are off-base associating those two facts with her.
by Andy_ on Nov 23, 2010 8:47 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
But YOU added the “therefore.” It’s not ad hominem for me to call you a jerk. It’s ad hominem for me to say that your ideas are wrong because you’re a jerk.
Between the two of us I think there’s a high probability that only one of us has been paid to be a philosopher. That doesn’t mean that I’m correct (which would be argument from authority), but it does mean that I’ve spent a lot of time studying fallacies.
The argument that you make in this post is NOT the argument that Beachie makes. Please re-read your source.
And, by the way, your summation of her article is way, way off from what she said. You aren’t even approaching being fair to Beachie there, pal.
by Andy_ on Nov 23, 2010 8:46 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Beachie wrote an article which sets out to prove Desjardins is a biased snark who is only particularly snarky about the avs.
She wrote an article to attack him.
Period.
This has never been disputed, and as much as you want to soften it to a finger wagging, she wrote a long, multi-paragraph article to shout about Desjardins hate of the Avs.
Am I giving her too much credit calling it an ad hominem?
Is it just a plain old attack with no real argument beyond “he’s a jerk”?
If it is, I don’t feel any need to be fair, she’s being a snark about a person, not a team.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
Okay,
Beachie calls him a jerk and publishes it.
Beachie also states she finds his style of analysis insufficient in evaluating what she believes to be intangible skills.
So, either she’s just calling him a jerk and wrote a very long article to prove it.
Or she’s attacking his ideas through him.
One is a logical fallacy, the other is name calling.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
Sigh. Let me try, since I don’t think you’ve re-read Beachie’s article. This is my summary, so please correct me if I’m wrong, Beachie:
In Gabe’s team summary of the Avalanche, he presents the numbers that he’s run with an anti-team bias that is not present in the other team summaries that he’s written (or at least the one’s that she’s examined).
From what I can tell, that’s it in all it’s earth-shattering, face-ripping goodness. I’m not sure where you get the idea that she’s calling Gabe names (it’s not in her article). There’s also no actual evaluation of his numbers. In fact, she’s pretty darn careful to say that she’s NOT attacking Gabe’s numbers, just his presentation. And, as internet articles go, she’s really good at limiting the focus to something that her numbers actually show—you might complain about her methods, but the data she presents support her conclusion—and she’s also really good at limiting the hyperbole.
I think if you’ll go back and read Gabe’s article and compare it with Beachie’s, his is far more inflammatory. Go read it again.
Truth be told, snark and cattiness sell the electrons in this new-fangled interwebby thing (just like they did in that old-fashioned printing press thing). But that doesn’t mean that the targets of the snark and cattiness (or their fans) have to like it. Beachie has every right to point out to Gabe that he has an anti-team bias.
Wonderful summary! Perhaps I should have been more like you and less Bizarro Dario and it would be easier to follow. lol
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 24, 2010 11:13 AM MST up reply actions
I wanted to let you know that I spoke about this with a friend of mine who spent his entire career playing in the NHL. He (and some other retired NHL players that I know with whom I’ve spoken about this in the past) said that the mental aspect of the game is absolutely a skill. There are some guys who can handle the pressures, the ups and downs, and the other things that can affect their on-ice performance and there are some guys who can’t do it as well. He said it’s a talent that can be developed to some extent but the natural ability is stronger in some than others. There are guys (i.e., Joe Sakic and Steve Yzerman) who are in the game mentally the way they need to be to win, night in and night out. (For the most part…nobody’s perfect.) Then there are others who often falter and can’t keep their mind where it needs to be and they’re not as good as they can be. I suspect we could look to the AHL to see a lot of examples of this kind of player. Enormously talented but not able to step up their mental game to the level necessary to be in the NHL.
So what you call “bad luck” (gripping the stick, lack of grit, unable to score clutch goals), my friend calls talent or lack thereof. If he – a guy who spent 17 years playing professionally in this sport – says that the mental aspect of the game does, in fact, require skill and will change the game, then who are we to say it doesn’t? Having a tough road schedule with lots of back-to-backs is bad luck. How a player handles that is not. And just like there is a variance in how talented a player is at passing, shooting, hitting, skating, there is a variance at how well they handle the mental game. That’s what he told me, anyway.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 12:27 PM MST up reply actions 3 recs
Remember that we’re talking about the NHL only. Obviously there are guys with terrible work habits and addiction problems at lower levels. But you note that guys need to step their mental game up to the NHL level – and the spread of psychological skill is very small there by your definition.
Tyler Arnason? Sandis Ozolinch, Theo Fleury? Anyone?
Winnik is a fucking Win!
by Sandie Gauthier on Nov 18, 2010 12:34 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Wojtek Wolski, Ryan Miller (currently, and I know he’s a goaltender, but the argument is sound as I’m speaking of all NHL players, not just forwards), Espen Knutsen (who’s been the news a lot the last few days saying himself that the mental aspect of the tragedy overwhelmed him so that he couldn’t play anymore), etc. There are lots of examples within the NHL too.
Unfortunately, this is not something on which I can track numbers. There’s no way for us, as fans, to really know whether a player is in the game or not nor to what extent, and therefore, I cannot calculate his shooting percentage when he is in it compared to when he’s not. Regardless, the fact is it DOES affect them and the ability to push through it is NOT good luck. It’s a skill.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 12:40 PM MST up reply actions
I don’t know much about Wolski’s personal issues, but he put up some great numbers last year for the Avs against top competition.
speaking of numbers
At least you draw traffic on this site.
Your 2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: Reaching Up to the Cap Floor
by Bob in Boulder on Nov 18, 2010 2:53 PM MST up reply actions
I have a title...
MAFF IZ 4 NRDZZ11
Whatcha think? Incendiary enough?
2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: pretty good at hockey since they can't get into the bars yet.
I meant on this site, which actually already does quite well without you, as opposed to on your site.
Your 2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: Reaching Up to the Cap Floor
by Bob in Boulder on Nov 18, 2010 4:36 PM MST up reply actions
He’s also been benched by every single one of his 4 NHL coaches, the latest being Tippett after just 8 games this season. He isn’t trusted to play center, even though, all things being equal, centers are more important than wingers. He isn’t trusted to play on the PK, even though he’s received Selke votes (and Selke Love) in the past.
He’s a dog.
At what point do you consider intangibles, like laziness, lack of fitness, having a bad hockey IQ, and any other factors that aren’t measured by Corsi and Fenwick, et al?
Finally, I wanna thank God, because God gave me this Dundie. And I feel God in this Chili's tonight.
by Dan Winkler on Nov 18, 2010 4:32 PM MST up reply actions
Phoenix management likes Wolski. Beachie’s argument was that guys fail to reach their full potential due to psychological or attitude problems, not that they can’t be useful players even with unresolved issues.
Wolski does have attitude problems. It’s a big reason why he was traded. I know this because someone close to the team (with the decision makers, not some worker) told me and he’s someone I trust. He has no reason to lie.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 8:02 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t think Phoenix likes Wolski as much now as they did when they signed him to the contract.
Going in to the year he was slated as the number one center because they were losing Lombardi and Lang they put a lot of faith in him to play that role. Except those of us who have watched him since is draft year know that Wolski has conditioning issues. He’s got turnover issues and he’s not exactly a great guy in the faceoff dot. Playing for Tippet, a lot of us knew that it was going to sour very quickly.
That’s why Phoenix brought in Wellwood and signed Hanzal and Belanger prior to the season. They took a chance on Wolski making the transition (which he “trained all summer for”) and hoped that Turris would make the leap. It took about two preseason games for them to figure out that Wolski can’t cut it at center on a team totally devoid of quality centers. Now they roll with Belanger as a first line center and Hanzal, Fiddler and Turris filling out the remaining lines.
Phoenix management sure like Wolski’s potential but I’m sure there’s more than a little buyers remorse considering the role he’s now filling and the production he’s had.
That’s the thing with Wolski right. He’s got pretty decent number, but how good could they be if he had any kind of drive? Of course, that’s a talent that he just doesn’t seem to have.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 19, 2010 8:54 AM MST up reply actions
Dario – I would steer clear of reading the minds of general managers, particularly in other organizations! I do not believe your assessment of PHX’s assessment of Wolski is correct.
I think what he’s implying is that he’s close with the PHX front office, and you’re not.
from what my expert-yet-unnamed sources tell me, it’s possible. PHX loves “advanced stats,” and Wolski does very well in those available.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
Well, they traded for him and signed him to a new contract, right?
by red army line on Nov 19, 2010 7:03 PM MST up reply actions
and they healthy scratched his ass for 3 games running, right?
2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: pretty good at hockey since they can't get into the bars yet.
by Hopfenkopf on Nov 19, 2010 10:03 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
But that was coaching, not management, right?
(nice try, unless you can find me a link otherwise)
by red army line on Nov 20, 2010 4:50 AM MST up reply actions
so your suggesting that management is happy with a player the paid big money for that’s not playing.
It cannot be shown that luck actually exists, hence luck is nothing more than a word used by one in a self delusional assumption of understanding events of which one is informed or which one witnesses. As such, it is a word which superstitious people use to simultaneously presume to have insight into events and, paradoxically, to cease efforts to understand the causes and effects of those same events.
He's got me dead to rights Dario.
That’s exactly the situation. Management loves them some floating, half-assing, highly talented Wolski. It’s just the blockheaded coaching staff (along with at least 3 other sets of blockheaded coaching staffs over his career that came to the same conclusion) that doesn’t know WTF they’re doing.
I am so very, very, very wrong.
2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: pretty good at hockey since they can't get into the bars yet.
by Hopfenkopf on Nov 20, 2010 11:45 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Hey, Phoenix needs goals any way they can come ;)
These concerns were present before. It’s not like anything changed much. Management liked him and his contract demands enough to sign him instead of trying for Frolov or Ponikarovsky (who are both much better players).
by red army line on Nov 20, 2010 12:48 PM MST up reply actions
At what point do you consider intangibles, like laziness, lack of fitness, having a bad hockey IQ, and any other factors that aren’t measured by Corsi and Fenwick, et al?
Thing is, these things are. Good players are either extremely physically gifted or extremely hard working. Generational talents are both. Good players tend to have good corsi numbers. Bad players are in Russia because they like doughnuts on the couch too much (See Kyle Wellwood).
Laziness isn’t something you turn on and off. Kovalchuk is probably lazier than Crosby. That’s why you can count on Crosby to put up 100 points and Kovalchuk will give you 80. Kovalchuk is still EXTREMELY gifted, and probably has a work ethic that puts 90% of the world to shame, but Crosby works harder, so Crosby has more talent.
Luck is when you have the flu for a stretch of games, or the goalies you play keep having bad nights, or you hurt your ankle and have a half step less jump in your game for 4 games. You can’t control these things as a player, it happens and you just keep doing what you do. Gripping your stick less tightly or changing your jock strap or rubbing your goalie’s head is just sympathetic magic.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
You totally just proved my point: mental toughness or laziness is a skill. However they are measured is beyond the point of this conversation. My whole assertion is that the mental aspect a player brings to the game is a SKILL that players have at varying degrees. You just admitted it’s true.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 19, 2010 9:22 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Sure
But that skill is already showing up in the data.
That’s why Crosby beats Kovalchuk and the Sharks beat the Avs.
Perhaps the Avs are truly mentally resilient. But that also means they are probably less physically talented their peers.
What I don’t think the Avs possess, more than any other NHL team, is the ability to be less affected by mental lapses. This is just a theory based on a great narrative that doesn’t have any facts behind it.
The Avs making the playoffs based on their performance in Desjardin’s model has been demonstrated as a 1 in 10 chance. Those are pretty decent, though not brilliant, odds. I’m inclined to believe that his well researched model based on the studies he’s done on shot to win correlations and say the Avs beat the odds and got lucky.
You choose to believe they possess this skill that doesn’t manifest itself in his research and effectively say that mental toughness makes the Avs score goals at a higher than average shooting %, despite evidence that says that all but a literal handful (I mean like 4 or 5, not that I can pick them up for you word cops out there) of players are able to consistently beat the averages with talent.
I don’t buy it.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
I’ve heard some great stories about Yzerman that would contradict this notion.
But just to add to the list:
Chelios and Gary Suter (bar brawls)
Tkachuk (wrecked his car and left scene of accident)
Roenick + others (trash hotel in Nagano)
There are plenty of guys out there who were supremely talented, total screwballs and mentally ready to play.
I am saying that those men who are able to get over their personal issues involves a certain amount of skill. Not everyone can do it, just because they are in the NHL.
Winnik is a fucking Win!
by Sandie Gauthier on Nov 18, 2010 1:14 PM MST up reply actions
exactly. Gabe, you’re proving my point. Those guys have a skill in being able to do just that.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 8:03 PM MST up reply actions
But can they control that night the team all had the flu?
Can they control coming in overconfident and letting up a bad goal every time?
Can they control Grant Fuhr doing blow off a hooker’s chest so the next game you lose 8-7, even though the rest of the team played amazingly?
Sort of. But not really. People get sick, people get cocky, people make poor choices. It’s bad luck when these things make you lose.
Patrick Roy probably made better life choices than Grant Fuhr and was an elite goalie for his entire career instead of for the first third.
Nick Lidstrom has better knees than Bobby Orr, and played three times as long.
Eric Lindros had concussions end his career and Jaromir Jagr remains fairly robust.
All cases of bad luck. I don’t think anyone would have predicted the outcomes of any of those three’s careers based on their rookie season. (except maybe Fuhr, because he’s a coked up fraud ;)
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
Again, having those things happen to a team/player is an issue of luck. I’m not disagreeing with that. The manner in which a team/player deals with the bad luck is a skill. There are players more talented at that than others. For example, I would argue that Ian Lapperiere is more talented at the mental game that Ilya Kovalchuk. If Kovy gets blasted with a puck that nearly tears his face of his head, there is NO WAY he would be back out on that ice that game. “Fuck that,” would be his reaction. But what did Lappy do? “Stitch me up, doc, and don’t you dare give me any pain killers. It will negatively affect my game.” Getting hit in the face with a puck is bad luck. Coming back out to finish the game is talent.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 19, 2010 9:26 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Sure
But Kovalchuk will still score 70-80 points and Lapierre will still be a third line grinder.
NHL players aren’t clones (except the Sedins). They all bring different levels of different skills.
But different bad luck will hit them all in different ways.
Kovalchuk may get hit in the face (bad luck), but LaPierre may get in a fight that winds up ugly and gets him a game misconduct. Different luck, same outcome. Of course a team losing Kovalchuk is probably at a greater disadvantage, just because Kovalchuk is the better player.
LaPierre can’t control the ref, Kovalchuk can’t control the fact he’s a wimp. These things are pretty much reliably out of the player’s hands and cannot be measured. Because of that, they are luck.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
Ian Laperriere and Maxim Lapierre are two different players.
Winnik is a fucking Win!
by Sandie Gauthier on Nov 19, 2010 10:20 PM MST up reply actions 2 recs
such a VERY true statement ;)
- sigh * I miss Lappy.
"That's what We DO"-Paul Stastny
The Colorado Avalanche - The luckiest team in the league
haha
Sorry, my misread.
But really, in the scenario, it’s irrelevant to the example. My point was “shit happens that cannot be controlled, and even if player X responds to situation A better than player Y, situation B might still have the same impact, and both situations are beyond controlling.”
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
I would agree with this, but I would say that that skill more than likely shows up in their numbers. If a player is prepared to play every single night then every night he’s going to come out and give that effort. But the variation of his average level of effort and extra for late in games (clutchness if you will) is probably pretty small.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2010 12:35 PM MST up reply actions
is probably pretty small
Perhaps. But maybe it’s not. Maybe it’s statistically significant. Unfortunately, we cannot statistically analyze it because we don’t have the access to the data. I would LOVE to do it. I think it would be fascinating, especially given my background.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 12:42 PM MST up reply actions
Have you ever stepped on the ice and your skates feel like they weigh nothing at all and every puck you touch goes exactly where you want it?
If you could reproduce that feeling every night, you’d dominate whatever level you happen to play at. But you can’t. It’s random. Maybe it’s not. Maybe it’s diet/sleep/Red Bull, whatever. But if you could reproduce it, why wouldn’t you do it every time? As hockey players, we all try to. How many guys do you know on your team who put on their gear a certain way, or have certain rituals – they do that stuff because they believe it will bring back that feeling the night they had a hat-trick/got a shutout.
On the flipside, we’ve all had games where, for no observable reason, our skates feel like lead and our hands are made out of granite.
We try through ritual to control that stuff, because even if we’re dumb meathead goons (like me), we understand the importance of being able to bottle that great feeling and repeat it. But we can’t, because it’s ephemeral.
Maybe you object to the term “luck,” but I have a hard time describing that as anything else.
And I hear you talk the talk, but I don't see you walk the walk and I still don't believe a thing you say.
This is such a rhetorical argument. Of course anybody would reproduce that every night if he or she could. Yes, I’ve had those kinds of games where I was on fire and yes, I have had those games that I couldn’t make a decent play to save my life. The skill comes into HOW YOU HANDLE IT. Do you give up? Do you sulk? Do you push yourself harder to get through it? How well a person can elevate his or her game when faced with moments that negatively affect the psyche is not something everyone does at the same level. This is what I’m talking about. This is not luck. It is a SKILL.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 8:08 PM MST up reply actions
This is such a rhetorical argument.
I was unaware that I was trying to make some other kind.
My point was that you can’t control it. Just like you can’t control it if mid-way through a game you lose the edge on your skate and the pro shop is closed. The very fact that we try to control it through superstition and routine is testament to how powerful we as hockey players believe luck to be.
So, while I agree that there’s a skill to dealing with bad shit (back in my military days we called it mental fortitude) you have to admit that random crap happens, and sometimes it happens in ways that you can’t deal with, regardless of skill or mental fortitude.
And I hear you talk the talk, but I don't see you walk the walk and I still don't believe a thing you say.
you have to admit that random crap happens,
I have never once in this argument said that I don’t think it does. In fact, I’ve repeatedly said I know it does.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 19, 2010 9:27 AM MST up reply actions
Yeah, by this point, there have been so many intervening posts that the original post I responded to was way up in the stratosphere. Essentially, Hawerchuk said that luck played a major role in outcomes and someone responded with “talent plays no role? have you ever played sports?”
So I wasn’t saying that you’d said/implied that.
And I hear you talk the talk, but I don't see you walk the walk and I still don't believe a thing you say.
Then reply to the person who said that, not me.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 20, 2010 12:26 PM MST up reply actions
This is not luck. It is a SKILL.
No, it’s luck. You don’t make the NHL without some kind of coping mechanism to deal with the ups and downs.
But that mechanism doesn’t PREVENT them. It mitigates them. But on the NHL level, a little up and a little down makes a big difference.
That’s why players get hot and cold.
Even the very best get streaky. But that means 1.3 ppg becomes 1.6ppg for 10 games or 1.0 ppg for 10 games. And a 6 point spread over 10 games is a big deal.
Maybe the 1.6 ppg was a 6 point night where the goalie sucked, the coach loved you and you could do no wrong, plus a bunch of average games and the 1.0 ppg was a stretch where you had the flu.
This also translates to a team level. 5 players underperforming vs 2 overperforming in a short stretch probably means a few more losses, and the inverse is probably true.
Colorado overperformed in shooting % last year. Research says it is unlikely they will replicate this consistently, as only a handful of players seem capable of not regressing. This implies they were lucky over a season.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
So you’re saying Theodore was lucky that he could come back and play at the level he did after his infant daughter suddenly died? Again, that is bullshit. That is not “up and down.” That is major adversity. And that’s what I’m talking about. A crisis in confidence can be a major adversity. How a player overcomes that is mental skill. You claim that you don’t make the NHL without some kind of coping mechanism. I agree. But the players that are better at coping are the ones who stay in the game and are able to play at the level their raw talent dictates they will.
And you keep going back to CO and their numbers last year and saying they were lucky and will regress and all of that. I AM NOT DISAGREEING WITH THAT. So please stop using that as an argument about mental abilities as a skill.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 19, 2010 9:32 AM MST up reply actions
Colorado overperformed in shooting % last year
This implies they were lucky over a season.
Actually, I believe it indicates the Avs shot at a high shooting % last year and that’s it.
Shooting % has to be one of the worst stats in all of hockey. You can take 10 shots at the goal, miss 9 wide or blocked and put one on net and score and you are at 100%. Another player can take 10 shots on goal and put 9 of them in the goalies chest and 1 in the net and he’s shooting 10%. Some guys try to pick corners, others just blast the puck.
The Blackhawks had lower shooting % players than the Avs in general but hell, they had like 6 guys with 200 shots or more and the Avs had just one.
In general I hate the term luck over an entire season. There are reasons things happen in hockey. When you don’t know the reasons you have to call it luck. But “luck” is the lament of every loser in sports since the beginning of time and it rings hollow to me. Yip is still lucky with his YTD 16.1% shooting as is Jones with this 23.3%.
Yet, when the sample size is six games against the Sharks, somehow THAT is reality and the 82 prior games were a fabrication of the Irish.
Here is why I find luck as a term offensive when it comes to a game where players on opposing sides are intentionally trying to win (as opposed to closing their eyes and hoping for the best). It can be summarized by “luck as a fallacy” via Wiki and it describes my feeeling accurately:
It cannot be shown that luck actually exists, hence luck is nothing more than a word used by one in a self delusional assumption of understanding events of which one is informed or which one witnesses. As such, it is a word which superstitious people use to simultaneously presume to have insight into events and, paradoxically, to cease efforts to understand the causes and effects of those same events.
That is it in a nutshell.
by Dario on Nov 19, 2010 9:53 AM MST up reply actions 2 recs
I disagree with that “luck as a fallacy” argument. Although I prefer the term random chance, because it more accurately describes what’s happening. Luck has a more mystical connotation, which your blockquote refers too. Either way, it isn’t just a way for people to make themselves feel smart (as your blockquote refers too)
There are plenty of things that happen due to pure chance, even on a relatively controlled place like a hockey rink. Starting with the neurons firing at a certain rate and a certain time in every players brain, to the imperfections in the ice surface that cause the puck to go in a slightly different direction, to the discrepancies in the manufacturing of hockey equipment that causes a stick to break at the wrong time, to the way one player can take a hit and get up unscathed and the other takes a weaker hit and is out for the season.
Random chance happens, and it’s a huge part of our lives, and it’s a huge part of hockey (and all parts of life in general). There’s nothing wrong with attributing some success to random chance.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 19, 2010 11:34 AM MST up reply actions
I don’t really think random chance is 100% applicable though. ‘Luck’ is being used in place of statistical error, which is an oversimplification.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 19, 2010 12:15 PM MST up reply actions
Luck is being used to describe everything that affects a hockey game that people haven’t shown the ability to control.
I don’t really understand what you mean when you say Random chance isn’t applicable. Can you elaborate?
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 19, 2010 12:22 PM MST up reply actions
I just mean that ‘luck’ is being used as “everything that affects a hockey game that the model hasn’t shown the ability to control.”
I made the destinction, b/c ‘statistical error’ can include things such as variables you didn’t think of or maybe just don’t have good data for but that my be strongly influencing your dependent variable — things that are not random chance. By just labeling all of that ‘luck’ or ‘random chance’ you are discounting otherwise countable occurrences, effectively assuming them away.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 19, 2010 12:40 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
If this was your equation:
“my health” = “# of burgers I eat”(x) + “luck”(z)
It would be like saying, “o gosh, I sure do eat a lot of burgers, but lo! I’m still healthy!! It must be luck” In this case you’re just ignoring the error term which can include a lot of explanatory variables.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 19, 2010 12:43 PM MST up reply actions
yes. as i said in my dario-esque post below, that assumption is a classic false dichotomy. As Lowayne said so well, that’s asking for trouble.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
It’s cool you don’t agree with it, but I sure do.
HC says luck exists via model of 10000 coin flips (weighted to a .450 winning % expectation for the Avs) and calls that luck because a 95 point outcome only falls in the 10% expectation range?
The only real problem with all of that, is that competition and sport are not by any means a weighted coin flip. There are so many factors at play as you rightly point out like neurons firing, ice conditions etc.. Presumably the hockey rink is a level playing field and every team gets to adjust to those environmental factors.
Let’s not even get in to the calculation of this .450 winning % based on JLikens efforts. Love his blog and his objective numbers approach but he specifies how he determines his calculations and they aren’t all inclusive (how could they be?). He’s trying to model outcomes based on statistics and it works sometimes like it did for San Jose vs Colorado. However, it doesn’t work for other statistical modeling like it didn’t for his Boston, Philly and Montreal numbers for the playoff runs.
It’s why we watch the games.
I like the quote so much I’m making it my sig. Not quite long enough for my tastes but it will have to do :0.
Dude.
You excised the statement I made about the research. The research.
I said 1+1=2
You then quoted me as saying
1+=2
and derided me for talking nonsense.
Not cool. Luck is the word used in these contexts to describe an outcome that is not the most expected.
If you wagered on rolling 6 and then did so, you are lucky. The luck fallacy comes into play if I believe your luck can be replicated.
The Avs played hockey that 9 out of 10 times does not make the playoffs, according to Desjardins research.
They got lucky.
Shooting % are a terrible stat, that’s why the research says that all but a few hockey players are basically equally good at shooting, coming in around 9% accuracy overall, I believe. The argument is that NHL players are all so talented that the deviation in that talent is useless to split hairs over, because it doesn’t help you predict anything more accurately. The fact that many Avs players exceeded the expected accuracy says that it’s unlikely to happen again, as the tendency is to regress. This tendancy implies that the Avs got lucky with their shots, as they are not demonstably better shots than the rest of the league.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
Yet the best players mitigate these effects better than everyone else.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Nov 18, 2010 9:51 PM MST up reply actions
You know what the best part of this post is?
Reading all the serious “you’re so wrong and I’ll prove it” comments in response to it. I find it quite humorous.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 14, 2010 12:08 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
I counted 20 negative comments in the Avs article.
I’m no more objective than any of you, my bias just flows in the opposite direction. I did, however find 18 negative comments in the Sharks article, same as you.
Perhaps you’re more sensitive to the difference in what constitutes a negative statement and what constitutes a negative statistic when it pertains to your home team?
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 15, 2010 6:45 AM MST up reply actions
It’s certainly possible. Though like I said in the original post, I have experience in removing bias from things in order to grade it objectively. I’m an English teacher. I have kids I love and kids I hate. I can’t let those personal feelings color how I grade their papers, however. So I’ve spent 13 years developing an ability to be bias-free when analyzing writing.
FWIW, like you said, you’re biased in the other direction, so if you think I’ve allowed my feelings to affect the count of negative comments, you have to believe your feelings affected yours. Split the difference and it’s still heavy on The Avs vs. the other teams. And none of those articles had sarcastic gems like, “And just to instill confidence for the playoffs, went on an 0-7-6 slide to close the season.” A few comments like that alone could make one infer that he’s negatively biased towards the team. Just a thought.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 17, 2010 9:02 AM MST up reply actions
I could see that.
If I had to go with overall feeling about the Avs and Sharks articles, I’d say that it’s just a choice in writing. I got the overall feeling from both articles that it was about exposing something that maybe the fans didn’t want to admit. He was less snarky about the Sharks, to be sure, but I didn’t pull that the overall tone about the Avs was any more negative.
Perhaps I got that because I got the feeling from the Avs article that there is something of an admission that they’re probably trending upward while the Sharks may be nearing the end of their run of being legitimate cup contenders year-after-year.
Then again, that falls right in line with what I feel about both clubs as well, so there’s that tricky self-bias from which I can’t escape.
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 17, 2010 9:41 AM MST up reply actions
I find it easier to just ignore douches like him.
I certainly never go to his blog.
The Doctor Jones fanclub: Active for more games than Jones himself.
"Just Do Something" - Nike’s new logo for Bills apparel.
Paul McCartney Can't Play Piano
Burgundy Wave - SBnation's home for the Colorado Rapids
This was an excellent article Beachie! I took a course on political analysis last semester that dealt with analyzing things like this so I really appreciate the hard work. I’ve never read BTN before and really have no desire to, especially after reading what the guy came over here to say (what a sparkling attitude about srs bsnss internet stuffs), but I thoroughly enjoyed this.
by xskatebakerrx on Nov 15, 2010 1:05 AM MST via mobile reply actions 1 recs
I haven't figured out if this is serious or not.
The comments haven’t helped.
Let the dick-waving continue?
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day.
Nothing brightens my day like a good dick-waving.
Mile High Hockey: Significantly better than the experts predicted, just like the Avalanche.
Helicopter style?
always my fav ;)
"That's what We DO"-Paul Stastny
"That F******* sandwich had it coming!" -Mike@MHH
Thanks for the Avatar Jibs, I borrowed it from your website ;)
I personally like the beauty queen wave.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 8:09 PM MST up reply actions
I am going through and rec’ing every other comment. Because, well, I’m an idiot and have nothing of any discernable quality to add to the argument (except the thoughts below, which may or may not be of any discernable quality, as stated above).
It is still fascinating however.
As for the argument, Gary Player said it best; “The harder I work, the luckier I get.”
"We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese!"
I agree, when the avs were getting ‘lucky’ it’s not like they were half-assing out there on the ice and came away with a win.
Each of my replies is a work of art, each more brilliant than the last.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Nov 16, 2010 4:43 PM MST up reply actions
Problem here...
is you assume the other teams aren’t working as hard as they possibly can to win.
Both teams are giving 100%. If they aren’t, they wouldn’t be professional athletes. The night a team isn’t giving that 100% is “bad luck”. It might be fatigue from the schedule, it might be psychological overconfidence that makes a team lazy, it might be a hot goalie, it might be any number of things. But these are all good luck for the winning team and bad luck for the losing team.
The avs had more lucky games than unlucky ones. No team deliberately goes out and gives 75%.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
that’s completely wrong. there are some nights when teams come out and expect to win and put out say 90% effort. Or how about when the worst team in the league wins. Is it luck or for one night did they get their shit together and play like champs? The islander’s 100% will beat the blackhawks 80% every night. Why does a team come out flat.?
Each of my replies is a work of art, each more brilliant than the last.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Nov 17, 2010 10:11 PM MST up reply actions
The worst team in the league is not going to lose every single game, even at 100%. There’s enough random chance within a game (and parity in the league) that even if they played Chicago, both at 100% every single time, they would probably win, on average, at least 25/100.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 17, 2010 10:16 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
that’s completely wrong.
So you tell me I’m wrong, then agree with me?
there are some nights when teams come out and expect to win and put out say 90% effort.
You mean a situation that could be described as:
“psychological overconfidence that makes a team lazy”
Read my post please.
Why does a team come out flat.?
Bad luck. Possible reasons for why the luck was bad listed above.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
Both teams are giving 100%. If they aren’t, they wouldn’t be professional athletes. The night a team isn’t giving that 100% is "bad luck".
You contradict yourself, dear. If professional athletes never give less than !00%, then they can’t have a night when they’re not giving 100% and thus would not be subject to bad luck.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 17, 2010 10:27 PM MST up reply actions
There’s more to bad luck than just not giving 100%. I don’t think this is a very good argument. (But I agree that not every player gives 100% every night. In fact I’d say most nights they don’t, consciously or unconsciously)
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2010 7:48 AM MST up reply actions
You’re missing the point of my comment. I’m not commenting on it other than to point out that in two sentences, he completely contradicted himself. First he says pro athletes don’t ever give less than 100%. Then he says when the DO give less than 100%…. How can they always give 100% but then sometimes not give 100%? Contradiction in his statement.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 9:06 AM MST up reply actions
I see what you’re saying. I think he worded it really awkward.
I think what he’s trying to say is that no one goes out and consciously gives less than 100%, but sometimes other factors (sickness, mental state, whatever) conspire to make them to not be tip-top
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2010 9:23 AM MST up reply actions
This should all be taken in a context of 82+ games as well Beachie. For the purposes of modeling, you assume away anything but 100% play over a large sample size. That’s all he’s saying and it’s pretty standard.
That being said, 82 games isn’t that much and I remain skeptical of most conclusions based on results that really just can’t be that robust.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 18, 2010 10:23 AM MST up reply actions
Again, I’m not assuming or concluding anything. Just pointing out that he sounded contradictory and that’s not a great thing to do when trying to make an argument. This is an English issue, not a math one.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 12:03 PM MST up reply actions
I knew what he was trying to say. I’m just being snarky by pointing it out.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 12:04 PM MST up reply actions
I think some of the snark here, and past history, is why this discussion has a tendency to fly off the rails.
I’m certainly not an opponent of snark, but for these discussions I think we’d all be better served if it was dropped for the time being, by everyone, since there’s been a lot of hurt feelings and anger in these discussions…
My 2 ¢
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2010 12:20 PM MST up reply actions
With all do respect, Jibs, it was a valid error to point out. Why I did it is my own business, I guess. I didn’t call anyone names, so if someone is going to get his or her feelings her by being shown an error, well then maybe that person shouldn’t be commenting. I’ve taken a TON of heat on this article here, at BTN, and now, apparently, on Red Wings blogs. I’m sure it’s somewhere else in the blogosphere too that I’m not aware of. I’ve yet to get nasty with any of my critics. So if I want to point out that someone made a glaring error in his or her argument that could easily cause someone else to disregard it altogether, I’m going to.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 12:30 PM MST up reply actions
I agree. You haven’t gotten nasty. I think your original article was funny and I appreciate the ingenuity of the idea.
Thank you. I appreciate the props.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 12:43 PM MST up reply actions
FWIW I agree as well. I don’t think Beachie has been nasty or overly snarky. It was probably unfair to call her on it when others snark has been far more detrimental.
(speaking of which Gabe, I think you’re guilty of this at times…)
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2010 12:46 PM MST up reply actions
This is what I have wanted to hear since this whole thing started. Perhaps I phrased it incorrectly or maybe it took someone who is “on your side” so-to-speak to hear it. Either way, I sincerely thank you for saying it.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 8:11 PM MST up reply actions
I didn’t have a problem with you pointing out his error. My problem is that there has been an abundance of snark used in this conversation (again not just by you) and that it has, in general, had a very detrimental effect on the conversation. There has been a lot of unnecessary anger over people taking things personally due to snark that wasn’t intended personally but was interpreted that way anyways.
Emotional levels in this conversation (again not with you but in general) have reached absurd points in the past and it has been extremely detrimental to the conversation. I think it would progress a lot better if people dropped the snark for now.
But it wasn’t a criticism of you, per say, but of this entire back and forth that’s happened between a lot of people. I think it’d be better discretion on everyone’s part to drop the snark until things have cooled off.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2010 12:41 PM MST up reply actions
yup. thanks.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 8:11 PM MST up reply actions
Both teams are giving 100%.
Sorry to disillusion you, but they aren’t. Players are people and the season is long. No player consciously dogs it in a game, but neither are they giving 100% every game.
And I hear you talk the talk, but I don't see you walk the walk and I still don't believe a thing you say.
Dunno. I’ve definitely been on the bench on the second night of back-to-back games and watched as my teammates were more interested in the blond sitting three rows up from the bench than who had the next shift.
Nobody consciously goes out looking to dog it (well, maybe Tyler Arnason), but the end result is that not everyone gives 100% 100% of the time.
You could argue that the distribution of effort is affected by luck I guess.
And I hear you talk the talk, but I don't see you walk the walk and I still don't believe a thing you say.
You could argue that the distribution of effort is affected by luck I guess.
Spot on.
These X factors: two game fatigue, hot blonde, etc. affect every team on some night. There’s no real controlling it on the team level. Player Y is gonna check out blonde’s, even if you tell him to focus. The night there is no blonde, maybe player Y scores a hat trick. But then the blonde is back and player Y is a grinder (no pun intended) once more.
Other than killing (or at least taking away the season tickets of) the blonde, you can’t really control player Y’s lack of focus. The nights he gets his shit together, the team gets lucky.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
Player Y is gonna check out blonde’s, even if you tell him to focus. The night there is no blonde, maybe player Y scores a hat trick. But then the blonde is back and player Y is a grinder (no pun intended) once more.
The fact that the blonde is there is luck. How Player Y deals with it is skill. Player X wouldn’t be affected by the blonde no matter how hot she is. He’d still come out and score a hat trick. Player Y cannot have that distraction in order to be more than a grinder. That is mental strength, a talent in being able to concentrate despite distractions.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 19, 2010 9:35 AM MST up reply actions
But Player Y is always going to check out the Blonde, so it’s good luck when she’s not there and bad luck when she is.
Player X is a better player than player Y is, no doubt.
But the Avalanche are not a team X. They are team Y. Last season the blonde didn’t show up at enough games for them to make the playoffs. But the blonde is coming to 9 out of 10 seasons.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
You could argue that the distribution of effort is affected by luck I guess
That’s an excellent way to look at it.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 19, 2010 7:49 AM MST up reply actions
It is still fascinating however.
I disagree. I think it’s become even MORE fascinating. And fucking hilarious. This is fun! I should do more posts like this.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 16, 2010 8:44 PM MST up reply actions
our drooling has now drawn the attention of Wings fans.
http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2010/11/16/1816258/off-day-open-thread-osgood-draper-colin-campbell
(about halfway down the comments)
I am the most humble blogger of all time
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Nov 17, 2010 5:42 AM MST up reply actions
You guys are hilarious, what can I say?
by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 17, 2010 6:24 AM MST up reply actions
hilarious works. also attractive, witty, creative and intelligent would have been accepted
I am the most humble blogger of all time
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Nov 17, 2010 6:51 AM MST up reply actions
you’re so wise. You’re like a miniature Buddha, covered in hair
Each of my replies is a work of art, each more brilliant than the last.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Nov 17, 2010 8:13 AM MST up reply actions
I’m a legend in my own time. This is SO cool!
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 17, 2010 8:52 AM MST up reply actions
Hawerchuck,
Not to fuel the fire, or bait you, I’m just curious about a few things I’ve seen around the blogosphere that seem to inform the luck vs talent throw-down.
First, this finding by a Bloguin Blogger regarding out-shooting opponents: Plan to Outshoot Your Opponents?
Win/Loss Ratio of outshooting teams: .88 wins to every 1 loss.
Win/Loss Ratio of teams which are outshot: 1.12 wins to every 1 loss
Next, this article from puck prospectus: Lessons of The Colorado Avalanche
That brings us to last season’s Avs, a team that had 10 wins by Nov. 1. They didn’t make our study because the differential between expected wins as of November and end of season was .12 (below the .20 cut-off). That differential means they weren’t playing significantly over their talent level.
Comments on either of these? I don’t know if the first link has a large enough sample to be relevant, though it is interesting. I added bold to the key phrase in the second quote.
Finally, though the season is young, by your estimation, have the Avs improved statistically over last year? Is a playoff spot more likely this year than last? Do you still believe this team will regress, as you stated during the discussion last year?
I know i just dropped a lot of ?‘s. Feel free to ignore me completely, or answer as many as you’d like.
The first one is just bad science. Teams that have the lead get outshot overall – the Islanders dynasty got outshot; so did the Oilers; as did the Penguins. That’s why people have started looking at whether teams get outshot at even-strength with the score tied.
In the second one, Corey is looking at goals for and against, not shots. If a team has a high luck-driven shooting percentage, then its pythagorean record won’t be out of whack.
2 cases
Case 1: Allow me to define a lucky outcome being an outcome that happen with low probability (a realization of a random variable in the tail of its distribution). The thing is, we don’t observe that probability. The way we get around that is by estimating that probability. A “reliable” way of estimating the probability of victory of a particular club, lets say the Avs, for example, is by calculating the ration of games won and games played. There is a law in math/probability called the law of large numbers, that says that the aforementioned ration should “approach” the “true” probability (the one we don’t observe) very well. So, let us see, the Avs played 82 game and won 43 of those games in the regular season. The estimated probability of the Avs winning was around 0.52439…, which is a lot higher than 0. So that is evidence against the argument that the Avs won because of luck.
Case 2: Suppose a lucky outcome is an outlier (i.e.: an outcome that for some unknown reason comes from a different distribution than the rest of the data). Outliers show up in a data sets with a low frequency. As seen in case 1, the Avs won more that 52% of their regular season games. Therefore it is very unlikely that Avs victories were outliers.
no one has an issue with saying the Avs might have been lucky. The Corsi data points in that direction, various other factors. It’s those saying they were lucky with such a small sample set and such imperfect data.
It’s really that simple. but by all means, keep generalizing us Avs fans as being offended by the potential of luck.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
Dario asked that question and I answered it. Are you so sensitive to any discussion of the Avs that I’m not even allowed to answer a question that one of you asks me?
by Hawerchuk on Nov 17, 2010 4:44 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t mind you answering the question. The root of the question came from you declaring the Avs lucky initially, and that’s what my comment was directed towards.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
Again, we have this bs where you say “no one has an issue” with something where people clearly have an issue.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone get offended by verbiage like “could be lucky.” Now, I bet you’re right there’s a few irrational fans who would, but you’ve yet to deal in less than absolute judgements either.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
It seems like just about everyone here thinks the Avs were lucky. Why do I need to express doubt?
I’m not going to use “weasel words” just to protect someone’s sensitive feelings.
That’s fair enough, but that being the case then you shouldn’t be surprised when people do inevitably disagree and then subsequently post about how crazy they are, thereby helping to blow everything out of proportion.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 18, 2010 3:02 PM MST up reply actions
If people want to say “The Avs were lucky” and then get bent out of shape because I said the same thing, there’s not much I can do.
You can control how you react to it though. As can the rest of us.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 18, 2010 6:12 PM MST up reply actions
my objections don’t have anything to do with feelings, more with forming an absolute conclusion from data that offers no certainty. once again, you only hear what you want to…
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
Do you disagree with c6hor8?
“Everyone, including us, admits the Avalanche got lucky last year.”
That’s an absolute conclusion. Shouldn’t matter who says it.
2 remarks
Remark 1: If you define luck as you did, it is obvious we do not observe it a team is being lucky or not. You may only guess, and that goes beyond the realm of statistics. The reason is that we cannot repeat the 09/10 season over and over to see how many times the Avs don’t make it to the playoffs. In other words, you can only have one sample. That’s the bitch about dealing with observational data.
Remark 2: There is a group of probability laws/theorems that are often called the law of iterated logarithms (a.k.a. Berry-Essen type theorems). These results essentially tells us how large a sample size has to be in order for us to rely on the approximation properties of a certain estimator. This sample size of over 200, has to be some invented number, since it contradicts the Berry-Essen type of results for the probability estimator referred in my original post. What I am saying is that for this particular estimator, a sample size of “just” 82 performs pretty well. If we generate data with a 82 sample size and estimate the probability of my original post, over and over again, you will some evidence that what I’m saying in is in fact correct.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 17, 2010 5:34 PM MST up reply actions
yea, what he said!
Each of my replies is a work of art, each more brilliant than the last.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Nov 17, 2010 10:13 PM MST up reply actions
yeah, what he said!
Each of my replies is a work of art, each more brilliant than the last.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Nov 17, 2010 10:14 PM MST up reply actions
I can’t even imagine what the response would be like if I wrote this. I think you’re unclear on the concept of sampling, and if you create a simulation to test your assumptions, you’ll find that you’re nowhere near the sample size required for the confidence you’re expressing.
by Hawerchuk on Nov 17, 2010 10:16 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Why can’t you accept that there are some people that fucking know their fucking shit who have some issues with your conclusions.
Over here in the ‘critics corner’ we have gladly accepted that there are valid points and such in your analysis despite objections to certain conclusions. It is called intellectual honesty, and I would be nice to see some in return. Instead you keep acting like even mild criticism implies the mental capacity of a 7th grader from the critic.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Nov 17, 2010 10:47 PM MST up reply actions
Throwing out some names of theorems does not mean you “know your shit.”
You have displayed nothing even resembling intellectual honesty here. You wrote:
“Holy fuck, I hope you don’t teach in America’s education system.”
“Spoken like someone who watches sports but never played.”
Argument ad hominem. Logical fallacy. Not intellectual honesty.
by Hawerchuk on Nov 17, 2010 11:36 PM MST up reply actions 5 recs
By the way, I don’t think anyone said, “You are [some insult here] and therefore your argument is false,” which would be the ad hominem fallacy. They are just saying, “You are [some insult here].” It’s purely descriptive.
Heck, that’s what the OPs’ entire post boils down to anyway: Your numbers may mean something, your numbers may not mean anything. Whatever. But Beachie was really just pointing out that your writing makes you out to be a bit of a jerk when you are talking about the Avs in that article. So, maybe you can keep your bias in mind next time. Maybe not, too, but if you don’t try to correct for your bias then I think there’s a high probability that most of us here will think you are a bit of a jerk. Don’t act all shocked.
By the way, in the other thread when you quoted the length of your CV to me. (To paraphrase: “I’ve written seven hundred articles…”) Had you said, “I write lots of articles so therefore I’m right” (which I’m sure was not the conclusion you wanted everyone to draw, right?), that would be the “argument from authority” fallacy. Not intellectual honesty. I know that you’re clear on that, but I just want to make sure everyone else is. OK? But I know that you don’t like to be tied down to all those “philosophy class” things—like striving for precision in word choice—so please continue on.
Look, don’t take this personal. This is not a probability blog, so I don’t believe this is the place to get into details of what the law of iterated logarithms is and its proof together with its consequences. If you want, you can check the book by Davidson entitled Stochastic Limit Theory, if you are actually curious about this subject. The only reason I mentioned this theorem was to convey I was not inventing stuff up.
The other thing I’d like to point out, is that I cannot see how you were able to conclude that the Avs were lucky last season. Given your definition of luck and my remark 1 you are not able to statistically conclude the Avs were lucky (even if you don’t buy the other stuff I’ve written). Therefore, the statement about the Avs being lucky is most likely your personal opinion, which you are entitled to and I respect that.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 1:48 AM MST up reply actions
I could fill a page of your logical fallacies including ad hominems in this thread. It goes both ways. Let’s leave those aside for now, however.
If you had a mind for intellectual honesty you would sort through your criticisms and use them to improve and strengthen your arguments and conclusions! I suggest this route.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Nov 18, 2010 8:11 AM MST up reply actions
LOL
The irony of being rec’D for quoting jabs. Have you read the words that you type, Gabe?
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Nov 18, 2010 9:54 PM MST up reply actions
As you can see below in my answer to Jibblescribbits, the results of the simulation contradicts your statement. I think you can agree that 0.003 is a low mean square error.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 2:59 AM MST up reply actions
The standard deviation of winning percentage in your simulation is 0.056.
So one standard deviation = 10.15 points. (Assuming 91 points on average.)
+/-2 standard deviations (95% confidence interval) = 40.6 points.
+/-1 standard deviation (68% confidence interval) = 20.3 points.
In other words – a .500 team is going to finish with 80 points or less or 102 points or more almost 1/3 of the time.
by Hawerchuk on Nov 18, 2010 10:15 AM MST up reply actions 2 recs
And whether the mean-square error is “low” – hard to say. It’s lower than for a seven-game playoff series, but it’s higher than for the entire post-lockout era.
by Hawerchuk on Nov 18, 2010 10:19 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
I dare you to find any paper in a top statistical journal that has a simulation where the MSE is of a magnitude similar to mine and the authors conclude that the MSE was high (or they do not explicitly say the magnitude of the MSE is low).
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 11:35 AM MST up reply actions
Appeal to authority is not the answer to this question.
You need to think about the hockey implications of your simulation, which is that a hockey team’s true talent is within +/- 10 points of its outcome on 2/3 of the time. That’s a big deal when it comes to estimating talent from a team’s record.
I am just appealing to reasoning. A paper will contain not only the results but the reason for its results. I’m just suggesting you look at some of those.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 11:56 AM MST up reply actions
What’s the reasoning? You don’t care if luck plays a large role in a hockey sense, you just want to know if a paper about some other subject considers this standard deviation to be large?
I don’t think c6hor8 would be too happy about deferring to the opinions of the “ivory tower”
If it is theoretical statistics, it means it is not about any other subject but general statistics. That is why I said a theoretical journal and not an applied one. I think we both agree that we have a sequence of realizations of random variable, we are using an statistic to estimate a particular characteristic of the DGP. This is what people look at in theoretical journals in statistics. There is no data set, no specific problem. There is an estimator, a set of assumptions, some claims (such as theorems and lemmas), the proof of such claims and a simulation that shed some light in the finite sample performance of an estimator. These properties are general properties, it does not matter if the data you have is about hockey or sexual experience.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 2:51 PM MST up reply actions
You are still dodging the question – an 82-game sample gives you a (large) spread in expected winning percentage. You claimed it was small.
Reading journals is a pure red herring, and “sexual experience” WTF? We’re talking about hockey, and what constitutes a large confidence interval.
by Hawerchuk on Nov 18, 2010 5:55 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
I think we are deviating from the subject here in hand. I think that what you are trying to do. I will not enter a knowledge competition with you. However, I’d ask you to please come back to the matter at hand and address my previous comment about the luck thing.
bq- The other thing I’d like to point out, is that I cannot see how you were able to conclude that the Avs were lucky last season. Given your definition of luck and my remark 1 you are not able to statistically conclude the Avs were lucky (even if you don’t buy the other stuff I’ve written). Therefore, the statement about the Avs being lucky is most likely your personal opinion, which you are entitled to and I respect that.
And please do not treat me or the other member of MHH as idiots by talking about pre and post lockout data. I do not think anyone would agree that the data generation process (DGP) of any two seasons are the same. In other words, do not think that we are that stupid and will accept an argument such as, there is not enough data then we need to get more data, but these new observations will come from another DGP, however it does not matter because magically the probability of the penguins winning in the 06/07 season did not change in the 09/10 season (it is the same for all seasons). I think this type of argument is disrespectful, since it assumes stupidity of your reader. That is just my opinion which I am also entitled to and I hope you can also respect that.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 11:54 AM MST up reply actions
No, we are not deviating from the subject at hand. I ran your simulation code and it says that the 68% confidence interval for a .500 team is 91 +/- 10 points. That’s a 110-point spread in winning percentage – the difference between the Lightning and the Penguins last year, and 1/3 of the time, a .500 team will fall even further outside of that interval purely by luck.
The rest of what you wrote is gibberish.
by Hawerchuk on Nov 18, 2010 12:14 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Let me be clear. Given your definition of luck, how are you concluding the Avs were lucky? In other words, how do you determine, given one sample, that the estimated probability is below or above the true probability? Please answer.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 12:17 PM MST up reply actions
Gibberish? A moment ago you accused me of appealing to authority. By labeling my argument gibberish it means you either don’t understand my argument or you’re just trying to win an argument by ridiculing the other person (or maybe both even). In any case your gibberish comment was at least very unfortunate.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 12:24 PM MST up reply actions
You’re obfuscating. You won’t answer the question at hand. Your simulation showed that 1/3 of .500 teams fall outside of .450-.500 by luck alone. Is that a big deal in a hockey sense? Or not?
I have asked you before:
Given your definition of luck, how are you concluding the Avs were statistically lucky? In other words, how do you determine, given one sample, that the estimated probability is below or above the true probability? Why, statistically, didn’t you conclude that the Avs were unlucky? Please answer.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 2:25 PM MST up reply actions
Yes, you might need to do a little googling and also read Likens site or Vic Ferrari’s or Tom Tango’s. There are a few books worth of analysis out there.
I could have said, you might need to read the books by Billingsley, the book by Chung or the book by Shyriaev. But then you would just say that I was just throwing out names. Why is that when you do it it is different? By the way, google scholar is an excellent initial searching point, but if you want some deeper stuff you might want to try mathscinet.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 3:28 PM MST up reply actions
Huh? Seriously, huh?
If you want to know about the topic at hand, which is the relationship between shot totals (and scoring chances) and expected winning percentage, you want to read Likens and Ferrari. Academic papers on unrelated topics are…unrelated…
by Hawerchuk on Nov 18, 2010 3:41 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Meaning we can forget all about theoretical statistics because it is academic only and unrelated to hockey? Huh? Seriously, huh?
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 4:16 PM MST up reply actions
Again, you’re obfuscating. You wanted an explanation, and I told you what to look up. Then you brought some random academic papers into the discussion.
If you want to understand the fundamentals of the argument, that’s on you.
All I’m saying is that we are trying to use statistics as our methodology and in order to use it properly we need to understand the fundamentals of statistics.
P.S.: You are clearly a smart person and you are extremely good at conveying your arguments. You do not need sarcastic arguments such as “Huh? Seriously, huh?” to make yourself heard.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 4:37 PM MST up reply actions
By your definition of luck, you are absolutely correct that luck (either bad or good) does play a role. Just tell me how you are concluding, first that we are outside let’s say a 80% (or 90%) region of neither good nor bad luck. Second, once you have identified that we are in a luck region how do you decide wether it was good or bad luck that driven the results.
BTW, I’d advise you to review your numbers, in particular the .400-.500 interval. I’m sure it is just a typo.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 2:36 PM MST up reply actions
Again, it’s all in the original article. You can also see Likens’ site (linked below in response to JS) for much much more detail on deriving Colorado’s true talent winning percentage.
Here’s the derivation of the interval:
.445 = 81/91/2 (- 1 s.d.)
.555 = 101/91/2 (+ 1 s.d.)
The .450-.550 interval is correct; not sure why you’d think it wasn’t.
by Hawerchuk on Nov 18, 2010 2:50 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
“You’re obfuscating. You won’t answer the question at hand. Your simulation showed that 1/3 of .500 teams fall outside of .450-.500 by luck alone. Is that a big deal in a hockey sense? Or not?”
You wrote .450-.500 before instead of .450-550.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 2:53 PM MST up reply actions
Let me ask you this, though, back to our hockey data. When you construct these intervals, how are you calculating the standard deviation? Do you believe it to be constant over the season? Furthermore, what distribution are you using to calculate the confidence intervals? The data is clearly non normally distributed, so you can’t possibly be using a student-t distribution. I then assume you are relying on asymptotic and using a normal distribution (inspired by a central limit theorem, CLT). However, I though you were telling me that a sample of 82 was too small to rely on the consistency property of the estimator. So you are saying that although you cannot rely on consistency (convergence in probability) you can still rely on asymptotic normality?
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 3:08 PM MST up reply actions
I ran your simulation. The standard deviation of winning percentage is 0.056 in your simulation.
Nobody said 82 games was too small a sample size to assume constant talent. 82 games is too small a sample size for talent and performance to converge.
Even if the talent is constant, the variance of winning can still change over time. This has nothing to do with sample size it has to do with the model that generated the outcomes of last season. It is very likely that the variance changes for each observation (for each random variable that generates each observation of the data). That is one point.
My second point is that it was claimed here that the sample size was too small to rely on convergence in probability (a law of large numbers). Why is that we can rely on convergence in distribution though (a central limit theorem)? Why is this a concern to me? Because in order to construct the confidence intervals you have posted earlier we need a probability distribution of the estimator when properly normalized and centered. If we know that the data comes from a Normal distribution, the distribution of this estimator (when properly normalized and centered), is student-t (or F, depending on how you construct the statistic). However if we do not assume a distribution for the data (which in this case cannot be normal), we need to to rely on the limiting distribution of the estimator (a central limit theorem). Therefore, how can you rely on your confidence interval with a sample size of 82 and not rely on the consistency property of the estimator, given that both requires large samples and 82 was previously labeled a small sample?
I’m sorry if I am restating my argument. I just though that I wasn’t able to properly convey my concerns previously.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 4:31 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
BTW
The non-constant variance issue, and the possibility auto-correlation is why I don’t trust in the standard deviation estimate (for the hockey data). In the simulation this is not an issue since I generated realizations of independently and identically distributed (iid) random variables.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 4:43 PM MST up reply actions
I am reporting what’s in your simulation. If you don’t like the results of your simulation, change your simulation!!!
by Hawerchuk on Nov 18, 2010 6:09 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
I disagree with your Case 1. You’re basically saying that the probability of an Avs win is 52.4% because they won 52.4%. In actuality their probability of winning a game, especially with only an 82 game sample size, is unknown based on the data you presented. 52.4% is probably (99.5%) within 2 standard deviations of the actual percent chance, but based only on the number of games they won their most likely point total last year was anywhere between 60 and 100 (estimates) which is obviously a huge range.
And all that assumes that the likelyhood of winning each game is 50/50 (and it’s not, but it’s a good approximation)
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 17, 2010 3:24 PM MST up reply actions 3 recs
So who is more annoying? JarJar Binks or JarJar Binks?
by Pinchy The Lobster on Nov 17, 2010 4:05 PM MST up reply actions
Actually, C3-PO is also a good candidate for that post.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 17, 2010 5:49 PM MST up reply actions
Jibbles, if you read my post again you will see that I did not say that the probability of the Avs winning a game in the 09/10 regular season was 0.524… (I refuse to write probabilities as %’s, since probabilities are technically a number between 0 and 1). What I said was that the estimated probability was 0.524… Furthermore, I know that this estimator performs well even with a sample of “just” 82 observations (as mentioned in my second post).
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 17, 2010 5:39 PM MST up reply actions
Ok, but I think it’s a bad estimation.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 17, 2010 7:37 PM MST up reply actions
Fine. It is a bad estimate. You’re making it based on the law of large numbers. 82 is not a large number.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 17, 2010 8:21 PM MST up reply actions
What is a large sample? The answer is in the law of iterated logarithms. For this estimator 82 is big enough.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 17, 2010 9:41 PM MST up reply actions
So if they only played 10 would it be a big enough indicator? or 5? 82 is a fine number, but an estimate without a standard deviation is pretty worthless. If you insist .524 is a fine number, that standard deviation has to be somewhere close to .25
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 17, 2010 9:58 PM MST up reply actions
10 or 5 are not enough for this estimator but 82 is. You are right that a hypothesis test would give us a whole lot of info, and for that we ned standard dev. However, I suspect heteroskedasticity.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 17, 2010 10:07 PM MST up reply actions
Why is 82 a decent predictor of that? Even the Wiki page for it shows that under 100 die rolls isn’t the best of indicators. I mean it looks to have a St. Dev of close to .5… that’s huge for 1-6
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 17, 2010 10:13 PM MST up reply actions
Look, I just generated 10000 samples of 80 observations. Each sample was a sequence of 0’s and 1’s (think not win=0 and win=1). In each sample I estimate the probability of a win (which in this case I have set to be equal to 1). The average estimate of the probability, the “simulated bias” and “simulated mean squared error” were 0.49917125, -0.00082875000 and 0.0030874844 respectively. Note that 0.499 is pretty close to 0.5 and both bias and mean squared error (witch takes into account variance) are very close to 0. In other words, this estimator does seem to perform well with a sample size of just 80. I made the calculations using Gauss (a matrix language software that resembles MatLab).
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 2:07 AM MST up reply actions
Here is my algorithm
rep = 10000;
n = 80;
p = 0.5;
i = 1;
res_aux = zeros(rep,3);
do while i<=rep;
i;
aux = rndu(n,1);
x = (aux .>= p);
mu = meanc(x);
res_aux[i,1] = mu;
res_aux[i,2] = mu-p;
res_aux[i,3] = (mu-p)^2;
i = i+1;
endo;
all_res = meanc(res_aux);
all_res;
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 2:08 AM MST up reply actions
which in this case I have set to be equal to 1 0.5
fixed
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 2:11 AM MST up reply actions
Then there is a huge discrepency between your simulations and other simulations substantially. Vic Ferrari (I think, may have been one of the others) have simulated 1000s of seasons of teams that have all sorts of different probabilities of winning games (.350-.650). All of them, over the course of an 82 game season have St. Deviations of points and winning percentages that vary a lot more than yours.
One place I see a mistake in yours is that your simulation doesn’t seem to factor into account ties. There’s a certain probability that every game will be a draw (or in this case, a shootout). I don’t think you can say that a shootout win is the same as a regulation win, especially because the Avs probability of winning a shootout is not the same as their probability of winning the game outright.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2010 7:53 AM MST up reply actions
Read below, it was Likens who ran the sims.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2010 7:54 AM MST up reply actions
I admittedly have little idea what you’re talking about here, but I just want to point out that Gabe doesn’t include ties either, IIRC.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 9:12 AM MST up reply actions
Gabe’s said before counts OT and Shootouts as ties.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2010 9:24 AM MST up reply actions
My mistake.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 12:06 PM MST up reply actions
His code is right. His interpretation of the results is incorrect.
by Hawerchuk on Nov 18, 2010 10:16 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Man, we made way to many jokes about heteroskedasticity in school. Our minds were melting I think.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Nov 17, 2010 10:40 PM MST up reply actions
Man, there is are two estimators one called the backfitting estimator and the other called smooth backfitting estimator. You might be able to guess how many jokes we made about these estimators.
Once a colleague asked what was the difference between the two and I answered that the the smooth backfitting had stage of vaseline application beforehand, whereas the backfitting was with sand and/or chilly.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 18, 2010 2:21 AM MST up reply actions
Re 2: Each Avs victory wasn’t an outlier, but their season might have well been.
by red army line on Nov 18, 2010 11:46 AM MST up reply actions
In statistics there are ways to identify leverage points or influential points, but not an outlier per-se. Having said that, you are perfectly correct by saying that the Avs season could possibly have been an outlier. By saying this you admit that the other possibilities are also feasible. One possible way that you formed your opinion could have been by watch a couple of the Avs game and based on that you reach to the conclusion that you think there were a set of victories by the Avs that were outliers. I’m perfectly fine with that and my opinion is that you have reasonably reached that conclusion, even though you never claimed you statistically concluded it. BTW, I think your caps post season performance was an outlier. I expected them to go farther in the post season.
by Paulo Saraiva on Nov 19, 2010 4:37 PM MST up reply actions
I could understand 150+ posts on a thread like this if we were talking baseball. This is hockey. The sport is interesting on its own, without having to bring in the bean counters.
Detroit is peopled entirely by slovenly ill-informed troglodytes, excepting of course the few Avalanche fans who are victims of unfortunate circumstance.
The man was a MEMBER of the Avalanche for God’s sake. And he holds the NHL record for power-play goals! If Dave Andreychuk gives his opinion about the Colorado Avalanche in his blog, then by golly we should respect that opinion!
by Stacey Ross on Nov 17, 2010 9:18 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
Avs outshot 43-22 and just won. Just another data point.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Nov 17, 2010 10:06 PM MST reply actions
Good understanding of small sample sizes. I have never and would never claim that one game means anything.
sarcasm (n) – a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark
Turn up your meter, Gabe.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 17, 2010 10:30 PM MST up reply actions
Even if I wasn’t being sarcastic, all he had to do was read what I said and actually internalize it to realize how silly his reply was.
“Just another data point”.
If Gabe would have paid attention to that he would see that I made no claims of statistical significance. In other words, another shrimp on the barby of data points.
He just assumes we are all a bunch of retards, rather than accomplished professionals with the use statistical analysis.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Nov 17, 2010 10:39 PM MST up reply actions
I gotta say, no, I don’t see much evidence that you are an accomplished professional statistician.
Here’s a start: convince me that 82 games is not a small sample size. There are plenty of ways to approach the problem.
This is what Likens (who certainly has no skin in the Avs game) had to say:
“On the basis of some simulations I did at the start of the season, it seems that the team-to-team variation in point totals over the course of a single season is about 50% luck (caveat: this only applies to the last three or so seasons; the skill component is greater for the pre-lockout era). That’s considerable, and yet most fans tend to regard points as faithfully capturing a team’s true talent level.”
I’d love to hear why he’s wrong.
Do you have a link to the posts where he did these simulations…
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2010 7:55 AM MST up reply actions
Doesn’t look like he posted it. He has written a lot about this stuff though.
Here he looks at each team’s underlying winning percentage prior to last year’s playoffs:
http://objectivenhl.blogspot.com/2010/04/expected-winning-percentage-by-team.html
He has Colorado at .413, which is by far the worst among playoff teams. I don’t think he’s adequately accounting for Anderson, but it wouldn’t push COL above the 16th seed.
Actually, I was thrilled that the Avs made the playoffs because after their post-Olympic meltdown, it didn’t seem like it would happen. A below-16 seed was a reasonable assumption. I agree that luck played into their playoff appearance. It wasn’t the sole reason, though. ;-)
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 12:45 PM MST up reply actions
I haven’t really nitpicked sample size as I haven’t run any models to make conclusions in this scenario.
Believe it or not, I think your actual math is pretty decent. It seems The Doctor feels the same way. You see, that was a compliment. We think your logic and conclusions need tweaking. That is criticism which you don’t need to take personally.
FYI, I am not a professional statistician. I am however skilled in predictive modeling and forecasting. This is an area where we all know the quantitative math beats the hell out of pure intuition yet has severe shortcomings, particularly when there is complexity.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Nov 18, 2010 8:21 AM MST up reply actions
The Better Late Than Never post is clearly just a statistical outlier, that sort of negativity percentage is unsustainable over a large sample size and can be attributed to luck. I expect several glowing posts on the Avs soon as he regresses to the mean.
by wickediz on Nov 18, 2010 12:24 AM MST reply actions 4 recs
I know what you’re trying to do. Message delivered, even if I don’t know who Ann is.
Don’t take this the wrong way Mike but I feel like you’re attacking me.
Honestly, I feel like I’m under siege.
It cannot be shown that luck actually exists, hence luck is nothing more than a word used by one in a self delusional assumption of understanding events of which one is informed or which one witnesses. As such, it is a word which superstitious people use to simultaneously presume to have insight into events and, paradoxically, to cease efforts to understand the causes and effects of those same events.
Maybe one of you stat boys
Could dig up data on the number of one and two goals deficits the Avs have erased on the way to one or two points in the past season plus here. I believe it is very above average. And do not believe it is an indicator of “luck.”
Your 2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: Reaching Up to the Cap Floor
by Bob in Boulder on Nov 18, 2010 11:24 AM MST reply actions
You should be the one doing that, not asking someone else, I think.
The Capitals winning half their games (or thereabouts) when trailing after 1—>not an outlier. Erasing so many 3 goal deficits—>not an outlier.
by red army line on Nov 18, 2010 11:53 AM MST up reply actions
This is the kind of fan post that makes my little lawyer heart happy. Numerous arguments stoked purely by the contested interpretation of subjective terms. Schwing!
Mile High Hockey: Significantly better than the experts predicted, just like the Avalanche.
Chouinard?
Winnik is a fucking Win!
by Sandie Gauthier on Nov 18, 2010 12:36 PM MST up reply actions
Chewbacca?
Mile High Hockey: Significantly better than the experts predicted, just like the Avalanche.
I did it just for you. Just so you know. ;-)
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 12:46 PM MST up reply actions
Totally agree and nicely said. I think the discussion between Doc & Hawerchuck is a completely legitimate question though, it’s just been a little lost in the marshes dick-waving.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 18, 2010 1:28 PM MST up reply actions
Correction
Marshes of Dick-Waving
It’s a sharp-right after the _ Execrable Fields of Self Righteous Gratification_
by MalachiConstant on Nov 18, 2010 1:33 PM MST up reply actions
My opinion:
http://www.behindthenethockey.com/2010/11/17/1817060/what-exactly-is-luck
my comments are exactly what I feel about the whole topic. Neutral terms would diffuse a lot of arguments.
Each of my replies is a work of art, each more brilliant than the last.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Nov 18, 2010 1:34 PM MST reply actions
From hereon, no one shall refer to the Avalanche players’ wives. They shall be known as the players’ partners. Also, Adam Foote shall be referred to as a defenseperson.
oh come on, you know I’m not referring to the players…. I’m just saying that you might want people to listen to what your saying rather than how your saying it.
Each of my replies is a work of art, each more brilliant than the last.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Nov 18, 2010 3:31 PM MST up reply actions
It’s a balancing act between impact and minimizing anger. But from what I’ve seen, it doesn’t matter how meekly I state my conclusions, people will be angry.
possibly, but if you renamed ‘luck’ to ‘RAD -Random Abnormality Differential I bet people would be more receptive. Luck is good in car crashes and gambling but it comes off as "you don’t belong here"
Mostly I just like to write RAD
Each of my replies is a work of art, each more brilliant than the last.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Nov 18, 2010 3:52 PM MST up reply actions
Yes, you’re so misunderstood and meek, as you commit multiple personal attacks, ignore any good point made against you, and create straw men incessantly. I’m so sorry for our questioning of your logically inconsistent conclusions, and I really appreciate the grace and balance which with you’ve delivered them. We’ve really wronged you.
/eyeroll
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
Your entire contribution to this thread has been to complain about me. It doesn’t matter what I say or how I say it, it would bother you. Stop obsessing about some philosophical definition of causation and stop trying to sound smart.
by Hawerchuk on Nov 18, 2010 4:29 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
You’re not a good guest, Gabe. Again, you come off sounding like a dick by insulting one of our boys here on our site.
Finally, I wanna thank God, because God gave me this Dundie. And I feel God in this Chili's tonight.
by Dan Winkler on Nov 18, 2010 4:38 PM MST up reply actions 4 recs
I disagree, but to each his own perspective.
by Hawerchuk on Nov 18, 2010 6:08 PM MST up reply actions 3 recs
I’m merely pointing our your hypocrisy, since you won’t engage in legit discourse with me. the concept of causality is not some philosophical concept to be ignored, it’s a central part of statistics and the concept of correlation, which is what started this, no matter how much you hand-wave at me.
you can’t make a conclusion like “the Avs were lucky” from a small sample set of data correlated to some degree. you also can’t say BS like “the link between team talent and Corsi is causal” and expect not to get called on it. stop pretending like this is irrelevant or overcomplicated. it’s simple and relevant. you just don’t want to appear incorrect.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
So, so let’s say there’s no causality here. What does that change? Seriously, you’re obsessing about some gotcha you threw at me six months ago and you haven’t done any work to prove that Colorado was not lucky.
ehem… at least we know who isn’t getting lucky tonight with his 24hr internet blog war response job .
by Pinchy The Lobster on Nov 18, 2010 7:03 PM MST up reply actions 4 recs
ok, let’s just skim over the “let’s say there’s no causality” (there isn’t) and the fact I’ve said this before. You asked, I’ll explain as though you’re actually going to take me seriously, even though we know you won’t.
As it relates to this discussion, about the ‘10 Avs being lucky, I’ll summarize your logic I took issue with thusly:
Team Corsi ratings correlate to team record to some degree.
The ’10 Avalanche team Corsi ratings were poor.
The ’10 Avalanche had a much better record than Corsi predicted.
Therefore, the ’10 Avalanche were lucky.
All of the premises are true. The issue with that conclusion is that it assumes that the only reason the prediction of Corsi could be wrong is luck. It’s a classic false dichotomy. I pointed out that such a conclusion requires the link between Corsi and record to not just be a correlation but a causal one (which you confirmed you do believe, despite a lack of any support for this claim). But since the only link between records and Corsi is some level of correlation, that’s by definition an invalid conclusion, unless you’ve got a lot more data and reasoning somewhere you’ve not deigned to provide. Based on what I’ve seen, all you can say is that Corsi’s prediction of the ’10 Avs was wrong.
You also keep claiming the burden of proof is on me somehow to prove the ‘10 Avs weren’t lucky. I don’t know that it wasn’t luck, much the same as you don’t know it was. It very well could have been luck. I have pointed out that your model is limited, and that perhaps considering other factors might improve it.
But that’s an irrelevant aside: you’ve made a claim that the data does not support, and I’ve simply pointed that out. End of discussion. There’s no burden of proof upon me to counter plan. I’m sure you’d love it if I improved your models, but for my professional opinion you’ll have to both treat me as a professional and pay me like one.
As it relates more broadly, it raises serious questions as to your credibility. You’re a guy that runs a stats blog, that has a sports stats consulting company. You’re clearly good at counting events and assembling data.
But when it comes to forming conclusions, your knowledge seems lacking. Not understanding the difference between correlation and causation is very surprising for someone authoritatively using such terms, and subsequently pretending they’re irrelevant philosophical blather even more so.
I see no reason to listen to your conclusions when this example is so clearly over-reaching the data, and I see no reason why anyone else should either. Add to that your response to criticism — all the way from pretending it’s not there to insulting the critic — and you’ve thoroughly made a wreck of your credibility.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
by thedoctor on Nov 19, 2010 11:59 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Instead of just throwing this into the echo chamber, I would encourage you to go to the sites of other people who’ve analyzed the implications of Corsi – Vic Ferrari, Likens, Tyler Dellow, Derek Zona and Kent Wilson spring to mind – and make your case. If I’m the moron you say I am, then you should be able to convince them I’m wrong about the game of hockey.
Best of luck – and I’d steer clear of obsessing about the philosophical definition of causality.
You asked, I’ll explain as though you’re actually going to take me seriously, even though we know you won’t.
I can tell the future!
I suppose you’re not insulting me, so that’s something. Although an appeal to authority rather than taking my arguments seriously…that’s weak even by your debate standards. The straw man technique was better.
Best of luck — and I’d stay clear of drawing conclusions from your data.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
It is not an appeal to authority. It is a suggestion that you take this issue to some people who’ve looked at it in a different way than I have and to see what they say.
how is refusing to deal with my points and saying you’ll only listen to me after I get approval from some random other people NOT an appeal to authority? It’s practically the definition! Support your statement!
My points stand on their own. There’s nothing complicated there requiring expert analysis. You should be able to refute them on your own if you’re in fact correct, not point me to others because you don’t want to admit you could be wrong.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
I don’t think he’s obsessing over the definition of causality. You are making overly strong conclusions based on weak outcomes. It’s pretty simple really.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 19, 2010 12:28 PM MST up reply actions
I concluded that the Avs were lucky. People here say they agree with that FFS.
by Hawerchuk on Nov 19, 2010 12:30 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
I definitely do not agree. Imo, you can’t luck into the playoffs in the NHL. Too much skill is involved, and the competition is too top notch.
Your 2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: Reaching Up to the Cap Floor
by Bob in Boulder on Nov 19, 2010 12:33 PM MST up reply actions
But all the competition is top notch.
This is the age of Bettman Parity.
The Avs belonged to a group of teams including the Kings the Ducks, the Blues, the Preds and the Flames which are lovingly referred to as the bubble teams.
Your team had no real reason, other than beating the odds when it came to shooting %, to be there over these other teams. That’s why they were lucky.
Nobody is saying that NHL hockey players aren’t talented. We’re just assuming we don’t have to mention it when we’re talking about luck.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
Imo, you can’t luck into the playoffs in the NHL. Too much skill is involved, and the competition is too top notch.
As I read it, this statement is somewhat paradoxical. If all the competition is “top-notch,” (or skilled, if you will), then what separates the Avs from the 9th-place team?
And I hear you talk the talk, but I don't see you walk the walk and I still don't believe a thing you say.
by D'ohboy on Nov 20, 2010 12:54 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
and i disagree with them too — you’re both wrong. you just happen to be the be crowing about it from a blog pulpit as though you’re an expert. (to those wanting to say it: don’t. just don’t.)
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
People agree with you. That is sweet logic.
The issue is that the Corsi model couldn’t predict the Avs season. It could be random variance, or luck, but it very well could be something else. If MY models aren’t accounting for some behavior I am far more interested in finding what is wrong or missing in my variables. Assuming it is random behavior is just asking for trouble.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Nov 19, 2010 12:38 PM MST up reply actions
I think one thing that has gotten lost here, is that there has been a lot of work done, (By Gabe and some of the people he mentioned above) looking at why the Corsi models didn’t match the Avs last season. I think that’s what a lot of the stats people found so damn interesting.
I think the implication that they looked at the numbers, saw they didn’t match and gave up and said “Well it must have been luck” isn’t an accurate description of the thought process that went into some of their conclusions.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 19, 2010 12:55 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Hawerchuk just agreed that that was his analysis. I read the articles. That was the analysis.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
There was a lot more to it than that. He looked at shot quality (and a team’s the ability to control it). He looked at goaltending effects. He looked at quite a few things over the last year or so. He read other people’s blog posts to look at their findings on the effects of shooting quality
I’m not sure I entirely agree with all the conclusions he came to, but he certainly put in a lot more effort into examining the luck that you’re giving him credit for.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 19, 2010 1:31 PM MST up reply actions
I’m not sure how much effort he put into looking into it even really matters Jibbles. First, the data just might not be there at all. Second, he is misrepresenting the results he does have.
And aside from that, anyone that spends so much time weeding through data like that should realize the limitations they hold for conclusions.
That being said, I’ve mentioned before that I like keeping up with BTN. The data he looks at and the analysis he does are all pretty interesting. I just don’t give his conclusions a lot of weight most of the time.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 19, 2010 1:42 PM MST up reply actions
For this article, he’s considering all other factors besides Corsi, whether he’s dismissed them in the past or not — shot quality, time with the lead, and every other contributing factor — as luck. The only factors he bothered to look at before reaching his conclusion was shot differentials.
That’s wrong. It’s a fallacy of false dichotomy — saying, well, if not reason X, then it must be reason Y, when there’s many other potential factors. That’s all I’m saying.
I understand why you assume that he’s rejecting other factors based on previous analysis, and that this was a mere issue of overstatement. It’s what you and I would do, I assume. Surely no one could think that anything outside of Corsi was truly entirely random fluctuations, right?
I entered into this discussion last season with Gabe assuming that…and I found, no, he really does think the Corsi is the only factor you need to determine the measure of a team. He even went so far as to claim the link between Corsi and team talent was causal. That’s shockingly wrong.
I’m sorry, this is poor analysis and lack of understanding on his part, plain and simple.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
by thedoctor on Nov 19, 2010 2:59 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
I entered into this discussion last season with Gabe assuming that…and I found, no, he really does think the Corsi is the only factor you need to determine the measure of a team. He even went so far as to claim the link between Corsi and team talent was causal. That’s shockingly wrong.
I’ll leave it to Gabe to directly respond to this, but that was not my interpretation of his work or writing at all.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 19, 2010 3:33 PM MST up reply actions
Go read this exchange between myself and Gabe (start with my first comment in the thread). Tell me he doesn’t have an overinflated opinion of Corsi’s applicability after.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
I agree that Corsi is a limited measuring stick, but what’s more limited is concepts of "grit", "determination", "having nothing to lose", "young kids having fun" and "hot shooting".
His first comment there.
Lesson to all of us: don’t insult Corsi ;)
by red army line on Nov 19, 2010 7:17 PM MST up reply actions
that statement is 100% true, but then he goes on to explain the link between Corsi and talent is causal among other wild exaggerations of its applicability.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
Seriously, what is wrong with you? It’s like you can’t stop telling your mom that your little brother hit you in the car.
Stop trolling and trying to embarass me. Get past whatever it is you think I said and just deal with the reality of my claims.
And what’s wrong with you? If you really want to let it rest then stop jumping in every time doc posts something that you disagree with.
And listen to your own advice – stop trolling. And grow thicker skin, because I don’t think anything doc wrote was meant to try to embarrass, no idea where you got that from.
All your sarcastic, snotty comments do (“have a cookie”) is keep this thing alive. Are you thriving on the attention, the bitchiness, the silly little comments? That’s the only reason I can see why you’d still respond here.
Finally, I wanna thank God, because God gave me this Dundie. And I feel God in this Chili's tonight.
by Dan Winkler on Nov 23, 2010 5:57 PM MST up reply actions
I don’t really want to argue about what Gabe said and what he didn’t say. I realize he made comments like this one
The other thing here: the link between Corsi and team talent is causalWhich is an incorrect statement.
However, In the context of other stuff he’s wrote, I think he’s presented it the way Scott Reynolds said it in that post
"if you possess the puck more you are more likely to win". I think that’s a true statement.
And I think Corsi is a good measurement of puck possession at even strength (and I think a lot of the research those guys have put into looking at it back that up).
And if puck possession makes it more likely that a team will win, then it’s a contributory cause. How contributory it is is up for debate, but I think the Corsi folks are right that it’s the single biggest contributor in winning. It’s certainly not the only one (goal tending power play, penalty kill, shot quality and luck are five other contributors come to mind) but I can’t fathom an argument that puck possession isn’t taking the biggest chunk of that winning causality pie.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 20, 2010 4:31 PM MST up reply actions
I feel like that exchange showed his true feelings on the matter. I mean, why wouldn’t he simply admit he was overstating things if he truly felt like Scott?
And I totally agree about puck possession being a large contributory factor, probably the largest. it’s treating it as the ONLY one that bothers me.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
I entered into this discussion last season with Gabe assuming that…and I found, no, he really does think the Corsi is the only factor you need to determine the measure of a team.
Sorry, that’s not true. I’ve never made such a claim.
and yet you make wild claims about a causal link (which is essentially saying it’s the only factor), and it’s pretty much the only factor you look at in your analysis of the Avs, over and over.
your actions speak for themselves.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
blah blah blah. You really spend a lot of time trying to make yourself sound smart.
Hockey involves a lot of luck (say 40%), a lot of Corsi (maybe 35%), some goaltending (5%), special teams (5-10%) and then a few other very small skills. You convinced yourself that I claimed Corsi = 100% of winning even though I’ve never written anything even remotely like that.
And seriously, it’s too bad your feelings got so hurt. If you stopped pretending that your one philosophy class made you so brilliant and started listening to other peoples’ nuanced views, then maybe other people would pay attention to you.
But for now, you’re just the guy who’s obsessed with the definition of causation.
But for now, you’re just the guy who’s obsessed with the definition of causation.
And you’re just the guy who is boring the living shit out me. Give it a fucking rest, man, nothing you write is making a single bit of difference. Be a big man and just bury this thread, OK?
Finally, I wanna thank God, because God gave me this Dundie. And I feel God in this Chili's tonight.
by Dan Winkler on Nov 23, 2010 6:00 PM MST up reply actions 2 recs
Harsh? Yes. Suba fantastic? Hell yes! Sure, 90% of us are thinking it. But nobody could have so eloquently nailed it in words like you just did Dan. This beatdown gets a rec from me.
Your 2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: Reaching Up to the Cap Floor
by Bob in Boulder on Nov 23, 2010 6:11 PM MST up reply actions
There’s that Suba again! Oh, BiB, you’re funny.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 23, 2010 6:53 PM MST up reply actions
It doesn’t matter if the people here agree with you Hawerchuck. The question is does your DATA agree with you. I couldn’t give a fuck what your conclusion is. Just saying your data don’t back you up well in this case.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 19, 2010 12:47 PM MST up reply actions
I’m sorry, what data are you talking about? I know you’re pissed off, but you’ll have to be more specific.
Not pissed. Was just responding to your FFS statement.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 20, 2010 3:01 PM MST up reply actions
Here is some philosophy.
t(dawn) > t(cock-crowing) and
P(dawn | cock-crowing) > 0.9999
you cannot safely infer that the rooster caused the dawn.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Nov 18, 2010 10:05 PM MST up reply actions
So what you are saying is that roosters can manipulate the speed of earth’s rotation. I’m skeptical.
by Pinchy The Lobster on Nov 18, 2010 10:59 PM MST up reply actions
If Superman can do it, Roosterman can too. Don’t be such a species-ist.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 19, 2010 9:38 AM MST up reply actions
SEXIST!
You know Hengirl can bring it.
2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: pretty good at hockey since they can't get into the bars yet.
Damn it. You got me there.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 19, 2010 12:55 PM MST up reply actions
my “z” key hates every last one of you mother fuckers
I am the most humble blogger of all time
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Nov 18, 2010 4:54 PM MST reply actions 2 recs
it doesn’t hate us, it just thinks we got lucky
maybe an internet pipe froze and burst
mwuahaha
by Uziel on Nov 18, 2010 5:00 PM MST up reply actions 2 recs
+1
Matt Duchene, better at STUFF than OTHER PEOPLE!!!
"FUCKINGUGLYBABYKYLEKOCIWOLSKIJESUSBARBRASTREISAND!!!!" - Angry MHH member After An Olli Jokinen Goal.
DDC LOVES numbers. He told me he makes out with them in his dreams.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Nov 18, 2010 10:00 PM MST up reply actions
Was he wearing a visor in those dreams?
Your 2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: Reaching Up to the Cap Floor
by Bob in Boulder on Nov 19, 2010 4:48 PM MST up reply actions
This thread is everything that is bad about the internet.
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day.
Oh, no. There’s been neither sex with animals nor whining by Paris Hilton. This thread could be so much worse.
THERE HASN’T BEEN A POST IN ALL CAPS YET!!!!!
Younger and cheaper - Colorado Avalanche
Older and drunker - Me
Says the master troll. lol
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 18, 2010 8:31 PM MST up reply actions
I'm all for trolling.
This is…wow.
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day.
by A.J. Haefele on Nov 19, 2010 9:12 AM MST up reply actions
False
there’s no facebook games here.
Your mama so ugly they call her "The Avs Powerplay"
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2010 10:21 PM MST up reply actions
But weasels have invaded my farm and are eating my crops!! OMFG I need help!
by Pinchy The Lobster on Nov 18, 2010 10:53 PM MST up reply actions
That D&D one was pretty cool… right?
by MalachiConstant on Nov 19, 2010 5:01 AM MST up reply actions
Fuck you. You still haven’t replied to my Mafia Wars request.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
Oh no, you’re THAT guy.
It cannot be shown that luck actually exists, hence luck is nothing more than a word used by one in a self delusional assumption of understanding events of which one is informed or which one witnesses. As such, it is a word which superstitious people use to simultaneously presume to have insight into events and, paradoxically, to cease efforts to understand the causes and effects of those same events.
What’s your definition of “wrong”?
Mile High Hockey: Significantly better than the experts predicted, just like the Avalanche.
There is absolutely no reason why this thread should have more than 350 comments, but I like that it does.
Mile High Hockey: Significantly better than the experts predicted, just like the Avalanche.
I was thinking the same thing. I laugh each time I notice there are 30, 50, 70 new comments when I visit….every hour or so. lol
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 19, 2010 9:39 AM MST up reply actions
There is one, overriding and all powerful reason.
Butthurt
2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: pretty good at hockey since they can't get into the bars yet.
Jibbles is doing a good job of calming the waters though. Ironically, his trying to be more objective about things has changed the tone of the conversation slightly.
by MalachiConstant on Nov 19, 2010 10:50 AM MST up reply actions
He reminds me of my college roommate who stood up on top of my Chevelle telling everyone to calm down while me and my friend were about to get into it with 4 dudes who that same college roommate pissed off. Kind of annoying, but necessary I guess.
Your 2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: Reaching Up to the Cap Floor
by Bob in Boulder on Nov 19, 2010 10:56 AM MST up reply actions
Cool story, bro
Finally, I wanna thank God, because God gave me this Dundie. And I feel God in this Chili's tonight.
by Dan Winkler on Nov 19, 2010 3:54 PM MST up reply actions 2 recs
Exactly
I don’t agree with Jibbles application of stats at all times, but he isn’t inflammatory about it.
"I’m predicting 50pts in the NHL for Hensick next season. Anyone want to put $20 on it?" - DetAvs, Jun 18, 2010 3:45 AM EDT
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Nov 19, 2010 12:34 PM MST up reply actions
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LUCK
ONLY DEATH IS AN ABSOLUTE. THE GRIM REAPER IS NEAR YOU AND YOU MAY NEED SOME LUCK TO AVOID DYING.
by Pinchy The Lobster on Nov 19, 2010 10:09 PM MST reply actions
The Grim Reaper can’t get me, I’m using my X-Block.
Matt Duchene, better at STUFF than OTHER PEOPLE!!!
"FUCKINGUGLYBABYKYLEKOCIWOLSKIJESUSBARBRASTREISAND!!!!" - Angry MHH member After An Olli Jokinen Goal.
by i2strange97 on Nov 20, 2010 12:37 AM MST up reply actions
Well, that’s 7hours of my life I’ll never get back. Fuck you. Fuck you all.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
I think you need a sandwich.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 22, 2010 3:08 PM MST up reply actions
Here's how I feel about all of this
I like the Avs
I like watching the Avs
I hope the Avs win lotsa games
The end
Sports don't build character, they reveal it
If it was like any normal FanPost, it would have dissapeared off of the sidebar by now, but those recs have kept it right up at the top...
This is the thread that never ends,
Yes, it goes on and on, my friends.
Some people started snarking it, not knowing what it was,
and they’ll continue snarking it forever just because…
Actually, it is going to end. All the discussions are in a circular pattern at this point, so I’m closing down the comments, folks. If you’d like, feel free to appeal to a higher authority like Mike, Joe or Red Wing Dave.
Bitch, give me your lunch money.
by Cheryl Bradley on Nov 24, 2010 1:12 PM MST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
