Dr Beinfest Posted February 25, 2013 Author Share Posted February 25, 2013 You're changing your argument. The lack of close games has minimal relevance. You have no way to explain away those supposedly volatile results. You've given no reason why a certain span of time in a blowout should be significantly more volatile than in a close game, let alone one that would makes sense and applies to this team. And 1 game is way different than 17; that doesn't do much work for ya. What the hell? I'm not changing my argument. There's great relevance in a lack of close games. If this team is consistently getting blown out of the water and then blowing someone out of the water, that can mean a number of things. 1 game is an extreme example of 17 games. You're using a ridiculously small sample size. Come on Mr. Lawyer, never taken a class in statistics before? That's a tiny sample size. That much 'works for me.' The lack of close games means something isn't right. Either this team blowing their opponents out of the water is wrong, or them being blown out of the water is wrong. As you add more games to the sample size, it's going to normalize and one of those is going to stop. I'm sure we all know which one... but until then... don't cite goal differential. It means nothing. Also, give your statistics high horse a rest; he's rather tired. Just because you have some math background doesn't mean that others don't and doesn't mean you can't misjudge. It's not a 'statistics high horse.' I'm sorry I enjoy statistics. Clearly you've got some fucking problem with that. Statistics has nothing to do with my math background. I use it a total of zero times in my work. It has nothing to do with my major. Say what you like, but I'm not misjudging anything. Being an asshole doesn't help your case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystikol87 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 You're changing your argument. The lack of close games has minimal relevance. You have no way to explain away those supposedly volatile results. You've given no reason why a certain span of time in a blowout should be significantly more volatile than in a close game, let alone one that would makes sense and applies to this team. And 1 game is way different than 17; that doesn't do much work for ya. What the hell? I'm not changing my argument. There's great relevance in a lack of close games. If this team is consistently getting blown out of the water and then blowing someone out of the water, that can mean a number of things. 1 game is an extreme example of 17 games. You're using a ridiculously small sample size. Come on Mr. Lawyer, never taken a class in statistics before? That's a tiny sample size. That much 'works for me.' The lack of close games means something isn't right. Either this team blowing their opponents out of the water is wrong, or them being blown out of the water is wrong. As you add more games to the sample size, it's going to normalize and one of those is going to stop. I'm sure we all know which one... but until then... don't cite goal differential. It means nothing. >> Also, give your statistics high horse a rest; he's rather tired. Just because you have some math background doesn't mean that others don't and doesn't mean you can't misjudge. It's not a 'statistics high horse.' I'm sorry I enjoy statistics. Clearly you've got some fucking problem with that. Statistics has nothing to do with my math background. I use it a total of zero times in my work. It has nothing to do with my major. Say what you like, but I'm not misjudging anything. Being an asshole doesn't help your case. I'm NOT referring to their win-loss record. Blowouts are important in expecting their win/loss total to normalize relative to their goal differential. But that's not what I'm talking about; I'm talking about the goal differential and what it implies for the rest of the season, since the *expectation* is that their record should correlate with the goal differential. Go ahead and calculate the standard deviation of goal differential. Let me know where that Z score falls. When 20 out of 30 teams are between -10 and +10, a -20 goal differential is a big red flag. The odd's that this team is above-average are slim. With that big a differential, the 17 game sample isn't so small as to be written off, as you're trying to do. You've still given no logical reason to eschew the lopsided games. It's not like you can get more than one goal at a time or that the team's ability/expected output drastically changes in games that aren't close. At least in baseball you can make the mop-up guy argument, but hockey teams generally keep playing their starters. I'll gladly say I'm wrong and that I learned something new if you can do the above. But I'm of yet unconvinced. ...... "If you want me to go all statistics on you, fine." This is you and your high horse. You can say what you will, but that statement is beyond patronizing and obnoxious. My remarks were more than warranted. And then "Come on Mr. Lawyer, never taken a class in statistics before?" Give me a break. You'll say I brought on the latter one -- and your lovely cursing, as well -- but you know that's not a fair assessment of this exchange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Beinfest Posted February 25, 2013 Author Share Posted February 25, 2013 I'm NOT referring to their win-loss record. Blowouts are important in expecting their win/loss total to normalize relative to their goal differential. But that's not what I'm talking about; I'm talking about the goal differential and what it implies for the rest of the season, since the *expectation* is that their record should correlate with the goal differential. And what I'm saying is... you can't infer anything out of this data because it deviates way too much from the standard model. Washington, for example, plays in games with an average differential of 1.88 goals per game (win or lose). Florida, on the other hand, is way off the charts at a 2.61 (win or lose). You'll find that most other teams will look like Washington, unless they're like Florida or Tampa. Tampa, for example, has been incredibly volatile this season. It's hard to tell, based upon their numbers, if they're a division powerhouse or a team that's about to sink to the bottom. Go ahead and calculate the standard deviation of goal differential. Let me know where that Z score falls. When 20 out of 30 teams are between -10 and +10, a -20 goal differential is a big red flag. The odd's that this team is above-average are slim. With that big a differential, the 17 game sample isn't so small as to be written off, as you're trying to do. Where did I say I was writing it off? You're putting faith into numbers that aren't significant. I'm well aware that this team has played like garbage. But this team has also played like gods at points, with a bad goalie in net. I'm well aware that this team is crap, though. I never said otherwise. I'd love to give you some z scores here, but you know... you can't do that with a 17 sample size.... because... you know... that kind of sample size is... too small. You've still given no logical reason to eschew the lopsided games. It's not like you can get more than one goal at a time or that the team's ability/expected output drastically changes in games that aren't close. At least in baseball you can make the mop-up guy argument, but hockey teams generally keep playing their starters. Eschew lopsided games? I'm not requesting you throw anything out at all. I'm requesting you wait until they've played more games to even look at a goal differential column. It means next to nothing right now. It might have some significance if this team were not deviating so much from their average goals per game... but even then you're talking about a sample size that's too small. But at this point, considering the sample size AND the fact that the deviation from the average goals is off the charts (win or lose), something's not right. "If you want me to go all statistics on you, fine." This is you and your high horse. You can say what you will, but that statement is beyond patronizing and obnoxious. My remarks were more than warranted. And then "Come on Mr. Lawyer, never taken a class in statistics before?" Give me a break. You'll say I brought on the latter one -- and your lovely cursing, as well -- but you know that's not a fair assessment of this exchange. Fun little story -- I was at a concert last night. My friend Jason and I were just standing there in between sets when this guy and his girlfriend walked up and squeezed their way in front of us and said "excuse me." The guy flat out didn't fit in front of us, so I sat there making sarcastic comments like "at least he said excuse me." and whatnot. Eventually he got pissed off enough that he turned around and told me "if it bothers you so much you don't have to be rude." Naturally, he was the one being rude first and foremost. However, he wasn't wrong. I was being a douche. Because he deserved it. But this guy clearly didn't even realize he was being a douche until after I started off at him. Point being, I didn't actually know his intentions. No, I wasn't trying to patronize you. That was my way of saying "I don't want to number crunch right now, I'm busy." I never suggested you were incapable of doing so yourself, nor did I suggest that you were uneducated or uninformed. So... despite the fact that you might think I was patronizing you and being obnoxious, that much isn't the case. And yes, of course the follow-up was provoked. Just like this entire conversation is based upon provocation. There's better ways to go about somethings than to just call me out and be equally as condescending and patronizing as you feel I was to you. Because... you know... if it bothered you and I didn't realize I would actually feel bad if you brought it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erick Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Just wondering, what was the argument against the Marlins example? When I started writing about that, it was already pretty much the middle of June. The sample was pretty good, no? Also, I feel like it's easier to overcome mediocrity in hockey since you're rewarded with loser points/there are more playoff teams. It's very rare (much more rare, I would say) for teams like the Orioles to do what they did last year in baseball. The Marlins had already demonstrated through the first couple of months of the season that they were going to suck last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canada-marlin24 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 in other news Markstrom was sent bak to the AHL today. Dont really like that move. Had much more confidence with him in net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Beinfest Posted February 26, 2013 Author Share Posted February 26, 2013 Just wondering, what was the argument against the Marlins example? When I started writing about that, it was already pretty much the middle of June. The sample was pretty good, no? Also, I feel like it's easier to overcome mediocrity in hockey since you're rewarded with loser points/there are more playoff teams. It's very rare (much more rare, I would say) for teams like the Orioles to do what they did last year in baseball. The Marlins had already demonstrated through the first couple of months of the season that they were going to suck last year. The argument with the Marlins, I believe, was that their -30 or -60 or whatever run differential was a significant, telling statistic. Or something along those lines. I held the same stance then as I do now. Didn't say anything then because of volatility, and it doesn't say anything now. You can use other stats and you can read between the lines, but it doesn't say anything. I was objective then and I'm objective now. I still think the Panthers suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canada-marlin24 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 weiss will be out tonight to attend grandmothers funeral in toronto. versteeg could be back thursday and they say upshall about a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yokofox33 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Kopecky is on fire. Vokuon and Adams are bitches. They need to be laid out. What terrible calls by the refs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarlinKidd101 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I would hate Kopecky if he wasn't on the Panthers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yokofox33 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 This team sucks ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canada-marlin24 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 You knew the penguins were going to really but that typically happens with 3 minutes left. Do we win this game. History tells me no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Beinfest Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 I would hate Kopecky if he wasn't on the Panthers. He's the kind of player I try to be. Well, minus the pest part that everyone hates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erick Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Jose Theodore has played a great game tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yokofox33 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 A wet paper towel could have stopped some of the goals Theo has given up tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canada-marlin24 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I really have no faith at all in Theodore or Clemmensen. Felt a lot more comfortable with Markstrom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canada-marlin24 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Clemmensen in net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piazza31 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I would hate Kopecky if he wasn't on the Panthers. He's the kind of player I try to be. Well, minus the pest part that everyone hates. You play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Beinfest Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 I would hate Kopecky if he wasn't on the Panthers. He's the kind of player I try to be. Well, minus the pest part that everyone hates. You play? Err, yes and no? Not at the current moment, no. Don't have the time. Looking at joining up a summer roller league though. But MarlinKidd and I have a history of playing hockey together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Beinfest Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 It scares me that Scott Clemmensen is playing better than Jose Theodore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canada-marlin24 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 It scares me that Scott Clemmensen is playing better than Jose Theodore. Really don't know what is wrong with theo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erick Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 It scares me how bad the Southeast Division is. This terrible team is actually only 3 points out, and if you look at Thursday's schedule, they could easily be 1 point out by Friday. With a chance to play Carolina on Saturday. This franchise makes me look like an emotional girl who breaks up with her boyfriend every other day. I don't know what I want. Every loss makes me want to tank, and every win makes me want playoffs because there's nothing better than playoff hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Beinfest Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 It's crazy but hey who knows... someone decides they want to be goalie and maybe we have a shot at winning the division under .500? But you know I'm damn lovin this resurgence of Three-or-more-Theodore. Can't Shut Theodore. Theodore is open. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Gotta ride Clemmer in net while he's hot. He's usually good for a hot streak here and there every season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Beinfest Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 Gotta ride Clemmer in net while he's hot. He's usually good for a hot streak here and there every season. While he's 'hot'. AKA a normal game for Theodore last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erick Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 It's crazy but hey who knows... someone decides they want to be goalie and maybe we have a shot at winning the division under .500? But you know I'm damn lovin this resurgence of Three-or-more-Theodore. Can't Shut Theodore. Theodore is open. etc. And also, if Weiss and Versteeg remember how to play hockey...if these couple of things happen, we might have something here!... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts