Thread: Confirmed with Link: Boucher to Tampa
View Single Post
06-10-2010, 12:07 AM
Live And Let Dye
Bloumeister's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: @Bloumeister
Posts: 5,767
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
Originally Posted by MathMan
The problem here is that we saw the same game, yet we have very different interpretations.

I'm not sure how I can put this nicely, so here goes: what I'm reading from you is a lot of superstition, really. We "had their number"? If anyone had the Pens' number, it was Halak, because otherwise, the Habs were getting their ***** handed to them. How is saying "we had their number" a better assessment than actually analyzing what happened on the ice? If there are psychological and emotional effects -- intangibles -- that affect the game, why aren't they reflected on the ice, where the stats would pick them up?

At some point, someone is going to have to explain to me how you can be said to outplay a team that's basically always owning the puck and taking dangerous shots from prime scoring areas while you aren't. Because I don't care if you count it with stats or just eyeball it, if you don't think that team is not being badly outplayed, then quite frankly I think you're just deluding yourself.

Or are you arguing that the Pens really did get all their scoring chances and just continually messed up on them for some intangible reason? Fine, that's debatable, but at that point I'm going to ask: how is that good team defense by the Habs, as opposed to the Pens shooting themselves in the foot? Because the Habs only have control over the former.

I'm not sure I agree -- and I fail to see what this has to do with the matter at hand anyway. I do know that without the science geeks, we wouldn't be having this conversation on the Internet, or a whole lot of real technological progress for that matter.

Originally Posted by MathMan
...okay then.

a. So your argument is that the Penguins whiffed on their scoring chances because they were psychologically distraught? I have trouble seeing it, they're a pretty pressure-tested club and were dominating the game heavily.

Although I do wonder about that Game 7. That did look like a panicked squad to me... and lo, the stats do reflect that they sucked.

b. All right, I won't be nice here. This smacks of watching the game and deciding what happens here based on the results and dismissing anything that doesn't actually support your biased perception as "useless stats".

Stats are not useless. Claiming they are may allow you to stay confortable with your illusions, but it doesn't change the facts.

Fair enough, except that -- and this is part of my point -- there's no way Halak can keep this up long-term. Not unless he's the reincarnation of Hasek with some Roy thrown in. I don't think it's fair to him to ask him to be the best goalie in NHL history, which is what he would need to be to pull off that level of goaltending consistently over the course of his career.

*eyes the Computer Science B.Sc. on the wall* Um, well, I just might actually. :geek:

Except that, if those things make you play better, the results should be visible on the ice and if they are, they will be reflected somewhere in the plethora of advanced stats that get collected nowadays. See, this is the key point in the whole intangibles vs. stats debate -- it's not orthogonal. c. If the intangibles have an effect on the game, the stats will pick it up.

a. Nice way to phrase that answer in a feeble and transparent attempt to look down your nose at me and others. The shame is, you can't see the forest for the trees. It must be frustrating and boring looking at life in black and white, and 1's and 0's. The truth is, even heavily favored, stronger and more "capable" athletes have been crushed by mind-games...E.g. Ali vs Foreman. No stat detected Ali throwing his opponent(s) off with his antics both before the match and/or during. Go ahead, find the stat, I challenge you. We're humans, not computers.

b. I don't have any illusions, you do. You live in a world where there is no human factor, where everything can be measured in black and white stats....nothing is further from reality, so you are the one with illusions. Wake up.

c. That comment cements my winning argument against you. For you to say that the stats will pick up intangibles, such as intimidation, motivation, heart, character, drive etc., is just plain ridiculous.

If stats were the cats meow, then the Washington Capitals would had played the SJ Sharks in the final, with the Caps winning it all.
FFS, change the thread name already. Or get a room in a cheap hotel, buy some Diet Cott Root Beer and Cheetos, invite all the geeky stats-lovin' guys, prepare a neat lil' PowerPoint presentation with graphs and Excel sheets and ESPN cut-and-pasted stuff, and every single freaking zit-faced nerd will cream their pants, I'm sure. But stop torturing us with that broken record. This is worse than trolling.

This here is the thread where we're supposed to mourn Our Lord Savior Boucher. Have some respect for the Man With The Scar and stay away from here.

Somebody shoot me.

Bloumeister is offline   Reply With Quote