Thread: Confirmed with Link: Boucher to Tampa
View Single Post
06-10-2010, 07:24 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,022
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
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...
So... your argument is that the Penguins were psychologically distraught by the Habs' "mind-games"? And that's why their whiffed their shots?

Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
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.
I'm not familiar at all with the stats collected in boxing so I really can't make a good argument here (my ignorance), but are you meaning to tell me that Ali throwing off Foreman would've helped Ali without making any difference to such things as punches thrown, punches landed, and things like that?

Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
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.
There is a human factor. What you don't seem to grasp is if the human factor has an impact on the game, the stats will pick it up. The stats don't measure some subset of "objective" factors that is orthogonal to "human" factors like psychology or motivation. The stats measure what happened on the ice, regardless of the reason it did. If psychology or motivation makes you play better or worse, your stats will reflect it.

Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
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.
Dude... you think you're winning the argument when you have absolutely no case. To say the stats cannot pick up factors that are driven by intangible isn't just silly, it's logically nonsensical.

Stats measure what's observable. If the intangibles make a difference on the game, the stats will observe and measure that difference. If the intangibles make a difference that's not observable, well, I question how much of a difference it makes if you can't tell it's there...

Now don't go and hit a straw man that I'm claiming that intangibles don't have an effect. Intangibles, IMHO, absolutely have an effect. And it's a measurable effect, so the stats will measure it. If Cammy's drive and intensity leads to more puck possession, more scoring chances, more shots on goal, the stats will measure that. They may not be able to tell WHY it happen, but it will show that it DID. They may not be able to measure drive, intensity, heart, and so on, but they can measure their effect on game play.

To me your argumentation sounds like pure magical thinking. You're basically saying that there are things that happen that we can't see but really they change hockey games in invisible ways.

One more thing: "stats" aren't limited to the tiny bit of information you find in and even less to goals-assists-points. If you don't see the effect of human factors in there, you're right, but that's because those stats are very coarse and very incomplete, so very uninformative. There's a wealth of additional data being collected on hockey that tells you a lot more.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote