View Single Post
09-27-2011, 11:56 AM
Registered User
Jester's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by phillyfanatic View Post
Just so we are clear, empirical evidence implies that if 10 people looking at the evidence will all draw the same conclusions. When you are taking about Jaromir Jagr's preseason and then using historical pre-season information, that is not empirical. The data you would give would not be able to pindown whether the pre-season of Jaromir Jagr in 2011 draws insight into his success in the 2011 season. I could just as easily give "empirical evidence" showing how the pre-season success will lead to future success (For every Jon Sim there is a 100 examples of good pre-seasons ending in excellent regular seasons). All Jagr has showed is, he looks good, he is skating well, his in great shape and able to play on the small surface. Your empirical evidence doesn't disprove that.
No, empirical evidence suggests that there is irrefutable fact based information that suggests that the preseason is a waste of time if you're drawing conclusions from it.

As to the second bolded comment... that would be a comically stupid argument to trot out. There's a bunch of guys that have awesome preseasons and are terrible... and there are a bunch of guys that have awesome preseasons and are awesome (this ignores the guys that have terrible preseasons but are awesome)... preseason means a lot!

Actually, that empirically supports my argument that you can't draw strong conclusions from the preseason. It can go either way, and does so with regularity. I think Jagr is going to have a good season, I don't think Read is going to lead in the NHL in scoring.

If the evidence was empirical, then there would be no point in discussing, as the data would clearly show the answer. This is only valid in dealing with facts.
People debate empirically untrue claims on here all the friggin time, dude.

Jester is offline