Fairly certain logical reasoning can be done deductively OR inductively. Satistics is inductive. Sure, the standard mathematical logic is deductive, but that doesn't mean that there aren't scholars working on probabilistic logics.
Inductive logic is self defeating. It argues in a circle. That's why it gets thrown out.
Get over it, empiricist. Its never right to say the next bean out of the pot is white. Its never right to say the sun will come up tomorrow. Its wrong. Plain and simple. David Hume is turning over in his grave right now.
which, in my opinion, indicates a failure on TM's part regardless of how much or how little these stats tell us.
It is a failure on his part. It is something he can do better at whether he remains here or not. He's got to find a better supporting cast for himself and the team.
Sorry I wasn't trying to start a war or come across as condescending. Just trying to point out the limitations of drawing too many conclusions based on the data. Sorry if I came across sounding like a *****,
It is never right or reasonable to any absolutist conclusions with a statistic (unless, of course, the conclusions was absolutist in reasonability).
In common day-to-day discussion, it is common to make "conclusions" based on statistics, with the understanding that even if it may not be spoken, the conclusion is meant to be reasonably interpreted.
Only absolute truth exists.
To say relative truth exists is self defeating. It shoots itself in the foot because it refutes itself immediately.
Example: there is no absolute truth
is that true?
Its true for you, but not for me.
is that just true for you, but not for me?
Truth isn't telling it like it is.
is that telling it like it is?
These kind of statements have NO business in the logic realm.
So if the Wings swapped rosters with the Blue Jackets, would you consider the change in performance a reflection on Babcock?
This is actually a good question. The answer, which no one will ever know, could be that Babcock isn't the right coach for the Jackets at least in the short term. It could be that they simply aren't capable of pulling off the system he would want to employ. However if the Jackets stuck with him and tweaked their roster to suit him perhaps that could change.
I agree, but I would argue the Sharks personnel is at least as good or better during McLellan's tenure as either previous coach had. I agree there are certainly some underlying issues that can cause discrepancies though, like:
-Chemistry
-Lack of faith/trust in a coach
-Significant injuries
-Locker room issues
etc. Most of those things are either coaching issues, or vagueries that are nearly impossible to quantify. Do the Sharks have locker room issues?
All I was trying to say is there are trends, they are worth noting, and them coupled with other things we've heard paint an interesting case that the Sharks win/loss record shouldn't be used as a total benchmark for McLellan's performance.
Obviously if these are issues Todd McLellan should be fired yesterday. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that this problems do or do not exist. I was thinking earlier that DW should probably have one on one meetings with JT, Marleau, and Boyle just to see if there is anything going on. Obviously any of that kind of stuff will be kept internal though and we have no way to prove or dissprove there are issues.
Really the only way I can see judging a coach with quanatative analysis is win loss record, and to a lesser extent power play and penalty kill percentage. Looking at the strategies that are used, how players respond to instruction, success on set plays, are all qualatative aspects and I think are a better way to judge coaches. We like to have numbers back up our positions but sometimes you just have to make qualatative judgments. There are several posters on this board that try to put numbers on every aspect of the game, and their analysis often sucks.
This thread could be really interesting too if people would stop with the stupid causation does not equal correlation argument. That horse is dead allready.
Inductive logic is self defeating. It argues in a circle. That's why it gets thrown out.
Get over it, empiricist. Its never right to say the next bean out of the pot is white. Its never right to say the sun will come up tomorrow. Its wrong. Plain and simple. David Hume is turning over in his grave right now.
I don't think anyone is arguing that you should say for certain that x will be true because it has happened x number of times before. Just that the probability of it being true is much larger. Two different things.
My argument wasn't whether or not induction can prove without a doubt (it can't) but that there is some credible reason for arguing for it. If there wasn't scholars would not still be debating its merits to this day.
As for the Hume comment, I'm not sure what you're getting at. You try to insult me by calling me an empiricist, (even though I never stated my opinions on the matter, just that there is such a thing as inductive logic), and then you proceed to name drop an Empiricist philosopher.
“Here we play a completely different style than how Colorado does. Colorado is pressure, pressure, pressure, where here it’s kind of sit back and make your reads and see what plays they make as opposed to dictating the plays they make,” Winnik said. “It’s something I’ll have to adjust to. I’m used to just diving into guys, and here it’s not like that. It might just take a bit.”
Why does Colorado's PK system sound a lot better than the San Jose's'?
I like the passive system. I love watching the opponent kill their whole advantage passing it around on the perimeter. Let's them make the mistakes, rather than pressuring needlessly and running out of position.
It pisses me off to no end how Drew talks about other team's aggressive penalty kill as if they're doing it right. Especially when they are running their agressive system to mediocre results.
Why does Colorado's PK system sound a lot better than the San Jose's'?
Agree - perhaps it's due to personnel.
If the PK forward units are Winnik, Moore, Marleau, Mitchell (if he's in the game even), Havlat, Couture and Pavelski, I don't see why they can't be more aggressive. Those forwards are either fast/quick or have keen hockey sense to play that aggressive style.
Another stupid call by Shaw - he's getting on my nerves.
I like the passive system. I love watching the opponent kill their whole advantage passing it around on the perimeter. Let's them make the mistakes, rather than pressuring needlessly and running out of position.
It depends on the personnel and how fast the forwards can pressure the points. If they have Marleau, Havlat, and Winnik on separate units, the aggressive system should work out pretty effectively. If I remember correctly, both Pittsburgh and Montreal both run very aggressive PKs and they are the top-2 in the league.
Passiveness also deals with their net-front presence. I remember in one of Shaw's pre-period interviews, he said that they are just going to let Holmstrom park in front of the net. Instead of trying to push him out of the way and clear the crease, they are just going to hope they occupy his stick enough so he can't deflect pucks.
Why does Colorado's PK system sound a lot better than the San Jose's'?
It's not just the PK system. The Sharks are so passive. In chess you don't sit back and wait for your opponent to attack while you sit there and defend. You apply constant pressure until they crack. That's what I was alluding to in my post from earlier today. The whole system is flawed in my opinion. Being passive doesnt work in War, it doesn't work in chess, and it doesn't work in hockey either.
I don't think anyone is arguing that you should say for certain that x will be true because it has happened x number of times before. Just that the probability of it being true is much larger. Two different things.
My argument wasn't whether or not induction can prove without a doubt (it can't) but that there is some credible reason for arguing for it. If there wasn't scholars would not still be debating its merits to this day.
As for the Hume comment, I'm not sure what you're getting at. You try to insult me by calling me an empiricist, (even though I never stated my opinions on the matter, just that there is such a thing as inductive logic), and then you proceed to name drop an Empiricist philosopher.
And all I am saying is that statistics are inconclusive. Observations are never REASONABLE. That's the appeal to nature.
You can have a strong opinion on the statistics. That's fine. It however, isn't THE truth. Let's go ahead and clear that up. There are more credible scholars who have refuted inductive methods especially in the past 30 years. Skeptic epistemology went out of style back in the 50s for a reason. Let it die in its grave.
And all I am saying is that statistics are inconclusive. Observations are never REASONABLE. That's the appeal to nature.
You can have a strong opinion on the statistics. That's fine. It however, isn't THE truth. Let's go ahead and clear that up. There are more credible scholars who have refuted inductive methods especially in the past 30 years. Skeptic epistemology went out of style back in the 50s for a reason. Let it die in its grave.
I'm dead tired, but I have to answer this. No one is saying statistics tell "THE" truth. It is just a way of talking when people use statistics to make their argument.
Observations are never "reasonable" as the term is defined by philosophy scholars. They can be reasonable as the term is defined in common usage.
Again, we aren't having a philosophical debate here....
Not to butt in, but this statement is wrong everyday of the week.
I studied philosophy for years, and "formal logical reasoning" has nothing to do with statistics. Logic is a function of absolute objective truth epistomologcal methods.
Emprical statistics are nothing but that. Statistics. It is NEVER right or reasonable to come to ANY conclusions with a statistic. idJust the fact that it COULD BE WRONG, gets itself thrown out of the logic circle.
Huh. I'm just talking about basic ****. You're taking this pretty seriously.
And yeah, I'm not talking about classical philosophy here. I'm talking about basic LSAT questions. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. That's all. And to call that an 'annoying statistics statement' is funny.
Man, y'all are a bunch of nerds. I appreciate the numbers HB, as I believe I have a decent enough sense of how good our players were to do some interpretation from them. Although really, whether it's his fault or not TM is getting canned if we don't make the playoffs...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilligans Island
Agree - perhaps it's due to personnel.
If the PK forward units are Winnik, Moore, Marleau, Mitchell (if he's in the game even), Havlat, Couture and Pavelski, I don't see why they can't be more aggressive. Those forwards are either fast/quick or have keen hockey sense to play that aggressive style.
Another stupid call by Shaw - he's getting on my nerves.
Clearly the reason we can't play an agressive PK is that all of our players are in lousy shape. I mean, we all know Marleau is fat. Maybe we need a new S&C coach.
Man, y'all are a bunch of nerds. I appreciate the numbers HB, as I believe I have a decent enough sense of how good our players were to do some interpretation from them. Although really, whether it's his fault or not TM is getting canned if we don't make the playoffs...
Clearly the reason we can't play an agressive PK is that all of our players are in lousy shape. I mean, we all know Marleau is fat. Maybe we need a new S&C coach.
No problem.
Just fyi, I'm not involving myself in this argument any further simply because I feel like I am arguing with someone who is arguing with themselves.
I trust people here are smart enough to use the information however they feel is right. My intention was simply to inform, not start a philosophical debate.
