Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagger
Proven where?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagger
Based on what?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagger
So why don't you answer my question? If you have a personal preference that your belief is correct that's ok, but if you want to call someone else wrong than you I'd hope you'd have evidence.
|
Bro, you mad?
Aside from the blatantly obvious fact that numbers can't actually account for the intricacies of the human brain, it's a little something called "false positive science". You cannot accurately predict human behaviour and reactions in sport based on statistics alone. You need to use your eyes first, and if you'd like, you can support that with numbers. Anyone who says "Well these statistics show this player is actually THIS or would perform in THIS way" is wrong. Statistics are historical, not future-predicting. Stats simply tell what happened, but do not tell anything above that (including what will happen, what certain players or like, etc). They can only be used to add weight to an argument, not to create one. Basement bloggers with no knowledge of science or the human condition do not understand that or purposely disregard that.
Here is a link to an article written by a environmental scientist who studies human decision making and reactions, there are also links to scientific papers in this article:
http://freakonomics.com/2012/03/22/f...ct-the-future/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagger
I would direct you to this article. on Fenwick. You'll find that a higher Fenwick close , which is shots and missed shots discounting blocked is a very good indicator of team success. The close part means that the game is within one goal in the first or 2nd and tied in the third.
Playoffs:
Missed playoffs:
That article is from before this year, and if you don't bother to read the article the only team to win the cup below a .500 Fenwick team(finished at .499) and that's because Bylsma took over half way through the year. With him they were a .549 Fenwick team. |
Problem is, this is about building a team. There is zero evidence that (as has been said before) good cup-winning teams don't just rate higher on these things because of regular season dominance. There is nothing that suggests that if you assemble a team with this in mind that you'll win a cup. As I said before, this is a clear example of "false positive science".
You're stating the effect and pretending it's the cause, when there is zero evidence to suggest that is true.