Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Different in yours from all the other suggestions are the unacceptably narrow variability between the margins,
I have singled yours out because it is ridiculous and impractical
|
Look, I appreciate your criticism however it's only ridiculous and impractical with narrow variability between margins, if you perceive it that way.
Come on, two years = 730 days. Therefore by your
exaggerated logic, 736 days means that two years was too narrow a margin.
Only if you're going to present it that way is it going to appear that way.
Quote:
|
and the farcical variability that the margins mean for possible fluctuations between "rebuilding" and "contending."
|
Actually, I never said there's an immediate jump from rebuilding --> contending. There's a massive middle ground I'm all too familiar with and that's the treadmill. But once the team has strong underlying and PP stats that's when I would be comfortable with the GM selling farm-assets to shore up weaknesses. No time before then. That's the only baseline I set. Unfortunately because I used two words that are offensive I set off the ticking time bomb that is "ANALYTICS ARE CRAP RAWR"
Again, read my original post in its entirety. All it says is that once my three criteria are satisfied, rebuilding will not be the excuse for this team's results. That excuse may be goaltending and it may be intangibles or a lack thereof. But right now the excuse is re-building and that is what causes the poor statistics (CF%/PP%). Never did I say we become an instant cup contender by taking more bad angle muffins, which has been the standard reaction to any mention of not-so-advanced underlying stats.
My single post has been a lightning rod for strawman arguements by people emotionally against "advanced stats" without even pondering what exactly I am saying. I've been told I'm confusing stats as the end goal (where?), I'm confusing stats as causation (where?), stats should never be used to support a position (uh, that's what they're for), etc, etc.