Quote:
Originally Posted by squiggs96
You wouldn't be my favourite teacher if this was your method. Let's say this is stats, algebra, or something complex. You're wanting to find x to five significant digits. The answer is 14.387. I put down 14.387. I clearly understand how everything works as I got the exact answer. You cannot guess the answer 14.387 when it's not multiple choice. If you could, you should be playing lottery numbers, the stock market, or setting up a booth in the mall to tell people their fortunes, since you have an incredible gift of guessing. If you think I copied the answer off of someone else, then give me another question and I'll do the same. It would also be odd how I copied the answer and still finished ahead of the rest of the class.
You giving me a zero for having the correct answer because I didn't write down what was going on in my head is wrong. As a student, I wasn't there to explain it to you or help you understand. I wasn't your tutor. If I got the right answer, then you can pat yourself on the back that you did a great job teaching me. If I get the wrong answer, I'll take the zero. That's a risk I'm willing to assume. There are problems I need to write down to work out. There are others I don't. I've often heard not everyone learns the same way, so it seems silly to punish someone for getting the right answer, because they didn't copy down every thought. If I see a sprinter get to the finish line first I give him the gold medal. I don't ask him what work he put in to get there.
How does this relate to the Flames? Many of us arrived at the conclusion that GG needed to be fired. Others contended throughout the year that because of advanced metrics that they weren't sure. After coming around to the same conclusion, we are told that our analysis wasn't done properly. Just because it too some longer to get to the conclusion, because they used some more data that got to the same point, doesn't make their conclusion better, when it's the same. Obviously this isn't getting to the answer of 14.387 on a math test, but it's not much different.
|
First off let me say that I totally agree with you on the math thing. It annoyed me to no end when I got the right answer but lost marks for not showing my work.
However this is a discussion board, not a math test. Being able to predict that GG is not the right coach for the team is all well and good, but it doesn't exactly help the discussion. When you show your work others can learn from your analysis. When the outcome doesn't align with the underlying stats, we can ask what other factors may be contributing, or if there's better stats to track. When it's time to look at a new coach we can analyze their previous teams and try to use that to predict how they may coach the Flames.
Now that's not to say you have to use fancy stats to have a good discussion. The eye test is still useful, but you still need to explain why certain things are failing the eye test. You may hate how much time GG spends looking at his iPad, but does that actually matter? If you base your predictions on your gut instincts, or don't bother explaining your analysis, how are we supposed to talk about it, and how are we supposed to give you any more credibility than a coin flip?
Gaskal and other posters have done great jobs in the past of breaking down plays, showing those of us with less real hockey knowledge insight into what flaws there may be in GGs system, or the play style of the team. We don't need fancy stats for great analysis and discussion. Just people willing to take the time to explain why they believe what they believe.
If you just want to say "I told you so", be my guest, but don't expect the same level of respect as those who take the time to show their work.