View Single Post
Old 08-07-2018, 02:22 AM   #70
Jay Random
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
An irrelevant source? The generally accepted view is that those numbers understate the value of the top picks in the NHL, and that the NHL curve is even more parabolic. That doesn't make them irrelevant. Sometimes you just don't know when to stop.
The numbers are not from the NHL, and as such they are irrelevant to the NHL. You are guessing that they apply, despite not having access to any comparable numbers for the NHL to see if they actually do apply. If you had numbers for the NHL, you would use those instead. You don't, so you cite unspecified sources that say the NHL numbers are ‘even more parabolic’, despite not having any information about what those actual numbers might be. So you are not only guessing, but handwaving your guesswork. When called on the BS, you double down.

It is an elementary law of statistics that you cannot use numbers from one population to make generalizations about a different population. In jobs where the application of statistics actually matters, such as industrial process-control engineering, such abuse of statistics is a firing offence.

Sometimes you just don't know when you never should have started.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.

Last edited by Jay Random; 08-07-2018 at 02:26 AM.
Jay Random is offline   Reply With Quote