Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
Finding more statistics that support your confirmation bias is not being "open to new ideas". You're presenting a variation of a failed case as if it's a fresh, intriguing slant on last season, but it's not - what would be intriguing is if you found some numbers that showed the Flames were about as bad as they should have been. What would be fresh is if you said, "In retrospect, those calling for the coach to be fired mid-season weren't at all premature."
Just because an idea is new, or seemingly objective, doesn't make it correct. A theory with no explanatory power IS useless, and data that supports no theorizing is equally so. It is incumbent on the person proposing the theory to show its validity, and not the skeptic's place to let error ride unchallenged.
|
You replied calling counting stats from an independent objective source wrong because it didn’t fit your bias
They can’t be wrong. They are what they are.
You’re welcome to explain why they don’t have value to you hit they’re not wrong.
Many felt the Flames were a perimeter team last year. These stats prove they weren’t.
I didn’t suggest Gulutzan’s system was vindicated in any way.
So odd reply in my opinion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk