Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
You are wrong.
Incomplete data produces an incomplete picture. It's not "incorrect" so much as it is partial and not precise. I think it is much like any science: opinions about the age of the earth have changed numerous times over the past two centuries in the development of the study of geology. We understand previous attempts as "wrong" in the sense that they were not as precise, but these earlier calculations proved at the same time to be very useful.
No one has "established" this. I see a bunch of varying opinions about the accuracy of certain aspects in measuring HDSC, and an awareness that there are degrees of accuracy on the basis of other criteria.
Yes. The Canucks were the better team and absolutely deserved to win. My irritation and my point is that several people exaggerate a bad performance into something much worse than it actually was. It's unnecessary, and unhelpful.
|
Just stop. It's nonsense.
HDSC is a collection of very specific events. It's clearly defined.
A breakaway or an Ovechkin shot from the slot is not one for instance. Nothing else to say here. It's a junk stat. Do yourself a favour and stop relying on in. Better yet, do CP a favour and don't use it to correct others. It's just silly.