Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
The biggest difference is he's not really looking at data. He's looking for patterns that fit his hypothesis.
For instance the hypothesis is the depth players are underperforming because of what the coach is telling them.
We know the depth players are struggling
What data supports it's because of what the coach is telling them? I suppose historic performance and their declines since being in Calgary? But there are several other factors that could be influencing that. Have those been examined?
Agree the standard is far lower for an internet chat forum, but I just think a lot of people are looking at things that suit their narrative.
We all do it. I do it. But let's be aware of this biases as they come into play.
|
Very sanctimonious. Exactly what data should I be looking at to confirm Ward is a good or bad coach? Wins/losses, CF%, goal differential? Are we statistical darlings under Ward?
You seem to be honing in on one of many things I and other people have said. Stawman much?
Supporters of Ward (and detractors of the core) like to say the core is heartless and/or not doing what they are told. I merely pointed out that the players who are mostly likely to bust their butt on every shift and do exactly what they are told are also struggling. At least argue Lucic is the exception.
The frustrating part of this discussion is that Ward detractors point out, time after time, what they believe to be things that show Ward is not effective as a head coach. Instead of a single counterpart the response is "the core is rotten/heartless/not skilled enough.
If you want to talk about confirmation bias let's talk about the complete and utter discounting of the fact the Flames finished second in the NHL two years ago. People ignoring that are guilty of confirmation bias. Not people who point out that Ward has done exactly squat as a head coach.