Quote:
Originally Posted by ComixZone
...what a useless conversation this is then.
I'm saying you need something to act as the foundation to build a championship team otherwise you're an outlier and your odds of success are greatly reduced.
|
And you are wrong.
Teams with top-3 picks: approximately 90% of the teams, 88% of the championships.
Teams without top-3 picks: approximately 10% of the teams, 12% of the championships.
There is no correlation. PLEASE, before you try to respond, look up ‘correlation’ and at least try to understand the plain meaning of what I am saying. You haven't twigged so far; all your replies keep straying further from the point.
Quote:
|
I'm pulling what the basis for that foundation should be based on similarities with championship teams in recent history.
|
This is what is called survivorship bias. By only looking at the successes, you do not determine what caused the success. You have to look at what is different between the successes and the failures, and the presence of top-3 picks is not that.
Quote:
|
and you just...don't believe in anything but luck.
|
I know for absolutely certain that in a capped league, luck makes the difference between champions and also-rans.
Quote:
|
So there's no point in planning a roster or hiring good coaches because you can't account for the fact that you just need bounces.
|
Not what I said at all, but you do you.
Quote:
|
Maybe we can sign James Neal, Troy Brouwer, a 48 year old Cale Hulse and have them coached by Glen Gulutzan and they stand just as good a chance as a Joe Sakic crafted roster because they may get lucky. Neat.
|
Not what I said at all, but you do you.
It isn't just correlation that you don't understand, is it? Basic English sentences don't seem to be your strong suit either.