Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Sorry, what else am I supposed to gather from your response? That you do have an explanation but you’re not telling because it’s a secret and so complex and uninteresting that nobody could possibly be interested even though you’re literally being asked for that explanation? lol
Asking you questions about your opinion is not attempting to score points against you. If you don’t have answers and don’t know or haven’t thought about things that’s fine, we’re just a bunch of hockey fans shooting the ####. I literally do not know how a stats from a single game cannot be representative of that single game. That’s why I asked.
But playing super coy about your thoughts and labelling questions about them “weird” or “creepy” or pretending to speak for the whole board in an attempt to shut it down is not a normal way to have a conversation, Enoch. If you’re going to act that way, why bother participate at all? Who is that for?
I say things all the time I haven’t thought through all the way. It’s OK to just go on vibes and be wrong or not know stuff. It’s not like there’s a job waiting for the best pretend hockey expert on CP, so just relax once in a while. No need to put on a show to impress anybody.
|
Wow. This is all in your head. I am not being coy, or pretending anything, or trying to have secrets. I don't get upset over comments on CP (as you have tried to imply at other times). And I'm not
acting in any way or trying to put on a show - I simply commented on some stats because I had an opinion to share. And I don't owe you or anyone else an explanation for my comments.
If you in fact don't know how small sample sizes can be wildly misrepresentative, and you are interested, I would suggest you look into it. Stats and statistical analysis are, IMO, an incredibly interesting and useful field (though I fully understand that most people don't agree, LOL). And as I have said on here a hundred times, most people do not know how to read and interpret them, never mind understanding how dependent models are on the inputs chosen, and how useless the results actually are, if the inputs are chosen poorly (and the problem with hockey is that events are all muddied together and players are co-dependent on each other, so events can't be fully isolated (like baseball for example), and thus most of the inputs are pretty useless, unfortunately).
So learning a little more about it can be interesting and helpful.
But I have also found that bringing these things up is completely pointless and frustrating, and the rebuttals usually involve comments about eye tests and personal bias (which have some validity, but also completely miss the point), while the next post will re-quote the same stat again, and make the same mistake with its interpretation.
So I comment and I move on.