I wonder if the team needs a bigger presence on the bench because they seem to have trouble managing games. That's a Gulutzan issue in that he can't seem to save them, but not a system as no coach would tell his players to abandon everything and panic when the other team scores.
I also wonder if the system is good for having the puck and generating zone time and chance stats without actually out chancing the opposition...
I have been leaning this way for a while now, but this is difficult because correctly identifying precisely how to fix it is not simple.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I think it's pretty much exactly what many of us have been saying for the majority of the season. Don't discredit someone else's analysis simply because it took you longer to arrive at the position.
"Many of us" have been jumping to the conclusion without doing the analysis at all.
When I was in highschool I, along with everyone else, took math classes. When we were given a test we would be given full marks for getting the answer correct. If our answer was incorrect we could still get part marks for showing our work. I never showed my work. I could look at problems and know the answer, usually much quicker than other students who wrote everything out. Just because I didn't write out long solutions, didn't mean I didn't understand the problem. I got to the correct answer. That alone showed I understood the problem and the solution. Because someone else's written response took multiple lines, and he/she took longer, it didn't make his/her response better than mine. If anything, I got to the proper response quicker, meaning my response was better, as I was able to focus on other things in the same amount of time. I don't understand how you can discount someone's response because you don't like the way they got there.
__________________
My thanks equals mod team endorsement of your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Jesus this site these days
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame
He just seemed like a very nice person. I loved Squiggy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
I should probably stop posting at this point
The Following User Says Thank You to squiggs96 For This Useful Post:
Without knowing how the relationship between the coaches and players work it is pretty much impossible to know if these sorts of optical adjustments would have any impact on on-ice performance, and I suspect they would be negligible. I don't see this as an actual path to improvement.
When the GM questions whether the team is emotionally engaged it's fair game to observe how the coach interacts with the team, even in a limited viewing. While it is wrong to make sweeping judgements on that basis, this is one data point that routinely shows pretty unemotional behaviour by the coach. As Bingo mentioned...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
I wonder if the team needs a bigger presence on the bench because they seem to have trouble managing games.
Does that mean they need to be talked to on the bench? Not necessarily. But can you honestly say Gulutzan projects a presence in game or in press conferences? I don't see it. Maybe he does in the room but evidence is lacking.
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
When I was in highschool I, along with everyone else, took math classes. When we were given a test we would be given full marks for getting the answer correct. If our answer was incorrect we could still get part marks for showing our work. I never showed my work. I could look at problems and know the answer, usually much quicker than other students who wrote everything out. Just because I didn't write out long solutions, didn't mean I didn't understand the problem. I got to the correct answer. That alone showed I understood the problem and the solution. Because someone else's written response took multiple lines, and he/she took longer, it didn't make his/her response better than mine. If anything, I got to the proper response quicker, meaning my response was better, as I was able to focus on other things in the same amount of time. I don't understand how you can discount someone's response because you don't like the way they got there.
The process of arriving at a conclusion is just as important as the conclusion. If you guess right due to random chance, there are also going to be other times you guess wrong. If you do a proper analysis of the data, you are far more likely to end up with the right answer because there is a system in place to acquire knowledge. That, in fact, is how we can evaluate the quality of the conclusion in itself. If we can't see the process that led to that conclusion, the very conclusion becomes suspect. This is true of logic, science, and statistical analysis, and these are the tools that have led us to clear and objective conclusions based on empirical evidence rather than subjective analysis that may be flawed due to personal bias.
In short, I trust Bingo's conclusion far more than yours because he did the work to understand the problem objectively. Just because you were too lazy to support your conclusion doesn't mean we should give it the same validity.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
The process of arriving at a conclusion is just as important as the conclusion. If you guess right due to random chance, there are also going to be other times you guess wrong. If you do a proper analysis of the data, you are far more likely to end up with the right answer because there is a system in place to acquire knowledge. That, in fact, is how we can evaluate the quality of the conclusion in itself. If we can't see the process that led to that conclusion, the very conclusion becomes suspect. This is true of logic, science, and statistical analysis, and these are the tools that have led us to clear and objective conclusions based on empirical evidence rather than subjective analysis that may be flawed due to personal bias.
In short, I trust Bingo's conclusion far more than yours because he did the work to understand the problem objectively. Just because you were too lazy to support your conclusion doesn't mean we should give it the same validity.
I am a former Math teacher and in fact, I gave zero marks for just the answer. Give the right answer with method as well, you got full marks. Give the wrong answer with method, you might get partial marks.
Part of evaluating yourself as a teacher is to see if you explained the method(s) correctly.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to redforever For This Useful Post:
The process of arriving at a conclusion is just as important as the conclusion. If you guess right due to random chance, there are also going to be other times you guess wrong. If you do a proper analysis of the data, you are far more likely to end up with the right answer because there is a system in place to acquire knowledge. That, in fact, is how we can evaluate the quality of the conclusion in itself. If we can't see the process that led to that conclusion, the very conclusion becomes suspect. This is true of logic, science, and statistical analysis, and these are the tools that have led us to clear and objective conclusions based on empirical evidence rather than subjective analysis that may be flawed due to personal bias.
In short, I trust Bingo's conclusion far more than yours because he did the work to understand the problem objectively. Just because you were too lazy to support your conclusion doesn't mean we should give it the same validity.
You can micro analyze things to a fault. Take for example audio equipment, a given piece of gear can check every possible mark but still sound mediocre. There is a point where science is not enough the art of making something great is what separates average from the best.
The process of arriving at a conclusion is just as important as the conclusion. If you guess right due to random chance, there are also going to be other times you guess wrong. If you do a proper analysis of the data, you are far more likely to end up with the right answer because there is a system in place to acquire knowledge. That, in fact, is how we can evaluate the quality of the conclusion in itself. If we can't see the process that led to that conclusion, the very conclusion becomes suspect. This is true of logic, science, and statistical analysis, and these are the tools that have led us to clear and objective conclusions based on empirical evidence rather than subjective analysis that may be flawed due to personal bias.
In short, I trust Bingo's conclusion far more than yours because he did the work to understand the problem objectively. Just because you were too lazy to support your conclusion doesn't mean we should give it the same validity.
This is all true, but it's kind of missing the point here.
We all watched the games. I looked at the game and saw x-amount of chances.
Bingo or others saw the same game, but quoted someone elses interpretations of chances in form of stats websites.
So with some twisted logic applied, I arrived at a conclusion by doing the work, where others were just relying on others to do the work (charts and stats.) So I should get full marks, no?
Although Bingo often supported the stats with his own eye test so he gets some points too.
Point being, I watched and analyzed what I saw. As uneducated my analysis may be, I did all the work myself and got the results correct (if we can agree on the results).
Others looked at heat maps, graphs and other stats websites that made an assumption on how one team outplayed the other etc.
The problem here is were not solving a match equation, answers may be the same, similar or drastically different because they are subjective. Everyone interprets the faults differently and has a right to their own opinion clearly. With that being said its evident that there are users on here that agree with 2 different "demographics" in terms of what ails the flames.
Numbers guys who read stat lines based on CORSI and other analytics and try and justify the %'s as to why the flames are good or not.
Fans who watch the games and can see based on the effort displayed on the ice, the line choices and game time decisions (or lake there of) and question how on earth we've amounted to such a ####ty record.
At the end of the day, I think we can all agree there's something drastically wrong and that starts with the management/coaching and then out to the players to play the system established by the coach.
The process of arriving at a conclusion is just as important as the conclusion. If you guess right due to random chance, there are also going to be other times you guess wrong. If you do a proper analysis of the data, you are far more likely to end up with the right answer because there is a system in place to acquire knowledge. That, in fact, is how we can evaluate the quality of the conclusion in itself. If we can't see the process that led to that conclusion, the very conclusion becomes suspect. This is true of logic, science, and statistical analysis, and these are the tools that have led us to clear and objective conclusions based on empirical evidence rather than subjective analysis that may be flawed due to personal bias.
In short, I trust Bingo's conclusion far more than yours because he did the work to understand the problem objectively. Just because you were too lazy to support your conclusion doesn't mean we should give it the same validity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redforever
I am a former Math teacher and in fact, I gave zero marks for just the answer. Give the right answer with method as well, you got full marks. Give the wrong answer with method, you might get partial marks.
Part of evaluating yourself as a teacher is to see if you explained the method(s) correctly.
So.....what you guys are saying is that the Process and the System are more important than the results?
Well then....Gully is your man! Systems and Processes with crap results are basically his stock-in-trade!
That being said though, the NHL isnt where you come to get an education, its where you come to perform after your education.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
This is all true, but it's kind of missing the point here.
We all watched the games. I looked at the game and saw x-amount of chances.
Bingo or others saw the same game, but quoted someone elses interpretations of chances in form of stats websites.
So with some twisted logic applied, I arrived at a conclusion by doing the work, where others were just relying on others to do the work (charts and stats.) So I should get full marks, no?
Although Bingo often supported the stats with his own eye test so he gets some points too.
Point being, I watched and analyzed what I saw. As uneducated my analysis may be, I did all the work myself and got the results correct (if we can agree on the results).
Others looked at heat maps, graphs and other stats websites that made an assumption on how one team outplayed the other etc.
The point is your analysis may be flawed because of the subjectivity of it. There's no empirical data to go along with your interpretation. So yes, this time your interpretation is correct, but it's about 50/50 or maybe 60/40 at best to assume your interpretation will be correct in the future.
I can't tell you how many times I thought I was right about player X or team Y only to be proven wrong later. Objective analysis will often give you perspective on a situation that you may not have been aware of, and it's an objective reality, so you have to include it in your thought process somewhere. How you decide to form a conclusion should have some sort of objective process to it, because we are all prone to bias, and we are especially prone to emotional responses/overreactions when we are talking about sports.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
The Following User Says Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
Point being, I watched and analyzed what I saw. As uneducated my analysis may be, I did all the work myself and got the results correct (if we can agree on the results).
A lot of people on CP – I think you may have been one of them; I would have to go over a lot of posting history to be sure, but if this doesn't apply to you, great – a lot of people watched, analysed what they saw, came to a conclusion some time in October or November, and then only saw the things that supported that conclusion. Which is worse than not watching the games at all.
If you watched the games and didn't keep count of the scoring chances, you only have an impression of what you saw. Impressions are not analysis. That's why people keep statistics in the first place: so we can check our impressions against the data, and not merely go on looking for things that confirm the impressions we have already formed.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
Dammit, now I'm triggered. The answer is what matters. Just because some people are too slow and have to waste time you don't punish others who don't take all day to do something. Not how the real world works. Anyway back to the subject of hockey umm... I agree with the one guy on the last page.
I am a former Math teacher and in fact, I gave zero marks for just the answer. Give the right answer with method as well, you got full marks. Give the wrong answer with method, you might get partial marks.
Part of evaluating yourself as a teacher is to see if you explained the method(s) correctly.
You wouldn't be my favourite teacher if this was your method. Let's say this is stats, algebra, or something complex. You're wanting to find x to five significant digits. The answer is 14.387. I put down 14.387. I clearly understand how everything works as I got the exact answer. You cannot guess the answer 14.387 when it's not multiple choice. If you could, you should be playing lottery numbers, the stock market, or setting up a booth in the mall to tell people their fortunes, since you have an incredible gift of guessing. If you think I copied the answer off of someone else, then give me another question and I'll do the same. It would also be odd how I copied the answer and still finished ahead of the rest of the class.
You giving me a zero for having the correct answer because I didn't write down what was going on in my head is wrong. As a student, I wasn't there to explain it to you or help you understand. I wasn't your tutor. If I got the right answer, then you can pat yourself on the back that you did a great job teaching me. If I get the wrong answer, I'll take the zero. That's a risk I'm willing to assume. There are problems I need to write down to work out. There are others I don't. I've often heard not everyone learns the same way, so it seems silly to punish someone for getting the right answer, because they didn't copy down every thought. If I see a sprinter get to the finish line first I give him the gold medal. I don't ask him what work he put in to get there.
How does this relate to the Flames? Many of us arrived at the conclusion that GG needed to be fired. Others contended throughout the year that because of advanced metrics that they weren't sure. After coming around to the same conclusion, we are told that our analysis wasn't done properly. Just because it too some longer to get to the conclusion, because they used some more data that got to the same point, doesn't make their conclusion better, when it's the same. Obviously this isn't getting to the answer of 14.387 on a math test, but it's not much different.
__________________
My thanks equals mod team endorsement of your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Jesus this site these days
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame
He just seemed like a very nice person. I loved Squiggy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
I should probably stop posting at this point
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to squiggs96 For This Useful Post:
You wouldn't be my favourite teacher if this was your method. Let's say this is stats, algebra, or something complex. You're wanting to find x to five significant digits. The answer is 14.387. I put down 14.387. I clearly understand how everything works as I got the exact answer. You cannot guess the answer 14.387 when it's not multiple choice. If you could, you should be playing lottery numbers, the stock market, or setting up a booth in the mall to tell people their fortunes, since you have an incredible gift of guessing. If you think I copied the answer off of someone else, then give me another question and I'll do the same. It would also be odd how I copied the answer and still finished ahead of the rest of the class.
You giving me a zero for having the correct answer because I didn't write down what was going on in my head is wrong. As a student, I wasn't there to explain it to you or help you understand. I wasn't your tutor. If I got the right answer, then you can pat yourself on the back that you did a great job teaching me. If I get the wrong answer, I'll take the zero. That's a risk I'm willing to assume. There are problems I need to write down to work out. There are others I don't. I've often heard not everyone learns the same way, so it seems silly to punish someone for getting the right answer, because they didn't copy down every thought. If I see a sprinter get to the finish line first I give him the gold medal. I don't ask him what work he put in to get there.
How does this relate to the Flames? Many of us arrived at the conclusion that GG needed to be fired. Others contended throughout the year that because of advanced metrics that they weren't sure. After coming around to the same conclusion, we are told that our analysis wasn't done properly. Just because it too some longer to get to the conclusion, because they used some more data that got to the same point, doesn't make their conclusion better, when it's the same. Obviously this isn't getting to the answer of 14.387 on a math test, but it's not much different.
I have never supported the hire of GG from about 4 months into the hiring.
Now I might not think he is the right coach and I might not like the system he employs, but I expect the players to play as he says.
I would not take kindly to any defense man or forward saying, I know how to play my position, I will do what I think is best, anymore than I would support a student saying, I know the answer, I don't have to show the method.
Guys, if you don't take the maximum amount of time possible to arrive at the same conclusion, you're an irrational hothead and your opinion means nothing.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
