[News] LeBrun/Dreger - Flames open for Business

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Fourteen FTW

I think spurs is flip-flopping

Based on absolutely nothing?

LOL

[Fourteen FTW]

Also, I think we should turn this into its own threat

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I have repeatedly put the question in this very thread. If you didn't think it was directed at you, that's your damned fault.



Then please quote yourself. I did not see you answer it.

LOL

If you posted in response to someone else that is your fault. Sorry I can't read you mind.

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Spurs

I said if it is possible to get 3 players the quality that Detroit did.

That is the big difference. Getting a Gaudreau is certainly always possible but getting 3 Hall of Fame players in the 3rd, 6th and 7th rounds is probably not happening again.

Thank you for clearing that up. You didn’t specify. Flames were sort of kind of 2/3rds of the way there. Gaudreau and Gio.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Spurs

Again explaining it isn't dismissing it.

You cannot say, ‘X is a universal rule, except for all the exceptions.’ If it were a universal rule, there would be no exceptions.

Wrong again

You don't know what ‘rule’ means in this context, do you?

If someone says ‘You CANNOT win the Cup without a top-2 pick that you drafted,’ then EVEN ONE EXCEPTION proves that statement wrong.

St. Louis drafted Pietrangelo

4th overall. The claim I am contending against is that it has to be a top-2 pick. Pietrangelo DOES NOT COUNT in supporting that claim.

On a Flames message board, in a Flames thread, with people talking about whether the team should rebuild, retool, recycle, reboot nobody is talking about the Flames? LOL

LOL yourself. I'll talk about what I damned well want to talk about. When somebody claims that X is the ONLY way to win the Stanley Cup, they are obviously NOT talking exclusively about the Flames. At that point we are talking about the NHL in general, and if you don't like it, you can stick it.

Nobody has said having a top 3 pick is a guarantee.

Nobody has run the numbers to SHOW THE CORRELATION.

No it is you making up things that were never said.

Bull. I am trying to point out that YOU PROVE NOTHING UNTIL YOU ESTABLISH A CORRELATION. And nobody has done the work with the null hypothesis!

You do know what a null hypothesis is, don't you?

LOL sure the draft is a vote and the argument I am posting has shown to be true.

‘LOL’ is not an argument. And the argument you are posting has NOT shown to be true, because YOU HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED THE CORRELATION.

[mrdonkey]

[Fourteen FTW]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You cannot say, ‘X is a universal rule, except for all the exceptions.’ If it were a universal rule, there would be no exceptions.



You don't know what ‘rule’ means in this context, do you?

If someone says ‘You CANNOT win the Cup without a top-2 pick that you drafted,’ then EVEN ONE EXCEPTION proves that statement wrong.



4th overall. The claim I am contending against is that it has to be a top-2 pick. Pietrangelo DOES NOT COUNT in supporting that claim.



LOL yourself. I'll talk about what I damned well want to talk about. When somebody claims that X is the ONLY way to win the Stanley Cup, they are obviously NOT talking exclusively about the Flames. At that point we are talking about the NHL in general, and if you don't like it, you can stick it.



Nobody has run the numbers to SHOW THE CORRELATION.



Bull. I am trying to point out that YOU PROVE NOTHING UNTIL YOU ESTABLISH A CORRELATION. And nobody has done the work with the null hypothesis!

You do know what a null hypothesis is, don't you?



‘LOL’ is not an argument. And the argument you are posting has NOT shown to be true, because YOU HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED THE CORRELATION.

I’ll give you a null hypothesis, spurs is a flip-flopper

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

“Furious George! What did they do to you?”

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Spurs

LOL

Gee, that showed me.

Address my points or don't. But don't go ‘LOL’ as if that were a substitute for addressing them.

If you posted in response to someone else that is your fault. Sorry I can't read you mind.

How about reading the thread?

The question has been repeatedly asked (not just by me, by GioforPM and Textcritic too) and NEVER answered.

‘Hurrr durrr, I don't know what was posted in this thread becuz I'm not a mind-reader!’

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You cannot say, ‘X is a universal rule, except for all the exceptions.’ If it were a universal rule, there would be no exceptions.

Who said it was a universal rule?

4th overall. The claim I am contending against is that it has to be a top-2 pick. Pietrangelo DOES NOT COUNT in supporting that claim.

I never said top 2 so ask that to the person who did.

LOL yourself. I'll talk about what I damned well want to talk about. When somebody claims that X is the ONLY way to win the Stanley Cup, they are obviously NOT talking exclusively about the Flames. At that point we are talking about the NHL in general, and if you don't like it, you can stick it.

Where did I say you couldn't talk about it or that I didn't like it?

I only pointed out that we are clearly talking about the Flames when you claimed nobody was.

Nobody has run the numbers to SHOW THE CORRELATION.

So what? Are you ignoring the fact that nobody has said that a top 3 pick guarantees that you win a Cup?

Bull. I am trying to point out that YOU PROVE NOTHING UNTIL YOU ESTABLISH A CORRELATION. And nobody has done the work with the null hypothesis!

Again that has nothing to do with the point you made. If you want to change the point fine, but it has nothing to do with me not grasping things and you try to move the goal posts.

You do know what a null hypothesis is, don't you?

Yes



‘LOL’ is not an argument. And the argument you are posting has NOT shown to be true, because YOU HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED THE CORRELATION.[/QUOTE]

LOL is an argument when you are responding to silly #### like the Conn Smythe is the determiner of who the "big star" is and is comparable to the NHL draft. LOL

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Gee, that showed me.

Address my points or don't. But don't go ‘LOL’ as if that were a substitute for addressing them.



How about reading the thread?

The question has been repeatedly asked (not just by me, by GioforPM and Textcritic too) and NEVER answered.

‘Hurrr durrr, I don't know what was posted in this thread becuz I'm not a mind-reader!’

Never said it wasn't posted in this thread, I said it was directed to me multiple times as you stated, again making things up. When it was directed to me I responded to the post.

[Fourteen FTW]

https://thewincolumn.ca/2023/04/29/b...ss-in-the-nhl/

I have no dog in this fight. I did see this article though.

EDIT: please tell me one of your wrote it

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Spurs

Who said it was a universal rule?

Jason14h, who is saying that you CANNOT win the Stanley Cup in any other way.

I never said top 2 so ask that to the person who did.

I did, and all he has done is double down on his initial statement.

Where did I say you couldn't talk about it or that I didn't like it?

You thought ‘LOL’ was a sufficient answer when I said what I was talking about. Evidently you believed that I wasn't talking about the thing that I explicitly said I was, and insisted that the conversation had to be about what you decided I must be talking about.

I only pointed out that we are clearly talking about the Flames when you claimed nobody was.

We are clearly talking about how a team, any team, can be built to win the Stanley Cup. Whether the Flames ever can or will get there is a separate question, which we have not even begun to discuss.

So what? Are you ignoring the fact that nobody has said that a top 3 pick guarantees that you win a Cup?

I am RECOGNIZING the fact that nobody has identified a CORRELATION between a top-2 pick (which is what Jason14h insists on, for some reason) and winning the Cup.

I'm still waiting for someone to acknowledge that point.

Again that has nothing to do with the point you made. If you want to change the point fine, but it has nothing to do with me not grasping things and you try to move the goal posts.

No, THAT IS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT, because that IS the point I made.

NOBODY HAS ESTABLISHED A CORRELATION. That is my ENTIRE point. Without a correlation, there is NO CASE. People are jumping to the conclusion based on nothing but the fallacy of survivorship bias.

LOL is an argument when you are responding to silly #### like the Conn Smythe is the determiner of who the "big star" is and is comparable to the NHL draft. LOL

Really? So according to you, this is silly:

‘X was the most valuable player in his team's Stanley Cup win because he won the Conn Smythe trophy for being the most valuable player in his team's Stanley Cup win.’

But this is not silly:

‘Y was the most valuable player in his team's Stanley Cup win because he had the highest draft position many years ago.’

Give your head a shake.

[Vinny01]

Nm

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Fourteen FTW

https://thewincolumn.ca/2023/04/29/b...ss-in-the-nhl/

I have no dog in this fight. I did see this article though.

EDIT: please tell me one of your wrote it

Here's the graph with the actual data from that article:



That there is what statisticians like to call ‘a cloud of dots’. I'm blest if I can see any strong correlation there. If anything, there is a weak negative correlation – teams with the most playoff wins tend to have fewer than average top-10 picks, whereas the teams with the most top-10 picks have had very little playoff success.

So that particular set of data does not at all support the case that the article tries to make. The author actually looked at the numbers and then rejected them in favour of the narrative he wanted to push.

[Fourteen FTW]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Here's the graph with the actual data from that article:



That there is what statisticians like to call ‘a cloud of dots’. I'm blest if I can see any strong correlation there. If anything, there is a weak negative correlation – teams with the most playoff wins tend to have fewer than average top-10 picks, whereas the teams with the most top-10 picks have had very little playoff success.

So that particular set of data does not at all support the case that the article tries to make. The author actually looked at the numbers and then rejected them in favour of the narrative he wanted to push.

So you’re saying, the author is a bit of a flip-flopper?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Fourteen FTW

So you’re saying, the author is a bit of a flip-flopper?

I'm afraid I'm saying the author is one of those people who like to say, ‘I know what I know. Don't confuse me with the facts!’

Are you slyly hinting that he actually is one of the participants in this thread?

[Fourteen FTW]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm afraid I'm saying the author is one of those people who like to say, ‘I know what I know. Don't confuse me with the facts!’

Well, case closed, right spurs? You can argue with a good scatterplot.

[Fourteen FTW]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm afraid I'm saying the author is one of those people who like to say, ‘I know what I know. Don't confuse me with the facts!’

Are you slyly hinting that he actually is one of the participants in this thread?

Well, it’s pretty well align to the topic of conversation. I truly have no idea though .

GFG

[Harry Lime]

It's starting ro look like this might be a team game.
Perhaps the deciding factor is a gm who isn't ####.