The Glorious 112

wrote in message


<snip>

All this whining yet not one wings homer can contradict Tom's math. How can
this be?
 >> Stay informed about: The Glorious 112 

n Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:56:11 -0400, "Freedom Elz"
wrote:

>
> wrote in message
>
>
><snip>
>
>All this whining yet not one wings homer can contradict Tom's math. How can
>this be?
>
Maybe I'm under a mistaken impression but I thought the draft was
suppose to improve one's team. 75% of Colorado's picks never played a
single game for Colorado. Another 4 played less than 10 and another 5
less than thirty. Basically half of your first rounders didn't either
while all of Detroit's have except Grigorenko who will shortly.

The fact is that platers from that draft that played at least 100
games for Colrado were Hinote, Nieminen, Aebischer Tanguay, Skoula,
Vrbata, Liles, Svatos, Richardson and Parker. For Detroit -
Dandenault, Holstrom, Kuznetsov, Fisher, Datsuyk, Zetterberg and
Holstrom. Colorado has more but than they had more and higher picks.

Thomas can play with figures all he wants but when it comes to "where
the rubber meets the road" Detroit did just as well as Colorado during
that period.
 >> Stay informed about: The Glorious 112 

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:56:11 -0400, "Freedom Elz"
wrote:

> wrote in message
>
>
><snip>
>
>All this whining yet not one wings homer can contradict Tom's math. How can
>this be?

Two quick points.

As I've already stated, Tom's math lacks proper (or any) context. He
might as well have rattled off random Keno numbers in an attempt to
make his point.

From a practical point of view, what's been the outcome of this
supposed drafting disparity? Historically, it's meant 3 Cups for
Detroit and 2 for Colorado. Recently, it's meant a trip to the WCF
for Detroit and spring tee times for Colorado.

Now, I'm sure I'll catch all sorts of hell for that, but that's been
the outcome.

Where's the context in regards to the franchise's different
team-building strategies? What's been the real-world outcome of all
these data points? Does Tom have any idea how to present data in a
reasonable format?

You guys can get all wet over a bunch of random numbers if you like,
but a bunch of random numerals does not a solid conclusion make.
 >> Stay informed about: The Glorious 112 

xpenenyx DeleteThis @earthlink.net wrote:
> n Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:56:11 -0400, "Freedom Elz"
> wrote:
>
>> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> All this whining yet not one wings homer can contradict Tom's math. How can
>> this be?
>>
> Maybe I'm under a mistaken impression but I thought the draft was
> suppose to improve one's team. 75% of Colorado's picks never played a
> single game for Colorado. Another 4 played less than 10 and another 5
> less than thirty. Basically half of your first rounders didn't either
> while all of Detroit's have except Grigorenko who will shortly.
>
> The fact is that platers from that draft that played at least 100
> games for Colrado were Hinote, Nieminen, Aebischer Tanguay, Skoula,
> Vrbata, Liles, Svatos, Richardson and Parker. For Detroit -
> Dandenault, Holstrom, Kuznetsov, Fisher, Datsuyk, Zetterberg and
> Holstrom. Colorado has more but than they had more and higher picks.
>
> Thomas can play with figures all he wants but when it comes to "where
> the rubber meets the road" Detroit did just as well as Colorado during
> that period.

You must be dizzy from all that spinning, Doogs.

-Thomas
 >> Stay informed about: The Glorious 112 

>The plain and simple fact is that I ran the numbers. I sliced things the
>way you guys wanted them sliced, and they didn't turn out how you wanted
>them. I proved my argument beyond any reasonable doubt, and now you're
>backpedaling.
>
>Now, this is when Chris comes in and says something to appease you, you
>compliment him, and you insult me. It's all 100% predictable.

Walk, I think you look really good in that new sports jacket. And
have you lost a few pounds?

>I knew full well that you wouldn't be able to accept the facts that I
>presented. But that says everything about you, and absolutely nothing
>about me.

I think the analysis is good, and moderately irrefutable.

Chris
 >> Stay informed about: The Glorious 112 

"Chris" wrote in message

>
> I think the analysis is good, and moderately irrefutable.
>
> Chris

Did you and Thomas attend the same ESL classes?
 >> Stay informed about: The Glorious 112 

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:37:47 GMT, "Grande Mal"
wrote:

>
>"Chris" wrote in message
>
>>
>> I think the analysis is good, and moderately irrefutable.
>>
>> Chris
>
>Did you and Thomas attend the same ESL classes?

I don't know what you're referring to, but I found his post
interesting at the very least, enlightening at the very best. He made
some good points.

Chris
 >> Stay informed about: The Glorious 112 

"Chris" wrote in message

>
>>The plain and simple fact is that I ran the numbers. I sliced things the
>>way you guys wanted them sliced, and they didn't turn out how you wanted
>>them. I proved my argument beyond any reasonable doubt, and now you're
>>backpedaling.
>>
>>Now, this is when Chris comes in and says something to appease you, you
>>compliment him, and you insult me. It's all 100% predictable.
>
> Walk, I think you look really good in that new sports jacket. And
> have you lost a few pounds?


LOL! You know Chris, every once in a while that sence of humer sneaks it's
way out of you. Keep it up eh!
 >> Stay informed about: The Glorious 112 

"Chris" wrote in message

> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:37:47 GMT, "Grande Mal"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Chris" wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> I think the analysis is good, and moderately irrefutable.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>>Did you and Thomas attend the same ESL classes?
>
> I don't know what you're referring to,

Probably, neither would he.

but I found his post
> interesting at the very least, enlightening at the very best. He made
> some good points.
>
> Chris

I shouldn't have posted that. It was a reference to 'moderately irrefutable'
and would have been appropriate if you were Thomas. Sorry about that.
If you're referring to his statistical concoctions as 'interesting', I'd
like to remind you of a cite from, I think, Mark Twain, "There's lies, damn
lies, and statistics."
 >> Stay informed about: The Glorious 112 

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:17:24 GMT, "Grande Mal"
wrote:

>
>"Chris" wrote in message
>
>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:37:47 GMT, "Grande Mal"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Chris" wrote in message
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think the analysis is good, and moderately irrefutable.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>
>>>Did you and Thomas attend the same ESL classes?
>>
>> I don't know what you're referring to,
>
>Probably, neither would he.

I'm not exactly sure what I did to invite these types of responses
from you.

The belated birthday card is coming, Mal - I swear! It's in the mail!
Damn it, I've been busy at work.....a dog stole it......locusts!!!!!

>but I found his post
>> interesting at the very least, enlightening at the very best. He made
>> some good points.
>>
>> Chris
>
>I shouldn't have posted that. It was a reference to 'moderately irrefutable'
>and would have been appropriate if you were Thomas. Sorry about that.
>If you're referring to his statistical concoctions as 'interesting', I'd
>like to remind you of a cite from, I think, Mark Twain, "There's lies, damn
>lies, and statistics."

See, I like statistics (if they are objectively collected). While the
importance of a given stat is always subject to analysis, they tend to
give us generalities which are very often useful. But, as you say,
they can be dangerous as well.

To that end, to what part of his statistical analysis do you object
(other than the common objection that occurs in here - that Thomas is
the one who did the analysis)?

Chris
 >> Stay informed about: The Glorious 112 

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:17:24 GMT, "Grande Mal"
wrote:

>
>"Chris" wrote in message
>
>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:37:47 GMT, "Grande Mal"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Chris" wrote in message
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think the analysis is good, and moderately irrefutable.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>
>>>Did you and Thomas attend the same ESL classes?
>>
>> I don't know what you're referring to,

English as a Second Language?
>
>Probably, neither would he.
>
>but I found his post
>> interesting at the very least, enlightening at the very best. He made
>> some good points.
>>
>> Chris
>
>I shouldn't have posted that. It was a reference to 'moderately irrefutable'
>and would have been appropriate if you were Thomas. Sorry about that.
>If you're referring to his statistical concoctions as 'interesting', I'd
>like to remind you of a cite from, I think, Mark Twain, "There's lies, damn
>lies, and statistics."
>
 >> Stay informed about: The Glorious 112 

>> The belated birthday card is coming, Mal - I swear! It's in the mail!
>> Damn it, I've been busy at work.....a dog stole it......locusts!!!!!
>>
>>>but I found his post
>>>> interesting at the very least, enlightening at the very best. He made
>>>> some good points.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>
>>>I shouldn't have posted that. It was a reference to 'moderately
>>>irrefutable'
>>>and would have been appropriate if you were Thomas. Sorry about that.
>
>There. See that? That's called an apology.

Ah yes. I skimmed through that part, sorry about that. Did you get
my bday card? It's coming.....really it is. :-)

>>>If you're referring to his statistical concoctions as 'interesting', I'd
>>>like to remind you of a cite from, I think, Mark Twain, "There's lies,
>>>damn
>>>lies, and statistics."
>>
>> See, I like statistics (if they are objectively collected).
>
>When you say 'objectively collected' I understand that to mean that the
>collector isn't letting his preconceptions or prejudices colour his
>findings. That line up with you?

Actually, no. That would be the statistics being 'objectively
analyzed'.

What I mean by 'objectively collected' is that the statistics
collected are 'hard facts' - i.e. 63% of Colorado's picks actually
*did* play in the NHL. The numbers aren't disputable, ala how many
hits or takeaways a player had in a given game. Those stats are
completely subjective, the collection of them not governed by a strict
set of 'truths'.

The other issue regarding 'objectively collected' is whether the
collector of the information did so accurately, and didn't
purposefully skew the results. I'm taking the latter on faith, along
with the fact that I'm certainly not going to go out and re-check
them. :-)

> While the
>> importance of a given stat is always subject to analysis, they tend to
>> give us generalities which are very often useful.
>
>'Generalities' are useful when speaking in general terms. They're useless
>when applied to specifics Would you agree?

No. I can see where that could happen certainly, but a blanket
statement like that is dangerous.

For example, most people who contract ALS die within 5 years. If I
just got diagnosed with ALS: is the aforementioned general statistic
applicable here to my specific situation?

(Kind of a morbid example, but it's early...).

> But, as you say,
>> they can be dangerous as well.
>>
>> To that end, to what part of his statistical analysis do you object
>> (other than the common objection that occurs in here - that Thomas is
>> the one who did the analysis)?
>
>On general terms, the fact that Thomas gathered the numbers is enough for
>me. Specifically, some really valid objections have been raised by others in
>other threads. See in particular 'Hockeyguy's diatribe about weighting of
>samples in a statiscal study. But I don't really care about any of that- I
>just object to Thomas, an allegedly educated individual, trying to blow
>smoke up peoples asses by using words he isn't familiar with in hopes that
>he can 'baffle 'em with bullshit'. I hate pretension- especially such
>transparent pretension.

Well, I suspect most of the responses to his post tend to be born out
of the feelings of the poster for Thomas. I'm just lookng at what he
posted, not the manner in which he posted, nor the personality of ther
person posting it.

Chris
 >> Stay informed about: The Glorious 112 

> purpose. Every argument centered around these numbers would be bullshit.
> There's no point in that.
>
> -Thomas

Right... Like you, most analysis believe the really solid and supportable
numerical studies come from reading the patterns in the bottom of a
Mayonnaise jar
 >> Stay informed about: The Glorious 112