Why the Avs will regress next year

[FlaPanthers11]

That was the year they started to rebuild when we added our current best player and his now-partner to our current second best player. So if you're going to judge the rebuild you should start with its start.

Why shouldn't I? This team is much deeper, and those tanks took unreal injury problems. If you're going to predict hte avs are going to come back down to earth because they get decimated by injuries like few teams ever do, then I'll just ask you to put down some money on this so I can clean up.

Why would you start in a year in which: the current best player was a shell of his current self, the starting goalie hasn't played for the team in a few years now, the (arguably) 2nd and 3rd best players of the current team were not on the team, and the number one defenseman wasn't on the team?

You are judging a completely different team than what is left this season and moving on to next season. How does what that team did have ANY impact on what next season's team will do?

 

[cgf]

Why would you start in a year in which: the current best player was a shell of his current self, the starting goalie hasn't played for the team in a few years now, the (arguably) 2nd and 3rd best players of the current team were not on the team, and the number one defenseman wasn't on the team?

You are judging a completely different team than what is left this season and moving on to next season. How does what that team did have ANY impact on what next season's team will do?

I thought we were talking about how the rebuild has gone, no? Cause if you're just looking to prject what'll happen next year than none of the previous years tell you much, Duchene didn't break out until the lockout season, ROR and Landy have evolved their game every year, EJ is back on track, Varly has now broken out, our future best player is now on the team and we have a coach who's not just competent, which alone would've been a major boon, but is actually excellent. None of thsoe previous teams are going to tell you what'll happen enxt season, so if that's you're point it's even weaker than if we were just assessing the success of the rebuild so far.

 

[FlaPanthers11]

I thought we were talking about how the rebuild has gone, no? Cause if you're just looking to prject what'll happen next year than none of the previous years tell you much, Duchene didn't break out until the lockout season, ROR and Landy have evolved their game every year, EJ is back on track, Varly has now broken out, our future best player is now on the team and we have a coach who's not just competent, which alone would've been a major boon, but is actually excellent. None of thsoe previous teams are going to tell you what'll happen enxt season, so if that's you're point it's even weaker than if we were just assessing the success of the rebuild so far.

No I was responding to TigerVixxen or whatever who was picking some questionable sample sizes to point out the trends that you guys have followed. I was just pointing out the fallacies in his argument, not judging the rebuild.

 

[PepsiCenterMagic]

If those are the only numbers you follow I feel sorry for you

Only the reason why they wouldn't matter, is if you are trying to project future success.

 

[Lonewolfe2015]

No the poster I replied to is blatantly cherry-picking seasons that support his argument. Notice how he says 5 OR 7 year sample size. Do you know why? Because the 6th season sucked. He made two separate groups of 3 seasons in which each of the groups had two successful season. However, he took one of the seasons and used it in both groups. I made my own two groups of three seasons where I used the same tactics as the poster I was replying to who did his best to distort the information in a positive light I did my best to show the opposite was just as easily proven from his sample data.

He mentioned a larger sample so let's do that. The most logical season to start with is 2010-2011 since that was the year in which the core really started to come together.

68, 88, 67, 112

Look at the data anyway you want but it paints a much bigger picture than the poster I replied to tried to suggest. Now, obviously, past results do not predict future success. All I am doing is showing that the poster that I replied to distorted his data and did not use a good method to explain anything.

Tiger proposed that selecting one specific sample size that was less than 5 or 7 years for instance was unlikely to produce very significant results. You attacked her for that statement by concluding that her facetious statement of 3 year samples (which were intended to be obtuse) were meant to bias some viewpoint. Quite contrary, it was meant to highlight that 3 year samples could be just as positively or negatively skewed as the poster would like their example to be.

Let's take your post as proof of this. You claim that we must 'logically' start at an arbitrary year to support your thesis. What if I 'logically' start at another year to support my thesis. Who is more right than the other?

Frankly, comparing this year's Avs team to an Avs team of any length prior to is pointless. This isn't the team commanded by General Sacco last year, nor the inconsistent young group that had a pre-breakout Duchene on it the year prior whom narrowly missed the playoffs.

 

[FlaPanthers11]

Tiger proposed that selecting one specific sample size that was less than 5 or 7 years for instance was unlikely to produce very significant results. You attacked her for that statement by concluding that her facetious statement of 3 year samples (which were intended to be obtuse) were meant to bias some viewpoint. Quite contrary, it was meant to highlight that 3 year samples could be just as positively or negatively skewed as the poster would like their example to be.

Let's take your post as proof of this. You claim that we must 'logically' start at an arbitrary year to support your thesis. What if I 'logically' start at another year to support my thesis. Who is more right than the other?

Frankly, comparing this year's Avs team to an Avs team of any length prior to is pointless. This isn't the team commanded by General Sacco last year, nor the inconsistent young group that had a pre-breakout Duchene on it the year prior whom narrowly missed the playoffs.

This is the first problem with her post:

I keep saying it but everyone is looking at the two year sample size and not considering the 5 or 7 year sample size.

Why would the Colorado team from 7 years ago matter in a discussion about regression next year? None of the key players were on that team. Then the sample size issue. All I'm saying is past results do not predict future success. You said it yourself in the first sentence of your third paragraph.

 

[tigervixxxen]

Go back to my post from a few days ago, I posted the entire 7 year string in a different post. I'm not trying to intentionally fool anyone or play with numbers. ALL I'm saying is this is a team that was good-bad-good-bad-good-bad-good and not just bad for 5 years in a row. I don't expect everyone to have the Avs 7 year history memorized. I pointed it out because maybe people didn't realize how up and down their records were. I just want to see a dicussion that focuses on years of any sample size greater than 2. If you want to take it out to 3, 5, 7 I don't care. I'd just like to see a discussion on how the Avs team has gone up and down rather than just focusing on the most recent two years. These seasons don't happen in a vacuum, it does matter to a certain extent on what happens in the past even if some of the players or personnel change. Its still the same team and I'd look at the history for any team. If people want to create a thread and discuss for 12 pages about the Avs next year compared to this year, is it so out of line just to ask to compare their whole trajectory in the recent era? I'm not even trying to make a point beyond that, just trying to open the discussion in another area. Not sure why the attack. Its not like I insulted Barkov or something.

 

[Hasbro]

If those are the only numbers you follow I feel sorry for you

I am missing out on the ego boost that comes with being a stat whacker.

 

[FlaPanthers11]

I'm not even trying to make a point beyond that, just trying to open the discussion in another area. Not sure why the attack. Its not like I insulted Barkov or something.

Attack? A little sensitive? Learn to take some criticism. I addressed only the point and not you personally at all. I mentioned what you did (I said you distorted data) but I said nothing of you as a person. I guess disagreeing with someone on a message board is an attack now? This is a place where people can openly post their opinions and others can refute those. If you can't take the criticism of a post (not you as a person) then don't make the post.

And of course Barkov comes up. The maturity. Stay on topic here.

 

[tigervixxxen]

Attack? A little sensitive? Learn to take some criticism. I addressed only the point and not you personally at all. I mentioned what you did (I said you distorted data) but I said nothing of you as a person. I guess disagreeing with someone on a message board is an attack now? This is a place where people can openly post their opinions and others can refute those. If you can't take the criticism of a post (not you as a person) then don't make the post.

And of course Barkov comes up. The maturity. Stay on topic here.

Now who is off topic? 6 posts about mine is a bit much. I'm flattered though, thank you.

 

[FlaPanthers11]

Now who is off topic? 6 posts about mine is a bit much. I'm flattered though, thank you.

Yeah, when posts are that bad they usually draw a fair amount of criticism. Also I have responded to 3 separate people. Keep flattering yourself.

 

[badtakemachine]

Yes, I do believe the "Corsi" and "Fenwick" numbers will regress back towards the mean. Dat luck.