CanadianFlyer88
Knublin' PPs
A thread worthy of discussion of the Flyers' saviour, Boss Hagg.
The endless defense of Hagg as a means to denigrate Ghost is the most baffling thing to me. It makes no sense.
Theres a huge difference between being 'below average' and 'hagg'. Thats what the commotion is about.
This is a case where you are incorrectly using a statistical inference; “most important stat for Hagg is the one where he’s the middle of the pack”. Sorry, it’s not verbatim, but you should get the gist.
Striiker correctly inferences the distribution of probability - which is the story these stats tell. Using one out of the group creates an error of distribution. The underlying metric discussions on HF are all over the place because people don’t understand the math behind it or even statistics in general. Striiker’s post, whether he was trying to or not, correctly shows the distributions and its effects- which is what statistical inferencing does. You don’t need a modeled analysis to see that Hagg is a net negative. There really is no discussion. I don’t get it.
How about a next season depth chart?
Really? Show me the stats for the bottom 10% of NHL starters.
It's like if you rate someone on a scale of 0-to-10...Bottom 10% is all well below average. That's more like the "outright bad" category.
If you add the next 40% the you get to average. Hagg is the bottom. But hey let’s refute a statement that says hagg is far from average or even below average. Oh really show me the bottom 10% stats.Bottom 10% is all well below average. That's more like the "outright bad" category.
Bottom 10% is all well below average. That's more like the "outright bad" category.
Really? Show me the stats for the bottom 10% of NHL starters.
To be fair, Giroux is just a 3rd-liner/PP-specialist who has been rapidly declining since 2015.Calling Hagg "below average" is equivalent to calling Giroux "above average". The stats were already shown in the last thread, and I've no interest in delving further into the topic. Statistically and by the eye test, Hagg is a very bad NHL player.
If you want to say hes a locker room guy, or whatever, go for it. But the idea that hes a good, or even average player, is indefensible by any argument based of logic and reason.
It's hard to talk with the statistically illiterate, whether about hockey or plagues.
No, I'm not suggesting Hagg is good, I'm suggesting that when you get down to #175 or so out of 200, everyone is pretty bad.
The objective in roster building isn't to replace one marginal player with another, it's to find someone better.
If you find someone better, that solves the problem.
Until then, make sure you're not forced to play someone worse (Prosser et al).