Nithoniniel
Registered User
See now you're just putting words in my mouth. I couldn't care less if people liked me or disliked me on here. But you know what I do care about? getting the calls right. You can hate me, dislike me, despise me all you want, but the one thing that you CANNOT take away from me is that I get the extreme calls correct more than anyone on here. I'm not talking about getting the liljegren call right, or even the chychrun call right, i've been making these huge calls on here (against consensus 95% of the time) for years and years and years. The grabovski buyout call: ME, The babcock call: ME, The Marleau call: ME, The Dion call: ME, so how dare you define my actions by means of committee approval? i'm not a groupthink guy, i'm an ideas guy. I'm not saying all this stuff for some kind of credit or stardom, trust me, I have a high enough achieved status in life to not care about meager things like that. I brought it up because your insistence that I need to "fit in" or "fight less with people" or "get people to like me more" is a huge crock of ****. I say what I say because I believe it, not because i'm trying to fit in with some internet yes men, don't confuse it.
What on earth? What are you even talking about? And where dit the bolded come from?
So you not only don't read my posts, you make stuff up and then get this upset about it? Much of the above have no basis in reality. You're quoting things that I have never said! In the same very post that you complain about me putting words in your mouth. I didn't define your actions in any way. I never insisted that you need to fit in, fight less, get people to like you. I never even broached the subject.
That might be the most absurd thing I've ever read on these boards.
I don't understand how you just wrote the definition of the word fact, yet somehow don't understand that the production of statistics to support an argument is the very damn definition of "known or proven to be true". How do we know medicines work? we test them through statistical analysis. If you aren't willing to believe that facts are proven and supported through statistical inference, then this is simply ignorance on your part.
Let's try again.
Fact: Hyman was not effective as a shooter from high scoring areas last season.
Opinion with factual basis: This means he's an ineffective finisher.
Conjecture: This means he is an awful linemate for Matthews.
What you said would be somewhat true if you had said to me: "Hyman was really ineffective in high scoring areas last year." You could then support that with your stats here. But that's not what you are doing. You are making the claim that he was a black hole offensively, and that's not necessarily true just because you have a bad shooting percentage. Therefor you haven't proven anything. You have a theory, based on partial information. That's the definition of conjecture.
The facts are the facts, you say hyman's production is an outlier and should be higher, I say the simpler solution is that he just isn't an offensively skilled player. Its on you to prove that its an outlier, not on me, thats something you aren't understanding. You just seem to be completely oblivious to how standard deviations and any form of statistics work at all. If, as you say he had the worst rank in history in that category, that would put him so so so many standard deviations away from the mean that chance couldn't possibly explain it. That is a COLOSSAL deviation, not a mere sampling error.
This is a nice one. So because Hyman's shooting percentage is so absurdly unrealistic, it's bound to be true and not due to statistical variance? You're the one arguing a position that has Hyman as the worst shooter in NHL history, but I am the one who needs to prove that's not likely?
Last edited: