Is it "childish" to talk

[Phanuthier*]

Is it "childish" to use stats for 1/4 of a season

I'm having this debate with an Oilers fan, about taking two players who are in their first pro year in the AHL, and using both stats and arguments to debate which prospect is better.

In this debate, I used stats so far this season, but was told that using stats for 1/4 of a season is childish... and I'm trying to figure out how this is childish.

Any explanation?

EDIT: hit submit too soon, missed title. whoops

Click to read more...

 

[Bank Shot]

Using the stats wasn't childish at all. However, this thread seeking praise for yourself and/or condemnation of the other poster seems kind of weak. There's not much point in dragging a disagreement into other threads.

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

let me guess, by taking a glance at the prospect stats, you used the Flames highest scoring prospect, Dustin Boyd, and used him against the Oilers top guy in Schremp. Am I right? If so, it's not even worth arguing about. If not, I guess I just wasted a post..

 

[Towelie*]

I'm having this debate with an Oilers fan, about taking two players who are in their first pro year in the AHL, and using both stats and arguments to debate which prospect is better.

In this debate, I used stats so far this season, but was told that using stats for 1/4 of a season is childish... and I'm trying to figure out how this is childish.

Any explanation?

EDIT: hit submit too soon, missed title. whoops

Childish? No. But a pretty weak argument, yes.

 

[Phanuthier*]

just trying to figure out what's "childish" thats all

wasn't my thread.

 

[King'sPawn]

Childish? No. But a pretty weak argument, yes.

Agreed. Having a lousy argument doesn't make you childish. Otherwise, 99% of this board is... errr, well, using stats for 1/4 a season is just a weak argument anyway.

 

[Ola]

Who is the better player, Brendan Shanahan in 03-04', or Brendan Shanahan in 05-06?

One had 40 pts, the other 80pts.

I think Brendan Shanahan in 04' are much better then Shanahan in 06', he had twice the amount of pts. So its ridiculos to even compare the two, Brendan 04 are so much better.

Above is HF in a nutshell at times, though people use two players to fight with. The souroundings can easily effect a player +/- 40-50 pts. Still you often see people around here using stats as a defenite fact of how good a player is.

Its more then childish, its defenite proof of that you have no clue whatsoever what the game of hockey is about, quite honestly.

 

[Blind Gardien]

You'd think that most people could agree that Boyd is superior to Schremp without having to resort to looking at a quarter season's worth of stats, wouldn't you?

 

[Kevin Forbes]

Maybe not childish, but it is very naive and short-sighted to just use stats (especially those from such a small sample size) to defend an opinion. Unless of course those stats strengthen your argument and weaken your opponents, in which case, it's just self-serving.

 

[Sammy*]

just trying to figure out what's "childish" thats all

wasn't my thread.

Whose thread is it then?
I love on how you natter on about Scremp, after seen him play on TV probably all of a couple of times & none this year, & then use stats this year to make your argument, having no clue as to the how those stats are arrived at stats (pp ice time, es icetime, pp points) & whose stats are from all of a 10 game window.

 

[Slats432]

OK, sounds like you have your answer.

1. Childish isn't what it would be called....it would be called shortsighted or a weak argument.

2. You like Boyd better than Schremp and Oiler fans prefer their guy. Big surprise there.

This thread won't get anyone anywhere.