Post-Game Talk: Leafs lose 4-3 in OT

[zeke]

it's literally just shot attempts. how is that "advanced"?

it's funny cuz all these wannabe oldskool anti-analytics guys are the same guys who have no problem talking about being worse than their record by winning while getting badly outshot a lot.....without even realizing they were already talking about advanced stats. decades ago.

 

[Pookie]

And I remember that discussion. I remember people trying to explain it to you. And I remember you going about your usual intellectually dishonest ways to avoid having to acknowledge it.

I'm trying. I'm really trying to take the high road here.

I asked the poster to read and explain what the R2 was in the study he referenced. He simply had to quote the number. Shouldn't have been hard. He found the study.

I gave up. Did it for him.

And the "people" who tried to explain why I was "wrong" are the same who fill his like count. Pretty amazing here.

And "wrong" is a weird term to apply since he posted the study and used the wrong reference and when pointed out to him, danced around it better than a contestant on Dancing with the Stars.

He - See how predictive Corsi is to wins?
Me - that's actually a reference to goals. Here's the reference to wins
He - you are an idiot
Me - well, just tell me what the win predictivity is. It says so right here. Here's the link
He - you don't get it
He's followers - yeah, you tell him. He's an idiot
Me - well the r2 is .18 and peaks at that for about 10-20 games. Then falls off the map
He - you are an idiot
Like - like - like

And I'm intellectually dishonest?

Respectfully, step away from the keyboard and take a breath. Whatever you think of me is getting in the way of the factual details.

 

[Bluelines]

No, I'm just suggesting that you don't make claims when you can't back them up. It's what a lot of people do when they don't have any good arguments, so it will hurt your argument more than help it.

Its not a claim, its a fact. Its reality, its my everyday life. If you told me you were a street performer, I'd say cool, you perform in the street. I have no reason to doubt you. Now if you told me you were the Prime Minister of Sweden, I'd call BS on you. See how my level of skepticism goes up as the uniqueness of your job goes up?

In my country many people have decent paying jobs, that is not unique in anyway . Many people work in Analytics, in my company alone there are probably 200 people that work in some capacity of analytics. What I do is not rare or unique in Canada, not sure why you struggle with the fact I have a job that is not unique.

 

[Nithoniniel]

And the "people" who tried to explain why I was "wrong" are the same who fill his like count

In any topic where someone knowledgeable is challenged by someone who isn't, he will get support by others who are. They'll like his posts and they'll try to help him get his points across. So even if I'm absolutely right here, the same thing would happen.

And I'm intellectually dishonest?

Considering that several people put in a lot of time and effort to try and explain where you went wrong, the following:

He - See how predictive Corsi is to wins?
Me - that's actually a reference to goals. Here's the reference to wins
He - you are an idiot
Me - well, just tell me what the win predictivity is. It says so right here. Here's the link
He - you don't get it
He's followers - yeah, you tell him. He's an idiot
Me - well the r2 is .18 and peaks at that for about 10-20 games. Then falls off the map
He - you are an idiot
Like - like - like

Not only shows that you are intellectually dishonest, but that there was no hope for any of us to get through to you. Plenty of long posts on the topic gets turned into "you're dumb" in your head.

Respectfully, step away from the keyboard and take a breath. Whatever you think of me is getting in the way of the factual details.

Haha right.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Its not a claim, its a fact. Its reality, its my everyday life. If you told me you were a street performer, I'd say cool, you perform in the street. I have no reason to doubt you. Now if you told me you were the Prime Minister of Sweden, I'd call BS on you. See how my level of skepticism goes up as the uniqueness of your job goes up?

In my country many people have decent paying jobs, that is not unique in anyway . Many people work in Analytics, in my company alone there are probably 200 people that work in some capacity of analytics. What I do is not rare or unique in Canada, not sure why you struggle with the fact I have a job that is not unique.

I have never commented on the rarity of your job, so claiming I struggle with something that you just brought up just feels like a shot in the dark.

I don't trust the words of anonymous people online. Especially not when they bring it up suddenly in the middle of a topic to claim they are an authority in the field and we should just take their word for things. I'm not naive.

 

[Bluelines]

I have never commented on the rarity of your job, so claiming I struggle with something that you just brought up just feels like a shot in the dark.

I don't trust the words of anonymous people online. Especially not when they bring it up suddenly in the middle of a topic to claim they are an authority in the field and we should just take their word for things. I'm not naive.

Its not suddenly, I've never been shy about my job. I've said it a number of times, in a number of posts since I joined this forum many many years ago.

So I guess we will just all have to agree that I work as an Analyst and you are cynical for no good reason.

Cheers.

 

[Nithoniniel]

So I guess we will just all have to agree that I work as an Analyst and you are cynical for no good reason.

Haha yeah, it would be interesting to see if you could make someone believe you. If you could get the majority with you, I'd accept that I was just cynical.

 

[cookie]

Haha yeah, it would be interesting to see if you could make someone believe you. If you could get the majority with you, I'd accept that I was just cynical.

Would you add a bonus to sweeten the deal? 'Something people don't even make in 6 months' type of bonus?

 

[Pookie]

Considering that several people put in a lot of time and effort to try and explain where you went wrong, the following:

Not only shows that you are intellectually dishonest, but that there was no hope for any of us to get through to you. Plenty of long posts on the topic gets turned into "you're dumb" in your head.

Well, since you are so intellectually honest... perhaps you could have a gander at the actual thread and do something unique... focus on the actual words and then get back to me as to whether you want to still call me a liar or purposely obtuse or other words you seem to enjoy?

At issue, the poster rejoiced at a .6 R2 and falsely claimed that it was demonstrating a strong predicivity to wins. He made a simple mistake. Got the charts wrong. I showed him the actual chart. And the resulting "discussion" went as they always do.

zeke said: ↑

4. The entire point is that the possession metrics do a better job predicting future goals and wins than other metrics do. As I showed you in my chart there - the r2 for adjusted corsi to future wins gets up over 0.6 in certain samples which is actually quite an impressive correlation.​

To which I offered:

YOU talked about possession and wins.

I'm not taking a side track, I'm taking a direct track.

You falsely cited the wrong study. The r2 isn't .6 it's .18.

Is that still "an impressive" correlation? (And regression isn't correlation but I know you know that)

Just comment on the actual data zeke.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threa...-the-standings-show-right-now.2163691/page-38

There's an excerpt. There's the link (and of course that conversation carried over into other threads). Let's see who is "intellectually dishonest"

 

[Pookie]

Its not suddenly, I've never been shy about my job. I've said it a number of times, in a number of posts since I joined this forum many many years ago.

So I guess we will just all have to agree that I work as an Analyst and you are cynical for no good reason.

Cheers.

I can attest... he's not shy.

 

[Nithoniniel]

There's an excerpt. There's the link (and of course that conversation carried over into other threads). Let's see who is "intellectually dishonest"

I don't even find the quotes in the link you provided. The discussion seem to barely get off the ground by the time Mess closed it down.

I will give you this. I shouldn't have said that I remember that specific conversation. What I do remember is the topic coming up over and over, and people trying in vain to explain the things you had missed. For all I know, the specific conversation you talk with could very well be when everybody on these boards had given up discussing it with you. In that case, it's possible you received just a few exacerbated responses from people who have realized already that they wasted their time.

 

[Joey Hoser]

So to sum up this thread, Bluelines actually has the right idea when it comes to analytics, he just has this delusion that everyone else thinks they are the be-all-and-end-all of everything, for some inexplicable reason, and is twisting what everyone says to make it seem so, so he can feel smarter than "them" on the internet.

Pack it up boys, this PGT is done.

 

[Pookie]

I don't even find the quotes in the link you provided. The discussion seem to barely get off the ground by the time Mess closed it down.

I will give you this. I shouldn't have said that I remember that specific conversation. What I do remember is the topic coming up over and over, and people trying in vain to explain the things you had missed. For all I know, the specific conversation you talk with could very well be when everybody on these boards had given up discussing it with you. In that case, it's possible you received just a few exacerbated responses from people who have realized already that they wasted their time.

So, may I translate?

"I'm sorry. I didn't actually remember that conversation. Though I called you intellectually dishonest, I won't even address that but I'm a good guy because I will throw you a bone. Here it is: I didn't actually remember that conversation that I called you intellectually dishonest over but I said that I did. I shouldn't have done that. Saying I remembered something when I didn't, I shouldn't have done that. Can't follow your link though. Computer must be broken so I still can't weigh in on it. Just know that I don't remember that conversation.

You are still intellectually dishonest though because even though I don't remember this conversation, I specially remember other conversations where you've been wrong (IMO). I remember specifically that people who shared my view tried to explain to you why you were wrong. They of course were right because they shared my view. It's ok to call you intellectually dishonest because you are so thick. I forgive and side with them because you wasted their time."

Cognitive dissonance is strong with you.

 

[Nithoniniel]

So, may I translate?

If you prefer to make up fantasies instead of carry an adult conversation, feel free.

Gotta love the irony on display though. You are hurt over getting accused of twisting other poster's words around, so you make a post where you completely twist everything I say around, like me not finding the quotes in the link you provided suddenly gets turned into me making excuses for not wanting to check it.

In your very defense against that accusation, you provide a perfect example of the very thing you were accused of. That's just great.

 

[Pookie]

If you prefer to make up fantasies instead of carry an adult conversation, feel free.

Naw, I think we are good.

You think I'm intellectually dishonest for a conversation you can't recall and apologize for not being able to recall it but not for calling me a liar. And while not recalling it (or being able to follow a link apparently), you excuse the behaviour of others as justified as I was wasting their time.

Step back. See how you feel about this in the morning

 

[Zonk]

Its not suddenly, I've never been shy about my job. I've said it a number of times, in a number of posts since I joined this forum many many years ago.

So I guess we will just all have to agree that I work as an Analyst and you are cynical for no good reason.

Cheers.

I believe that you work as an Analyst.

I am pretty sure that it is a call centre and when I tell you how many bedrooms there are in my house you do an analysis to tell me how much it will cost to have my ducts cleaned.

 

[cupcrazyman]

We have a pretty good 3rd goalie in Pickard & helped us salvage 1 point on the road.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Huh. Missed last night's game. Figured this would be the place to read about it. Several pages of reading and nope! Nadda. Zilch. Nothing about the game just some round about flagellation contest. Maybe take it somewhere that has anything at all to do with the debate rather than the thread about the game?

 

[Nithoniniel]

Huh. Missed last night's game. Figured this would be the place to read about it. Several pages of reading and nope! Nadda. Zilch. Nothing about the game just some round about flagellation contest. Maybe take it somewhere that has anything at all to do with the debate rather than the thread about the game?

Sorry about that. I can promille that it wont happen again. Easy to get caught up in, then afterwards you realize that the thread gets ruined due to it. That’s not what I want to bring to this place.