CBJWerenski8
Formerly CBJWennberg10 (RIP Kivi)
- Jun 13, 2009
- 42,396
- 24,324
You can look into the details of how those models are developed if you like; I occasionally do so, but a few of them admittedly go over my head in some of the details. The core problem, though, is that at its core this assertion ("these things can't be measured with numbers") is largely rejecting the entire field of statistics as nonviable. Which is a tad awkward for me to let pass, seeing as though helping maintain software in support of statistical analyses is my day job.To continue with the themes: "stick with the truth" and "not liking objectively false assertions", I would like to know, what are the "things" that are supposedly accounted for, that I say aren't? And what is the "x", that is supposedly one of the main things analytics "actually solidly does"? Since most of the idea that I am wrong (about the "validity" of analytics) is based on this, I'd like to know. I have acknowledged in the past that some of these "analytics" ATTEMPT to account for some of the underlying factors. My issue (and why I say "attempt) is that these "analytics" ATTEMPT to account for these "things" by associating a number value to something that CANT be measured in that way. These "models" and just HOW MUCH or even simply HOW they are affected by (some) of these underlying factors, is, for a lack of better/complex words, completely made up. The problem here is people's correlation between "stats" and "facts". The "stats" shouldn't be considered "facts" when the "model" and the numbers "plugged" into it are NOT based on reality.
Quick reminder that the "analytics" talk started spiraling when the claim was made that the "numbers" showed/proved Bobrovsky was more valuable/important than Tavares, Panarin and MANY other VERY valuable/important players. My initial complaint (other than disagreeing wholeheartedly on what they supposedly "showed") was that (IMO) you cannot SUCCESSFULLY compare the "importance" of a 1st line center and starting goalie to their respective/SEPARATE teams by looking at "statistics". Whether they are "concrete" numbers, or essentially made up, by "plugging them" into some UNREALISTIC "model".
I'd read that metaphor as being used w/r/t hockey statistics, not hockey the game. Which in that case was true - you were critiquing statistics without knowing much of anything about what they were and what they measured. If it was intended to be about any measurement or evaluation of hockey, then yes, that'd be over the line.And NOW I'll go back to this. You were attempting to compare the SPORT of hockey to a (type of) car. You were also attempting to compare your precious stats (NOT facts) to that of a cars "manual" and/or engine. So essentially you are trying to say that since I don't 'know' or care about your stats (aka the manual/engine) that I don't know what I'm talking about in regards to the "car", aka THE SPORT OF HOCKEY. We'd be better off with 1960's baseball comparisons, as that's at least a somewhat relatable team sport or sport at all.
I'd read that metaphor as being used w/r/t hockey statistics, not hockey the game. Which in that case was true - you were critiquing statistics without knowing much of anything about what they were and what they measured. If it was intended to be about any measurement or evaluation of hockey, then yes, that'd be over the line.
OK.Ryan Murray sucks. Ryan Murray is great. Please take a side and get this thread back on track.
Ugh.
That passing though.
Says the person bringing up Johansen.I miss Johansen too, but I feel like we should talk about Ryan Murray in this topic.
I had a dream about Murr last night, in that dream i was a girl who is in love with Murr, but he chose another girl who said to me - he kissed her. That was strange, since i'm a man and married. I think Panarin situation somehow morfed into that dream, This off season really took a toll on us/me......, but I feel like we should talk about Ryan Murray in this topic.
* * *
I'd read that metaphor as being used w/r/t hockey statistics, not hockey the game. Which in that case was true - you were critiquing statistics without knowing much of anything about what they were and what they measured. If it was intended to be about any measurement or evaluation of hockey, then yes, that'd be over the line.
That's a helpful clarification, but I still think it takes a fair amount of hubris to assert the "owner's manual" model. There's only one edition of an owner's manual for a vehicle, and it is not subject to interpretation.
Which analogy would you use to describe someone's unwillingness to look beyond surface level of a thing but still denies the thing's value outright?
The analogy was about someone here refusing to read the manual more so than another claiming to be the master of said manual...
Wow is it the offseason or what.
Ryan Murray is about the most boring player on the Jackets. This is mostly a good thing but in some respects it can also be a bad thing.
I predict that he will miss one game this season and it will be game 82 and it will be because the Jackets will have clinched the Metro by that point. It is July and I have every right to be wildly optimistic.
That's a helpful clarification, but I still think it takes a fair amount of hubris to assert the "owner's manual" model. There's only one edition of an owner's manual for a vehicle, and it is not subject to interpretation.
I guess I would use an analogy that didn't imply 1:1 understanding of a subject, and didn't rely on the subject being a discrete, fully knowable entity. It's not difficult to come up with a better analogy than the one that was used.
Maybe like, I got my postgraduate degree in Elizabethan theatre, and this guy's trying to tell me about Avengers: Infinity War LOL
You misread it. We were talking about analytical models, and I said I read the manual and look under the hood, and Bus does not (he proudly admits to not looking at them). I did not say in any way shape or form that I exclusively have the manual to ice hockey and others do not. We were talking about analytical models that I read about.
This is pure imagination. Stick with what I'm literally saying and you'll save some time.
You've misread my post to Viqsi. Granting that you're talking about analytical models and not the sport of hockey, my point in saying there's only one edition of a manual and that it's not open to interpretation is that from the outside, it appears as though there are multiple analytical models and that the data they produce is open to interpretation.
If you wish to proceed as if analytics enjoy a consensus and that there is not a sizable block of fans who find them dubious, it's you who are wasting your time. There may be a manual for the stats, certainly there is a right way to arrive the numbers based on the data and how they are used. But Corsi, as an example, has fallen in regard even within the community that adheres to analytics. Presumably it's been supplanted by a better stat or set of stats. Point being, "analytics" refers to a field that doesn't seem at all settled.
The critique is that people who don't agree with analytics (not saying I'm one, I'm indifferent) just don't understand them. Surely you can see the problem with that. I understand, to a lot of people who think a certain way, stats are fun and analytics are a revolution. But don't pretend there hasn't always been tension between interpreting sports through statistical analysis, and however you wish to characterize alternate approaches. The Oakland A's never won a World Series in the moneyball era, so the detractors aren't without a case here.
Which analogy would you use to describe someone's unwillingness to look beyond surface level of a thing but still denies the thing's value outright?
The analogy was about someone here refusing to read the manual more so than another claiming to be the master of said manual...