Re: Down on Krejci
posted at 11/30/2011 5:09 PM EST
In Response to
Re: Down on Krejci:
As a former researcher on stochastic process and advanced probability and statistics, I need to say that what you have said is the exact opposite of the truth. I did not twist statistics, I said that it is more reliable to use information from something that actually happened than something that did not. If Thomas played he may have made the team better, however we have no examples of how the team performed with him in the lineup and healthy that season against Philly in the playoffs. We do have data on how they performed with/without Krejci. It is not exact science as it is sport and there were other factors involved, but it is a greater assumption to predict outcomes based on no real world evidence than some. That is my point. I also did not bring up Thomas's '10 numbers, I brought up his '09 stats. These stats are just as relevenat as his '11 stats. These stats are also closer to Rask's '10 stats than Thomas's own record-setting '11 numbers. It is folly to look at a player's best career year and say that is always how they will perform. It's interesting that you bring up Horton and sarcastically suggest that he is the most valuable Bruin. He's not, but a skilled right winger was the single biggest piece missing from the team the year before, so he was the most valuable acquisition they could have made. In the same way I would not say that DK is more valuable than Tim Thomas. But on a team that had another good goaltender but lacked depth up front, he is more valuable at that point in time. You need a couple of good centers, some skill on the wing, dependable defense and a good goaltender to win it all. When Krejci went down what had been the Bruins' best line with Satan and Lucic was ruined. You could throw Thomas in there but the forwards still would have been weak. And I do have to say that I felt Krejci was playing dominant hockey that fall. I also felt that he played pretty dominant hockey this past year when he lead the Bruins in playoff scoring. Mark Messier agreed, saying he was the biggest standout of the playoffs. In Response to Re: Down on Krejci :
Posted by OatesCam
Geez Oates...I'm surprised at you. Now you're trying to play the "stochastic process" card, in an attempt to sweep your ill thought responses to my theory under the carpet?
I clearly stated my logic as to why I floated the theory that a healthy TT could have made a greater difference than a healthy DK, over those last 4 games against Philly. You disagreed, and that's your option, but you've provided dik-all to elevate your own argument. You slam mine, but put forth nothing except generalities, bluster, and the prospect that you're on a higher intellectual plane.
The stochastic process suggests that although there may be more than one possibility, some options could be more probable than others. That's how I came to my conclusion. I looked at the facts, plugged in the subjective, and came up with a theory. Fair enough isn't it?
This idea of yours that there is useful "data" supporting your claim, that only applies to DK, and not TT, is statistical nonsense. Just because TT didn't play in that particular series, does not mean there is no quantifiable stats from which to form a reasonable position. There is a lot of statistically relevant information from which to submit an opinion.
Forget stochastic processes, consider Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, which is Latin, for the highly seductive, intellectually lazy, misbegotten logic, that because 1 event follows another, the second must have been caused by the first.(Krejci gets hurt, then the B's blow the series, so Krejci's injury must have been the reason)
Your position is classic post hoc.
You've made 1 empty statement after another, and when called on them, you refuse any acknowledgment, instead resorting to irrelevant comments and the feeble hope that your condecending lesson in statistical realities will scare me off.
I never brought up any stats from TT's best year. In fact there was never any debate about his stats.
Whether or not Krejci was playing dominant hockey "that fall" is totally irrelevant to the conversation.
So is Messier's comment about DK's play in this years playoff.
I never succumbed to "the folly" of suggesting a player always performs equal to a career year.
There is also data available between the 2 teams during the regular season. Each goalie played 2 games. TT allowed exactly half as many goals as Rask. Should we consider that, or would it be more scholarly to throw that out too.
Lets review some more. You stated the B's dominated Philly with DK in the lineup. Total, absolute horses..t 100% untrue. The facts are outlined in an earlier post.
Your comments on Horton further attempt to cloud, convolute, change direction and manipulate the debate, as they offer nothing pertinent to our original positions.
You say DK's line was "ruined" after he went down. Like most..there's no meat to that statement. Fact is..it wasn't ruined. It wasn't as good, but it wasn't ruined. It's not like that line never scored after he went down. Have you noticed DK's line hasn't been scoring this year, yet the team hasn't folded up.
More fluff, exxageration, generality.
Is there a pattern here?
There is no clear answer to what we're debating here. There are responsibilities though, to support one's position with logical, analytical reasoning, and if you can't sell your theory, at least prove there is a grain of thought and substance into your position. If there isn't one, we should all be open to alternative thinking.
You haven't played that way. You've just huffed and puffed at me.
Thank heaven for the stochastic process though. There is a theory. The most probable one wins.
