A lot of hockey stats are subjective in comparison to baseball which is the godfather of sports analytics. Outside of ruling a hit vs error pretty much everyone can agree on a hit.
Yep, that's the epistemology we live with. All objectivity is in a dialectical relationship with a subject. The point here is that there's little reason to think most fans are bad witnesses, judging by feels. It's a strawman, imo. What makes DNA objective is that any subject who collects and reads the data should come to the same result. It still requires a subject. My issue is twofold, the first we dealt with, the limitations of statistics for predicting single elements within a sample, the second assuming eye-test folks are idiots controlled by feels.
It's not calling people idiots to say they are, in general bad witnesses. It is just reality. The human brain changes our interpretation of events to fit with our world view and preconceived biases. That doesn't make people idiots just makes us bad at recalling past events with accuracy.
Now apply that to yourself, and figure out how your charity allows you to make that claim. You are, I assume, a person with a human brain.
This describes almost every nationally broadcast hockey game I've watched. From the play by play to the on ice reporter.
I might be wrong, but I believe the Islanders and Habs were above 104 for around a decade, going pretty far back. Different league, but great teams can do it.
Is this one of those, "you critique society but you also exist in it" moments? Why are you so offended by me saying humans, in general, are bad witnesses? This has been studied many many times and it is a fact. You may have a background in statistics, but I have a background in human behaviour and investigation. The studies, the stats, and personal experience are all in agreement that humans make bad witnesses, whether or not you want to pretend that nobody can make the claim unless they themselves are somehow the perfect witness. Me personally not necessarily being the absolute perfect witness myself doesn't negate mountains of data on the issue.
No, it's not that at all. It's an epistemic question. You and society are different kinds of entities, i.e., different in kind. In this case you are critiquing persons as being unreliable epistemic subjects. All the while, from the perspective of a person. I just don't see the need to assert the other side of the argument is imperfect. I'm trying to make your argument stronger. There's a better case to be made for statistics than that, but it's honest and even most anti-stat people would probably be cool with their value.
Does the argument start with condescendingly asking the other party if they have a f***ing brain?
Sorry, I thought it was understood I was asking you for consistency with your claims. Seriously, don't mean to upset you and apologies if I did.
Margin of victory is a predictor for future success, and winning games by large margins makes you more likely to win future games than winning games by small margins.
There are some issues with how they're used. For example, people think that getting a lot of expected goals is better than getting a lot of goals. But, there are teams who routinely get far more expected goals than goals. Their conversion rates are poor. As such, their expected goals shouldn't be weighed the same. It all comes down to goals in the end. If you only convert on 90% of your expected goals, that should be taken into account.
