Trust me, I do. You only have to visit a few of my posts to realize I am not a big stat-based guy overall. Hence, not wanting Eriksson and welcoming the Backes signing.
That being said...every argument you make represents extremely small samples that aren't comparable. 12 shootout attempts is 1200% more than 1. 3 faceoff wins IN ONE GAME is different than separate shootout attempts in separate games. You're trying to make your point but you're manufacturing intentionally miniscule examples to minimize something extremely logical.
Claude used Nash, not because he's a star hockey player, but because over the years, he is historically very successful in shootouts. Not one shootout attempt, not two, but 12. Again, look at the example I gave for Daniel Sedin. This isn't foreign. I understand you disagree. And I give you credit for being honest about Nash. But the fact that you launched into the tirade, only to continue it without blinking once you learned the perfectly sound logic behind it, tells me all I need to know. You created a bias instantly, whether you admit or not, of having to ruthlessly defend your argument.
I understand why it happened. You don't like it. As a matter of fact, I don't either because they didn't win. But I'm not going to ***** and moan about something that made perfect sense because it didn't work out in my favor. Just the way it goes.
Now...if Marchand keeps popping SO goals and Nash misses even his next...one...I'm with you. But, it's the shootout. It's a four second play. It's probably the most statistically significant action in the entire game.
You're exclusively comparing tiny scale samples (one instance) with much larger scale samples. You're purposely citing minimal examples because they are the only ones that support your argument which relates to a far larger sample size. I don't understand how you can keep doing this and not see the absurdity.
