I direct messaged Kent Wilson after I posted my last blog, not to pick a fight, but as a matter of congeniality in a blogosphere that seems to lack respect sometimes. Kent took the time to read my blog and respond in kind here: http://blogs.thescore.com...ical-analysis/#more-28434
While I can appreciate his concern over my "duplicitous" blog, and it's fallacies that seem apparent I have to say I think the point was missed entirely.
In essence the blog on Flames Nation was not about "the disappointing season and apparent decline of Miikka Kiprusoff" as Kent Wilson put it in his retort to me. It was about how Kiprusoff was, as the title of the article reads, "the weakest link" on the Flames. To then turn around and say my "strawman" was me pointing out that stats do not tell the whole story is disingenuous as the article usues nothing but stats to make it's argument. My argument was I watched games and could see clearly that Kipprusoff was not the weakest link on the last editon of the Flames. I also have stats that back that up but because they argue with the conclusion of the Flames nation article they are now labeled as homerism, hipocritcle and even ignorant.
My argument was that I think Stats, as they get more complex, are being used as a decisive tool for some where I think they should be used to verify opinions. When looking at stats I also think it's important to look at all stats as opposed to the ones that just generally make your argument for you.
The response to that was, "observation and memory are prone to certain framing and encoding biases that can lead to hopelessly subjective judgements." Followed by a more elaborate explanation. I can wrap my head around that, often I have disagreed with how good a player is with someone and a stat can make that argument one way or another. Having said that, if stats did tell the whole story would there be video coaches, pro scouts and every other form of in person observation used in the hockey world.
The fact that variables are discarded as too many to get our minds around and all stats would be subjective top them is my exact point. I simply stated they would never tell the whole story. I take that as a verification of my statement.
To be clear I am NOT arguing the merit of advanced stats as my blog was made the whipping boy for. I am arguing the conclusion that Robert Cleave came to when weighing the evidence. Simply I felt it was shy of what was needed in total to make a judgment like Kiprusoff being the weakest link. If the title was, "Kipper declines, time to trade?" there wouldn't be an issue because to me the facts spell out he wasn't as good as he has been in the past. Reading my past blogs I have been down the trading of Kipper route, for some reason Kent wilson thinks it's threatening to me. It's not.
The reality of it is that when Cleave quoted stats he was correct. When I use a win loss record as a stat I am just threatened that Kiprusoff isn't the best goalie in the world and my "consistency of the premise." is not there and therefore not valid. Unless you remember I said stats could be useful tool, then I'm not being inconsistent at all am I?
Flames Nation and Kent Wilson, you are a terrific site, I will not stop reading and in fact would ask people to read you. Your site is a breath of fresh air and I thoroughly enjoy it. I hope my argument was not taken out of context, I simply disagreed.
P.S. the twitter for the above is @kentwilson and @flamesnation I strongly urge you to follow...we are the same nation after all.