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.
I also read his article and found how he determined the weakest link simply by numbers that suited him. I believe stats are starting to get out of hand and hockey is not determined by play any more, but more by random corsi number and what not. Kipper was definitely a decent player last year, not the typical fantastic Kipper though. If we were going to go by stats then Jackman would be deemed "horrible" but he was arguably one of the best players.
Wow... You just got a logical $hit kicking by Kent Wilson huh? Maybe if you spent more of your time actually researching a topic you might be a 1/3 of the blogger Kent is.
I'm pretty sure video coaches are used to obtain and make these stats relevant. So yes there would still be a need for them and the scouting system as this is how they are starting to evaluate the young talent they have interest in drafting. Stats albeit overwhelming even to myself do however serve their purpose.
Jim- thanks for the feedback, can you elaborate on what was not researched? Thanks. Btw I have a ton of respect for Kent Wilson, I can assure you neither post was personal. Cap- could not agree more, said more than once they have use. I would never formulate an opinion based only on them.
Firstly, I object to the amount of logical fallacies involved in most if not all your writing. They're misleading and dishonest. This is a problem with most of the writing on this site but seems to be an epidemic in your writing particularly. >>>
Secondly, the stats you use to round out your own opinion are the most superficial of superficial stats and do little to disprove the assertion that kipper has been gradually slipping over the past 4 seasons. Especially, when weighed against the evidence provided by Robert Cleave, your arguments fall flat and frankly seem juvenile in comparison. >>>
Thirdly, you claim Kent missed your point; that you were simply critiquing the assertions made re: kipper. I read your article. It had more to do with your dislike for advanced stats than anything else I'm guessing that's due to the fact that in order to use advanced stats one needs to use the skills learned in 9th grade math. Either way you attempted to oversimplify and discredit advanced stats in a crude and borish fashion and were as such swatted aside. >>>
I have no issue with people sharing their opinions but if you're gonna make an assertion like the one you did I, as a reader, expect some form of solid ground from which the writer should stand upon (ie: research, stats). Particularly, if you're going to write a critique of the stats another writer provides. you did nothing to refute the fact that in every table provided by cleave, kipper appears in the bottom half if not very bottom.
You explain all this simply by saying you watched all the games (holy $hit can someone give this guy a cookie). Is that research? By that logic my 5 year old cousin should start writing blogs too. All I ask is some concrete evidence. Perhaps more than simply going on NHL.com and pulling out the first facts that fit your point... To put it your way, 'C'mon!'
Jimi, you need to to drink some coffee. I think Sane as well as probably many other devoted Kipper loyalists, cant refute some of the stats. There is a very fine line in the NHL, product of the cap(parity). I have no doubt Kipper could win a cup for a team, but does it make sense to pay him 5.83Mill cap hit on this team should be the debate.
I'm not even debating that point... I'm debating the way in which sane poses his arguments.