LTS

I feel like I should know who this is.. but I don't.

I completely understand it. Believe me. My point, in my response to Joe Stats, PhD, was that he contradicted himself. He claimed it was possible to live within the variance (be an outlier, anomaly, exception, so on) and also that you will invariably lose. Those are mutually exclusive of each other. If there's any chance of living within the variance then there's no way it can be invariable. Analyzing data though an analysis of past results used to predict likely future outcomes. However, when historical data is created it is fixed by the influences of the point in time it was created. As such, significant shifts in influences can relegate data to being useless for future predictions because the environment has changed. You can attempt to control for it but you can only do so if the data that you had was properly controlled. My point about Gretzky was that until he came along there was really no one who scored like he did. So, if you were using analytics he would have continued to be an outlier. The idea that two players, when teamed up, might also work in the same way is not insane. It might not be probable, but it certainly is possible. When someone says that they WILL regress to the norm, that's not accurate. They may LIKELY regress back but we all know that they might not or at least not within a time frame that is pertinent to discussing the team today. For example, if the Eichel-Skinner combo continues to put up numbers outside of the expected Botterill will be forced to act before any regression occurs. He may choose to accept that the MOST likely outcome will be that those two will not be the same again once Skinner is signed. Skinner's agent, I'm sure, is going to take the opposite view. Even then, they might be great next year, or the year after, and the year after that. They could continue to be great and eventually someone will find the data point that explains it. Until then, they'll appear like outliers. What it really boils down to, in a nutshell, is that you can use data models to predict the likely outcomes and if you restrict yourself to those likely outcomes it's basically taking the safe path. The risk is always in trying to find the exception or at least get an exception long enough to make a difference.

Was never a coffee guy until we went to Costa Rica. Then it was dark and strong.. and it's been that way ever since. I usually only drink 20-24oz in the morning and I'm done for the day. Most days it's through the burr grinder into the coffee maker. Some days it's into the french press. On really rare occasions it goes into a stovetop espresso maker. I like the San Francisco Dark from Trader Joes. Peet's Major Dickason is excellent. Just picked up the Peet's Holiday Blend, always love that. Got to step into a Peet's store one morning when I was passing through Portland, OR. Wish I could have stayed. I'm a huge fan of Peet's coffee overall.

Wish I could... got conflicts. Hoping that today results in a very loud pro-Sabres fan experience. It's a day off for most, it's Friday afternoon. NO need to sell your tickets to Habs fans. Let's Go Buffalo!

Whatever scientific method you used to deduce my level of education was flawed. Enjoy your arrogance though. I am sure it will serve you well. Just curious though, before I go... If I there's a chance that I could experience a positive or negative variance over the course of my entire life, then how is it possible that I am invariably going to lose if I live long enough? I don't want to assume that while you were filling your head with ways to put people down that you failed to study logic, but it would appear that you don't understand how it works.

The "tank" didn't fail. (I still hate the use of that word for what the Sabres did.) The first rebuilder did. Let's all move on now.

First of all, "when calculated appropriately" is just a ridiculous political phrase to use. Is that also saying that when they don't accurately predict what happened the model was not calculated appropriately? Yes, of course it is. Of course in saying that we must also allow that when a model that usually predicts outcomes fails to predict an outcome that it should be altered. As such, no model is infallible. As such, it cannot be relied upon 100%. Data models predict probable outcomes. That's not predicting the future. And for what it's worth.. if data could predict the future then why does it not? Don't you think we should be using that data to stop mass shootings and other atrocities? All of that aside, what you did not address was my point that there are influences to the data points that are collected that can dramatically alter any historical context such that you must start over with defining what the new norm is. Such as, changes to goaltending equipment size. Put another way, and to be completely stupid about it. Any model that predicts SH% would be useless if the NHL changed the net size to 7x5 tomorrow. You'd have to start over recalculating what the expected SH% would be and that would require data points so that you could run an analysis and get your norm plus your standard deviations and all that.

Yep. At least the Sabres secured a win to keep me from going crazy on the Spectrum people right now for 72 hours of intermittent internet service. Not happy they backed off in the game, but the first period was a blast. The Flyers got a wake up call in the intermission. Nothing else to say... that's 7.. no way you can complain right now.

If analytics were as big back in the day... when do you think people would have predicted that Gretzky or Lemieux were never going to regress back to the mean? Some players set new norms. I know those are extremes, but the underlying point is that sometimes some factors come together that cause an outlier condition to occur. So, while you say it absolutely WILL happen, that's not necessarily true. It is more that it's probable it will happen. However, there needs to be an allowance for what happens when certain factors combine and potentially break away from the statistical norm. This is why arguing metrics is pointless. It's good for comparisons and projections but it does not predict the future. The shrinking of goaltender equipment could account for an increase in SH%. If it does, arguing the metrics from 3 years ago is pointless because the game has changed. Next year a change in the glove could increase SH%. Any of these factors will play into it. Even the same player in the same situation will trend one way or another in relation to changes on the ice. So you can say it WILL happen and I think that's where people take umbrage. You say it as an absolute. It's not.

Wouldn't that be skewed because the Central teams play the Pacific teams more often? I'm not sure that's how the season has played out yet. But over time if you play a bad division more it should. What's the Central record against the Atlantic?

It's why no one should give you guff about posting pictures lounging high above the world either.

Wow.. that's just a comically bad take.

I was at the Barnaby Line Brawl game... I can't remember which year they blasted the Flyers in the playoffs, but I was there, in a suite next to the Flyer families. Some of the best games I have been to are the Sabres beating up the on the Flyers. I won't be attending tonight, but I'll take the joy of watching on TV. Let's Go Buffalo.

It's a pretty cool place. My sister-in-law has lived in Bangor for around the past 13 years or so. They love it. We visited once. I enjoyed it. The coast line is amazing and then there's the entirety of the North country that's super remote.

Haha... I mean, what with the hair and being a doctor and all, I might have to go get a ring. ? Keep posting. You earned it. It's not like you get sent on vacation by rich parents. Besides, we've seen the pictures from when you are working your job in other countries... that's gotta earn you a little celebration time as well. (Even though you've stated how fulfilling those medical excursions are to you.)

Have to move some money to make the deal work.. more than either Pietrangelo or Parayko alone. At least if they intend to sign him...

I agree. I only spoke of the Catholic Church because you had specified it. I'm struggling to find the right words to use here. But basically, if you choose to bring a child into this world you damn well better be committed to supporting that child. As parents, the child was created from your genetics. Whatever that child "is" came from your genetics. I don't care if your child is gay, has a mental of physical impairment, whatever it is. You created this life and you damn well need to support it. Anyone who shirks that responsibility can take go find a volcano to throw themselves into to appease the gods. I gotta get away from this thread. My blood pressure is rising just thinking of it.

I'm putting Woody on ignore. I can't handle his grandstanding any longer. You know, you can eff the hell right off with all this showmanship. Or you can bring me with you.... please? ? ? ? ? ? ? Joking... I'll continue to live vicariously through your photos. Enjoy!

By all accounts is the right outcome. It's unfortunate that it took widespread publicity to get the NCAA to act. I don't believe for a single moment that if this story never made it to national attention that the NCAA would have ruled in her favor. Yeah, I don't even want to get started on that. I'm not religious and it's stuff like this that pretty much confirms I never will be. Her parents are turd blossoms. It was said they live around Rochester. I hope they move, far away. Commentary on how the Catholic Church is mired in hypocrisy can go over to the Oval Office I suppose.

I can't get over how much angst there is over "metrics" on this forum. Metrics provide a sweeping generalization to how trends in the game shape up. They do not explain specific instances. So when people who hate metrics point to a specific instance to try and explain away metrics it's laughable. Just as laughable as when people who love metrics use it to explain away a specific instance.

I understand your viewpoint. The issue in this case is that there's no reason she should not have fought for what was the right thing to do. If the NCAA had not changed it's mind she would have had to make a choice and then it really falls back to what you are talking about. You don't always get what you want, but if you never try to get it, you'll never get it. I think that's what it boils down to.

Well, we now know that one is no longer true. ?

That was coming. Yeo should be off the bench for awhile now. He just doesn't have it.

Preferred to quote this than your post game post. It's awesome that you got to experience that game in person. LIkewise. Just post the picture... ? I've made it a point to stay out of the GDTs during the games the past few weeks. I absolutely love coming in here to read them knowing from people's comments what was going on in the game at the time and just waiting to see what the responses will be. During this road trip I have watched less and less people lose faith in what the Sabres could accomplish. The posts have switched from "they're done" when down by 1 to waiting until down by 3 goals to basically disappearing and accepting that they could be fatigued and it's okay. Even then, they still won. It's super cool to watch on here. The number of names popping up to post is awesome. Some serious unbridled enthusiasm in here. And now... I can't wait for Wednesday.

I understand your point, but the point in the article was that she did not want to choose between living expenses OR cross country. You are projecting your priority into the mix. It was stated clearly in the article that she knew she could keep the donations but she wanted to have it all. The problem is that you were late to quote it. The original did not have the sub-headline. The media source doesn't add dates and times to their update (a reflection on their shoddy practices).