LGR4GM Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I would consider these types of things part of the control group. Welcome back. So, you would ignore the extreme results, just because it's one sample? The thing about this is if we are being empirical is that this is too small of a sample size. This game has the very real possibility of being a statistical outlier. It can only be used in the larger context of the season and it is again an outlier. This is all predicated on the idea that hockey can be analyzed this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 While we all have reason to be optimistic, the Sabres still have a long ways to go. Let's hope they keep this up. They did it last year, can they do it again? Glad to see this team finally have some heart again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Ho hum. Okay, so, if one were a scientist, and the Sabres were an experiment, what would be tonight's variable? I'll say it.....Boston has looked terrible the last 4 games. Buffalo has had this game circled since Nov. 23rd. A hockey season ebbs and flows, waxes and wanes. Boston has been ebbing and waning. Buffalo is finally flowing and waxing. (especially Miller) I'll discount the opponent and the coaching..... this is mostly a team getting back in synch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 There is a bit of a difference between rooting for the team to lose and acknowledging that losing may be the best thing for them. I was most certainly NOT rooting for the team to lose tonight (and enjoyed every bit of this game) but I cannot help but look at the standings and think that moving up isn't going to get us what we really need. Yeah, perhaps using the term "rooting to lose" was a bit strong. But I still can't reconcile the conflict between being OK if they win and being OK if they lose. Does that capture it? As a fan, I just don't see the point in not having a vested interest in the outcome of a game. GO SABRES!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 The thing about this is if we are being empirical is that this is too small of a sample size. This game has the very real possibility of being a statistical outlier. It can only be used in the larger context of the season and it is again an outlier. This is all predicated on the idea that hockey can be analyzed this way. Depends on the type of analysis. I wouldn't call tonight an outlier - I would call the prior four games outliers. Tonight would be more like an influential case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Welcome back. So, you would ignore the extreme results, just because it's one sample? The odd result wouldn't beckon more experimentation? Actually the fact that they are "extreme results" would make me more likely to ignore them because it's one sample. And as others have pointed out, these "extreme results" were the same as the last time we played Boston, with the exception of the score. Do you also believe we should hold Vanek out of the lineup longer since we've been winning without him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I'll say it.....Boston has looked terrible the last 4 games. Buffalo has had this game circled since Nov. 23rd. A hockey season ebbs and flows, waxes and wanes. Boston has been ebbing and waning. Buffalo is finally flowing and waxing. (especially Miller) I'll discount the opponent and the coaching..... this is mostly a team getting back in synch. Hmm. Getting healthy bodies back on the ice and resembling the team envisioned in training camp and seeing them get in sync. What a concept. GO SABRES!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I'll say it.....Boston has looked terrible the last 4 games. Buffalo has had this game circled since Nov. 23rd. A hockey season ebbs and flows, waxes and wanes. Boston has been ebbing and waning. Buffalo is finally flowing and waxing. (especially Miller) I'll discount the opponent and the coaching..... this is mostly a team getting back in synch. Finally, a voice of reason. A hockey game isn't an "experiment," and if it were, there are far more variables than just having a different head coach. Team A could beat Team B by a score of 4-3 one day, and then lose to them 5-2 next time they play. It happens all season long, for every team. That's why they play 82 games. The fact that the Sabres won with Patrick behind the bench instead of Ruff means literally nothing to me, nor should it to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I'll say it.....Boston has looked terrible the last 4 games. Buffalo has had this game circled since Nov. 23rd. A hockey season ebbs and flows, waxes and wanes. Boston has been ebbing and waning. Buffalo is finally flowing and waxing. (especially Miller) I'll discount the opponent and the coaching..... this is mostly a team getting back in synch. The waxing and waning of players and games are merely controls here. They normally vary. I guess if you want to play the James Patrick Game®, you have to consider this game perhaps the most inspired game this team has played this season. If not, then the game has no value to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Depends on the type of analysis. I wouldn't call tonight an outlier - I would call the prior four games outliers. Tonight would be more like an influential case. Do you have any idea how insanely biased that sounds? You were looking for another reason to say Ruff sucks and you found it. Shocking. It's like me searching for a reason to support Obama, and use holiday sales figures as some sort of evidence his policies have turned around the economy. Or maybe, it's just a business cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson's Flow Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 So I will be man enough to say it... I did not see that outcome coming. I'll be back with more insight tomorrow at work, but I just wanted to say that tonight my two teams (Syracuse basketball and Sabres hockey) gave me one of the best sports nights I can remember in a long time. P.S. I fully expect to see a "Fire Ruff" or "Patrick for head coach" thread pop up tomorrow morning. Should be fun... :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Actually the fact that they are "extreme results" would make me more likely to ignore them because it's one sample. And as others have pointed out, these "extreme results" were the same as the last time we played Boston, with the exception of the score. Do you also believe we should hold Vanek out of the lineup longer since we've been winning without him? Vanek is a control. The last Boston game was an aberration and should be discarded - it was manipulated. However, THE Boston game, where Miller was run, that is the opposite end of this spectrum - that was certainly an extreme result, an influential case. Interesting to note the contrasts and the results of the "experiment" between the extremes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Actually the fact that they are "extreme results" would make me more likely to ignore them because it's one sample. And as others have pointed out, these "extreme results" were the same as the last time we played Boston, with the exception of the score. Do you also believe we should hold Vanek out of the lineup longer since we've been winning without him? Sample of what? What's the research question? I think the other poster are pointing out variables that might impact the likelihood that we'd win this particular game (Boston sucking lately, Miller hot lately, etc.). I think you speak of the whole season (i.e. a game is a single sample), no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Vanek is a control. The last Boston game was an aberation and should be discarded - it was manipulated. However, THE Boston game, where Miller was run, that is the opposite end of this spectrum - that was certainly an extreme result, an influential case. Interesting to note the contrasts and the results of the "experiment" between the extremes. So that was a manipulated aberration and the last 4 games are outliers. But tonight's aberration isn't an aberration at all, it's the important case because it's the case that supports your conclusion that Ruff sucks. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsrcursed Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I hold by my belief that if they traded Roy, Stafford would improve. Yikes, I feel sorry for you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 give it a rest. so vanek, who ideally would play 82 games a year, is a control even though he's out of the lineup, but Ruff, who ideally would coach 82 games a year, is a variable when he's not behind the bench?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koomkie Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Ruff must be screaming into Teppo's ear "why haven't you shuffled the lines yet?! What's wrong with you guys?!" hahhahhaahathis made me laugh so freakin hard! great game, kaleta, leino were really good. the hoff played well. happy to see miller playing solid lately...i think the D has been great for him as well. wow, for a while i forgot that ennis was even on the team...having him back has been amazing! lucic and chara are so pathetic. no respect. way to be professionals. go sabres!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Just got home from the game and I'm not sure what I just saw... - A Sabres win - They scored 6 goals - Miller plays well and gets a shutout - 3 fights - Pominville scoring two goals from the dirtiest place on the ice while Chara is caught picking his ass! - ...against Boston! Forget whether or not they make the playoffs(I don't think it is happening), tonight reminded me how much fun a hockey game can be to attend in person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 You were looking for another reason to say Ruff sucks and you found it. Really, so you've gone from being an Ivory Tower dweller to an Ouija board user? Hmm, and you talk about objectivity and facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 The waxing and waning of players and games are merely controls here. They normally vary. I guess if you want to play the James Patrick Game®, you have to consider this game perhaps the most inspired game this team has played this season. If not, then the game has no value to you. How's this?....First time Miller has played Boston since he got run. That's your variable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Sample of what? What's the research question? I think the other poster are pointing out variables that might impact the likelihood that we'd win this particular game (Boston sucking lately, Miller hot lately, etc.). I think you speak of the whole season (i.e. a game is a single sample), no? Apparently the research question is: What impact did James Patrick have on tonight's win? The proposed hypothesis, derived from this, is: Did James Patrick cause (or was primarily responsible for) the result tonight? The argument is that tonight they looked the way they did because Patrick was behind the bench instead of Ruff, so that's about the crux of it. I guess another way of phrasing would be: If Lindy Ruff was behind the bench tonight calling the shots, would the outcome have been less positive? Would this team be better with Patrick instead of Ruff? Regardless of exact phrasing, it can't be addressed properly with a 1 game sample of Patrick behind the bench calling the shots, it just can't. Not to mention, as every player has said afterwards...it was Ruff's gameplan, Ruff's lines, Ruff's matchups and Ruff's system. All Patrick did was execute it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 How's this?....First time Miller has played Boston since he got run. That's your variable. Ooh, a rational reply! Thanks! And a stymie, too. Let me give it some thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverPowerYou Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Just got home from the game and I'm not sure what I just saw... - A Sabres win - They scored 6 goals - Miller plays well and gets a shutout - 3 fights - Pominville scoring two goals from the dirtiest place on the ice while Chara is caught picking his ass! - ...against Boston! Forget whether or not they make the playoffs(I don't think it is happening), tonight reminded me how much fun a hockey game can be to attend in person. I wonder when we will see the first post about "It was quiet in the building tonight." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Really, so you've gone from being an Ivory Tower dweller to an Ouija board user? Hmm, and you talk about objectivity and facts. It's simple deductive logic: anybody using this game to make the case that the team hates Ruff, or Patrick is the superior coach, is not evaluating it objectively, or at the very least has no idea what sample size means. In order for variables to have any explanatory power, they need to vary, and Patrick's presence behind the bench in 1 game simply cannot be a variable, from a statistical standpoint. It can't. Edit: In conclusion: We don't know exactly why they won this game. It could be 1 thing, it could be random, it could be a combination of many different things together. But we don't know, and we can't know, because it's 1 game. But what is for sure, is you cannot simultaneously say that when the team looks good with Ruff behind the bench it's fake, or an aberration, or an outlier, but in the game where Patrick is behind the bench, it's the only thing that matters. That is the definition of bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Just got home from the game and I'm not sure what I just saw... - A Sabres win - They scored 6 goals - Miller plays well and gets a shutout - 3 fights - Pominville scoring two goals from the dirtiest place on the ice while Chara is caught picking his ass! - ...against Boston! Forget whether or not they make the playoffs(I don't think it is happening), tonight reminded me how much fun a hockey game can be to attend in person. We just got back also, I like how the Sabres played, the Bruins looked like they have played theyre best hockey and are just waiting to turn it on when it counts....IMO..Miller played really good, and we buried our chances. I still think we need 3 real centers before we are a real team but its fun to beat anyone 6 zip let alone the Bruins..I will sleep with a smile tonight.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.