Jump to content

Analytics on the Main Forum  

44 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you in favor of removing analytics discussions and use from the Main Forum of Sabrespace?

    • Yes, it should be discussed elsewhere
    • No, it adds to the main forum
  2. 2. Are you in favor of posters who use analytics on the Main Forum being banned for using advanced statistics?

  3. 3. Should analytics still exist on the Main Forum but solely in their own dedicated thread?



Recommended Posts

Posted
9 hours ago, Eleven said:

Lat me ask a question:  Do you analytics folks post when the Sabres should have won, but lost?  It is an honest question.

I’m not sure I’m an analytic folk, but I distinctly recall such a conversation after a loss to the Rangers early on this season. I think this happens regularly when the Sabres lose, but deserved better. Not for nothing: That hasn’t happened too much this season.

7 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

 #fancystats will go the way of the self-driving car 

I look forward to digging up and replying anew to this post while sitting in a self-driven Uber. Shoot. They’re back online in Pittsburgh, yes? (Only for testing?)

 

Posted
2 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

I’m not sure I’m an analytic folk, but I distinctly recall such a conversation after a loss to the Rangers early on this season. I think this happens regularly when the Sabres lose, but deserved better. Not for nothing: That hasn’t happened too much this season.

Well then let's leave them alone and let them do their thing.

Posted
1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

Leave who alone to do what?

Just restating my original opinion, which I think you agree with, that if some folks want to get all analytic, let 'em.

  • Thanks (+1) 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Just restating my original opinion, which I think you agree with, that if some folks want to get all analytic, let 'em.

Thanks. When I drop in and drop out over the course of days, I lose the thread sometimes. Like: "Wait, what are we talking about?" 

Posted
32 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

Dumb thread.  And by the votes so far I'm not the only one who thinks that. Landslide "L" for OP's garbage take.

Looks like you have not read the whole thing.  You are missing a lot, if not all, of the context behind the OP.

Posted
1 hour ago, matter2003 said:

Dumb thread.  And by the votes so far I'm not the only one who thinks that. Landslide "L" for OP's garbage take.

Technically I am that OP. Might want to double check why and how this came about. 

Posted
13 minutes ago, sabills said:

Anyone want to do a quick recap or quote a few key comments? I voted when this first started but I don't really want to read through 6 pages of stuff. I'd appreciate it.

Using stats is great, except when it sucks.

Differing views on when that is.

Posted
18 minutes ago, sabills said:

Anyone want to do a quick recap or quote a few key comments? I voted when this first started but I don't really want to read through 6 pages of stuff. I'd appreciate it.

Some people really like projecting negative connotations onto entirely harmless posts about stats and then getting upset about it.

Posted
6 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Some people really like projecting negative connotations onto entirely harmless posts about stats and then getting upset about it.

I can't even imagine where our notion of condescension is coming from.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, sabills said:

Anyone want to do a quick recap or quote a few key comments? I voted when this first started but I don't really want to read through 6 pages of stuff. I'd appreciate it.

Liger started this thread with a Corsi of 65% but that has since dropped to 58%.

PA's Hunwick number has gone from 6 to 12.

Swamp's TPS ratio is not being reported using the new cover sheets.

And matter has only one zone start, and it wasn't positive.

I think that covers it.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 3
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Liger started this thread with a Corsi of 65% but that has since dropped to 58%.

PA's Hunwick number has gone from 6 to 12.

Swamp's TPS ratio is not being reported using the new cover sheets.

And matter has only one zone start, and it wasn't positive.

I think that covers it.

Image result for big applause gif

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Technically I am that OP. Might want to double check why and how this came about. 

You are a co-conspirator now. It wasn't up to you to ask the questions. (And you botched them pretty badly.) Own it.

Edited by PASabreFan
Syphilis
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

You are a co-conspirator now. It wasn't up to you to ask the questions. (And you botched them pretty badly.) Own it.

lol it's okay. You got proven wrong... so I guess I will own it.

giphy.gif?cid=3640f6095c421e102f53727177

  • LGR4GM locked and unlocked this topic
Posted
39 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I can't even imagine where our notion of condescension is coming from.

It all starts and ends with you guys. You bring it on yourselves. It would be a very simple problem to solve. But apparently grown men would prefer to be big babies and cry about how talking about the games bums them out.

  • LGR4GM locked this topic
Posted

[This is an automated response]

This topic is no longer contributing positively to the community and therefore the discussion has been closed.

Thank you.

  • Thanks (+1) 2
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...