Monday, January 13, 2014

We get letters...

Subject: Numbers Geek Go Away 
From: Gus Tserotas
To: James Mirtle

Any chance you could jump off a bridge and spare us your never-ending, totally boring, totally useless numbers crap?

Aside from some other numbers-geeks in the media, do you really think anyone who is a real hockey fan gives a damn about your fraudulent numbers?

First of all, even if the formulas you are using are sound, the data you are inputting is completely fraudulent. There is a HUGE variance of stat interpretation throughout the NHL, to the point of being a joke.

Just recently Joe Bowen gave three or four examples of how incredibly inaccurate these numbers coming in are. We watched a Leaf/St. Louis game filled with giveaways only to learn the stats guy in that town could only account for 1 giveaway the entire game. One NHL team is at the top of the list in takeaways at home, and near the bottom on the road. Yeah, sure.

Aside from the fact that your never-ending numbers tweets and columns are totally boring for anyone not in the geek family, they are also complete after-the-fact, Monday morning quarterback, piles of meaningless nonsense. Wins and losses aren't the result of your stupid numbers. Your stupid numbers are the results of wins and losses. Analytics are for people who went to school and learned how to punctuate. Somehow they get a job in some newspaper's sports department because they don't mind working for a laughable salary. A suddenly they are hockey experts?

If your laughable theories were as good at predicting outcomes in advance as you constantly tell everyone they are, why aren't you down in Las Vegas making tons of money off your inside knowledge? In fact, why have a NHL season at all? Why don't you just tell us right now who will win it all?

I look forward to your answer on that, so I can invest my time watching something else.

Your analytic tweets are soooooo boring, and your non-analytic tweets are juvenile. I laughed so hard at your proof that you "didn't make up the Kadri and Gardner trade talks." So I checked out your proof.....Bob Mackenzie says he "thinks the Leafs might do a trade." Oh well then, if Bob thinks they might, the deal can only be hours away.

If your punctuation degree prevents you from knowing the game of hockey by simply watching it, can you spare us your "throw enough crap at the wall and some of it will stick" approach to reporting?

Tweeting fraudulent numbers all day long makes you a fraud as well. 


At 4:53 p.m., January 13, 2014, Blogger SkinnyFish said...

"Analytics are for people who went to school and learned how to punctuate."


At 5:09 p.m., January 13, 2014, Blogger Ben Moore said...

One point he does have: the hard core stuff should stay inside the stathead community. The backlash would be the same if mainstream publications suddenly start printing academic articles. The average Joe is hostile to what he cannot understand, and it doesn't help that not everyone who hawks sports analytics really understands statistics (especially the importance of signal vs. noise, in the other words: skill vs. luck).

At 5:11 p.m., January 13, 2014, Blogger James Mirtle said...

Which teams have the puck in the one zone more than the other zone is not "hard core stuff." None of what I print in The Globe is.

This "average Joe" is hostile to me, and I do understand statistics and often refer to skill v. luck as a key element of statistical analysis in hockey.

At 5:26 p.m., January 13, 2014, Blogger Dirk Hoag said...

Where can I get one of those punctuation degrees? I have, real trouble; with it sometimes:

At 7:10 p.m., January 13, 2014, Blogger Daniel Wagner said...

Takeaways and giveaways are flawed. Therefore, all statistics are flawed.



Post a Comment

<< Home


Free Page Rank Checker
eXTReMe Tracker