[OT-ish] Lenny starts for Pheonix

[Beeeej]

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one[/q]

Will not!!

Kidding, naturally.

Let's go win a national championship so we don't have to disagree about this stuff anymore.

Beeeej

[calgARI '07]

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:

 [Q2]calgARI '07 Wrote:
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one[/Q]
Will not!!

Kidding, naturally.

Let's go win a national championship so we don't have to disagree about this stuff anymore.

Beeeej[/q]

I like that idea.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

 [Q2]Beeeej Wrote:

 As far as I'm concerned, you said absolutely nothing in that post that distinguishes between LeNeveu and McKee, yet your opinions of the two are quite different.

It's fine if you just have a gut sense that McKee's the real deal and Lenny wasn't, but the way you're trying to explain it paints them both with the same brush.

Beeeej[/Q]
I just try to put things as gently as I can because some people take things personally and get really angry.  What I was saying is basically that I credit McKee a lot more with Cornell's 27-5-3 record last year and his amazing individual statistics than I do LeNeveu with Cornell's 30-5-1 record in 02-03 and his amazing individual statistics.  More specifically, LeNeveu didn't give Cornell a good opportunity to win against New Hampshire whereas I think McKee always does, even against the very high powered Minnesota team (although even in that game he didn't play at his best).[/q]

You're not really making the right comparison, though.  Lenny did play well enough for us to beat BC, holding them to one goal in over four periods, and that one kicked in.  We don't know if McKee would have done better against North Dakota than Lenny did against UNH, since we never got to that game.

[jy3]

pretty cool to be able to add lenny to my fantasy hockey team if i wanted to do so

[atb9]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 [Q2]calgARI '07 Wrote:
I don't think LeNeveu played well enough for Cornell to beat New Hampshire.[/Q]
I've got a bad video replay review or a face-save that says you're wrong

My main issue here is that it's treated as a fact that a player/team has total control over their performance. Yeah, Lenny had a relatively weak (still pretty good) game at the wrong time. But this whole 'champions play right at the best time' thing is horse-hockey. That is only true in retrospect because the champions, duh, will have played better. The main problem with sports fans is like to take 1 or 2 or 3 performances and make a 'pattern' or some non-existant meaning out of it. There is sooo much randomness envolved in all of this.
[/q]

Texas Sharp Shooter Fallacy?

I enjoyed your post, Fred, and with the Yankees elimination game buzzing in the background, my brain put your post and baseball together to create this untimely reply.  

I wanted to add that sports fans should consider reading Moneyball (I'm guessing most baseball fans have read it by now).  While the frame of the book is baseball and the Oakland A's, the larger story is about market inefficiencies--in this case, finding baseball players that, because of bias (clutch play, muscle tone, personality, etc.) or poor statistical analysis, others have overlooked.  It is a great read that transcends baseball.