Recent Updates Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • SharkCircle 10:39 pm on July 25, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , I, , , , , , ,   

    A Handsgate Exclusive, Part III: One Squeeze For Luck, One Squeeze For Control, & One Quest For Line-mates 

    Follow me @SharkCircle

    A Handsgate Exclusive is my next blog-series which will tell an entirely fictitious story loosely inspired by the buttocks-grabbing controversy, AKA “Handsgate.” MAKE SURE YOU READ PART I and PART II FIRST if you haven’t! Here is part III. Click Here To Continue Reading Full Post!

     
  • SharkCircle 8:05 pm on July 24, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , NHL police Buttocks grab,   

    A Handsgate Exclusive, Part II: How To Make Squeeze & Influence People, From Soft Proofs To Highlight-Reel Rescues 

    Follow me @SharkCircle

    A Handsgate Exclusive is my next blog-series which will tell an entirely fictitious story loosely inspired by the buttocks-grabbing controversy, AKA “Handsgate.” It will be released in three parts. Here is part II. Click Here To Continue Reading Full Post!

     
  • SharkCircle 2:59 pm on July 24, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , NHL Fiction, , , NHL News, , ,   

    A Handsgate Exclusive, Part I: Collusion, Nostalgia, And Canadian Ro-Sham-Bo 

    Follow me @SharkCircle

    A Handsgate Exclusive is my next blog-series which will tell an entirely fictitious story loosely inspired by the buttocks-grabbing controversy, AKA “Handsgate.” It will be released in three parts. Here is part I.

    DISCLAIMER: All the events and dialogue portrayed come from my own lively imagination and are not real. The police officers in this story are not real-life police officers. I made up their names, personalities, and dialogue. The entire story is a fictional joke. It is not meant to represent actual events, or the actual dialogue or beliefs of any real people. It is using one funny thing that allegedly happened in the hockey world and then making an entirely fictitious story out of it with fake dialogue. With that in mind, the spelling is intentional as well. I don’t know any NHL players and so have no way of representing their personalities or beliefs accurately. It’s all fiction. It’s all a joke. Yeah yeah, jokes have to be funny. At the least, it’s all fiction. Want to make that clear. Good.

    With the recent rumors that Claud Gireaux was reportedly arrested recently for allegedly grabbing the buttocks of a male police officer, many out there in the hockey community (and maybe some other communities) have wondered what exactly happened.

    Luckily, I have sources on the inside in, well, wherever this supposedly happened, Philadelphia probably, and I’ve heard a detailed account of the fateful events that took place that day, revealed here in a behind the scenes Shark Circle exclusive. Click Here To Continue Reading Full Post!

     
  • SharkCircle 12:25 pm on July 21, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: CIA funds Ms. Magazine, Cory Felker funds Gloria Steinem, Feminism news, Gloria Steinem CIA proof, Katharine Graham funds Gloria Steinem, NHL Sharks Ice Girls Men's Rights Advocate, , Second-wave feminism CIA, Sharks Ice Girls Not Sexist, Twitter feminism ignorance   

    Twitter: Where “Experts” On Everything Take Pride In What They Don’t Know, So Long As There’s Company 

    !–Follow me @SharkCircle–! And for something less serious and hopefully more funny, check out my Handsgate Series

    Here I summarize all the most important information I know of from reputable sources on the CIA’s promotion and funding of Gloria Steinem from 1959 to at least 1972, and more. For those most curious about whether the CIA funded Ms. magazine specifically after the recent twitter debate, you can click here to go directly to the sections of the blog that offer verifiable proof of that. But if you want the whole story (“whole” so far as I know it and reputable sources have reported on it), read the whole blog.

    This post is the most troubling I’ve ever written. But this needs saying. Luckily, I do have the answers, so unless you, like some on the twitter machine, can’t handle the truth, I invite you to take ten minutes to learn something even more important than my opinion on Joe Thornton. Trust me, it’s a better option than whining on twitter about something you didn’t even read and looking like a misinformed dunce in the process. Enjoy!

    Twitter is a lot like pre-school, where everyone makes fun of the one kid who learned to read before everyone else because none of them want to feel inferior. If you re-tweet what your friends say and never stray from popular opinion, your reward is inclusion in the circle-jerk of ego massaging. CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING FULL POST – IF YOU DARE!

     
    • Derek 5:08 am on July 23, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      I’m not sure if you’re willfully ignorant or just woefully simple-minded but it seems like there’s a lot of overlap between your criticism of feminism and your criticism of “advanced stats.” Namely, you’re under the impression (or pretend to be, since it serves your argument) that these communities are monoliths and that pointing out contradictory positions held by different people within them somehow invalidates it all. Or, if that doesn’t work, you build up a fictional strawman to beat down in the hope that the two people who read this site won’t be looking too closely.

      Let’s talk about you “correcting” me about PDO. You e-mailed me one of your patented 10,000-word screeds in which you deliberately and blatantly misrepresented my work by holding me accountable for things other people had written as though everyone who writes about hockey stats on the internet belongs to some sort of collective hivemind. I patiently explained to you that I’ve never once claimed PDO regresses to exactly 1000 for every player. Rather, what substantial evidence suggests is that team-to-team differences in shooting percentage are small in the long term and you need a very large data set to overcome the amount of noise inherent in shooting percentage outcomes. On the defensive side of things, goalies who have changed teams have seen their save percentages change almost exactly as much as we’d expect from random chance alone, implying the impact of team defenses on shot quality is likely minimal. This is corroborated by the extremely low level of year-over-year repeatability seen in on-ice save percentages for defensemen at five-on-five; a trend that persists when looking at on-ice shooting percentages.

      Again, that doesn’t mean every single player will see their PDO regress to 1000 in the long run and I’ve never once claimed that. Sidney Crosby and Steven Stamkos will consistently post higher PDOs than Mike Brown and Trevor Lewis; that isn’t luck, it’s skill. What all of that does mean is that, among the general NHL population, most players will be unable to sustain over multiple seasons a PDO that deviates substantially from the mean. It’s a useful tool for predicting player performance but there are absolutely players who will see their on-ice shooting or save percentage regress to different means than 1000. As a side note, just because a player’s inflated on-ice shooting percentage is likely unsustainable in the long term doesn’t mean his production has all been a fluke and that pucks are going in off him and his teammate’s asses. It’s very possible Jordan Eberle in 2012 or Nazem Kadri in 2013 were generating more of their shots (or setting their teammates up for shots) on breakaways or two-on-ones or other plays expected to yield a higher shooting percentage. What studying years of PDO data (again, I’m not just saying this stuff, it’s all detailed in the links above and you’re welcome to repeat the studies to see if you get similar results) suggests is that these odd-man opportunities, for most players, are unlikely to present themselves in the same frequency the following season. In an era of relative parity there’s less in the way of exceptions when it comes to teams which makes PDO a fairly effective predictor of which teams will rise and fall, although not necessarily within a given timeframe.

      None of this is anything new to you. I e-mailed you almost this exact response over a year ago and further explained it on twitter. You chose to ignore it and continued to misrepresent me as having written that every player regresses to a 1000 PDO always and that Corsi is the only thing anyone should ever look at when evaluating players and that the NHL should disband and be replaced with spreadsheet-watching. Scrolling through your twitter feed, I really don’t think we see hockey all that differently but you seem to view anyone who tries to incorporate statistical analysis into hockey writing as a personal affront and appear to be obsessed with me in particular. There’s plenty to criticize or improve upon when it comes to hockey stats but it would probably behoove you to do so with actual evidence rather than putting words in my mouth or that of anyone else then covering your ears when I tell you you’re full of shit.

      Like

      • SharkCircle 6:45 am on July 23, 2014 Permalink | Reply

        Who are you? If you’re Fear The Fin, I’ve already detailed your statistical miscalculations in the past. I’m all for advanced stats, but you have to calculate them correctly, and not over-extend them past what they can tell you, otherwise you end up spreading misconceptions.

        And if you are Fear The Fin, I’ve seen you refer many times to PDO “almost always” regressing to or close to 1,000. It’s only through the nagging of people like me that lately I’ve started to see some hedge a little bit, saying things like “except for maybe the Bruins lately.” If you’re doing that now too, more power to you, but try to remember how inflexible you were on the concept a few years ago before I tweeted you the Bruins numbers. Regardless, even if you’re more flexible now, you still misunderstand the concept and say things like “The Wild are bound to fall in the standings, their PDO is extremely high and is bound to regress towards 1,000. That time it did, although you were too focused on saying “See???” to include how they were also decimated by injuries. Still, no issue on that one, that team was over-performing.

        Then there’s Anaheim. Two seasons ago, they started the season on fire, and you said the same thing, how they were relying too much on percentages and were bound to regress because their possession was poor. They were awesome almost the entire year, however, until the last five games of the regular season, where they lost a few in a row. Immediately you and others in the advanced stats community were back in “see?” mode. In reality, their coach, Bruce Boudreau, said on record how they’d stayed motivated for 95% of the season because they thought they could catch the Blackhawks for 1st place, but once they realized with five games left that the Blackhawks just weren’t going to lose enough, they took their foot off the gas. When has taking off the last few games of the season when your playoff spot is already secured ever been regression?

        That’s what I mean by the overextension of stats. You strain to find ways to make your stats fit even when there are perfectly logical explanations for why something happened that don’t involve the stats. And just as I tried to tell you two seasons ago, the Ducks are really, really good. They weren’t “regressing” and they showed that again this year, the entire year, putting up good percentages again. I don’t have anything against you personally outside of ridiculing me on twitter for things I say that are actually true, and making jokes about how I don’t know the Titanic was a real ship (and is now a ship wreck). Jokes like that are just this false way of feeling superior and calling me stupid without actually having a reason why. I stick my neck out to tell the truth on an unpopular subject, and instead of actually addressing a real reason why I’m stupid, you just make one up. “He doesn’t know the Titanic is real, so he’s stupid, and I do know it’s real, so I’m smarter. Hahaha!” It’s completely fake. If you want to have a go, have a go, but don’t lean on fabrications and your hand-me-down audience.

        But I’ve never had a problem with you outside of that. I’d just like to be able to discuss hockey within reality, and yes with stats, but you let your stats overrule your reality. If a stats study told you the earth was flat, you’d believe it, and you wouldn’t even listen if I pointed out the miscalculations.

        For instance, PDO. A stat “mostly” dependent on luck, according to the stats community. And yet it’s mostly comprised of save percentage, which is a skill. Forget the defensive’s effect on it, I mean the goalie. The Bruins sustain high PDOs mostly because they have a great goaltender. So how can something mostly dependent on a skill be mostly dependent on luck? It’s a total paradox and fallacy. Any logical thinking on the matter tells you that the study you’re quoting is flawed. Whoever did it messed up. But you only see its conclusions, and from there on nothing anyone tells you will wake you up to reality because someone did a study that says it’s a certain way. The study is flawed. Most of the people doing those studies are unqualified. That’s just the truth.

        Additionally, as I’ve tried to tell you, PDO doesn’t “regress” to anything. You believe that across the league, it regresses very closely to 1,000. I believe that was the wording in the PDO study, as well, “close” or “almost.” Absolutely wrong. PDO across the league is always 1,000. Exactly 1,000. This is not a case of regression, it’s a case of is. You are adding the percentage of shots saved across the league to the percentage of shots that aren’t saved. You are adding one piece of a pie to the rest of the pie. The answer is always 100%. It never wavers. The only question is how this percentage if distributed among teams. The only reason the study didn’t find it “regressed” exactly to 1,000 is probably because he only used one decimal point, so it skewed the numbers slightly. In fact the NHL’s PDO is always 1,000 and doesn’t regress at all. Don’t know how many times I’ve told you this. The study was flawed in its design and so actually measures nothing at all, just that when you add one piece of a pie to the rest of it, you will have the whole pie.

        The result of this misunderstanding is that instead of just looking at obvious good and bad teams, like in cases such as Anaheim where it’s obvious their style of play and their players create higher quality scoring chances (and they may have elite shooting talent too), you’re always waiting for regression in teams with elite goaltenders or elite shooters. For anyone else it would be obvious. They’ve put together two spectacular seasons in an incredibly tough division. But you’re still waiting for the other shoe to drop. And they did that with Bryan Allen, who you guys are absolutely right about.

        Why do I care? I like talking hockey with people, and you’re spreading misinformation to these people which they then base arguments on. It makes talking hockey impossible. I’ve even tried talking to you about hockey on twitter. You often bring up advanced stats points. Some of them are good, but many are flawed. But then when I explain how they’re flawed, you completely ignore it. I don’t want to think poorly of you, but you said it yourself, I went out of my way to send a long email, as you ridiculed me for in your comment, so that you could better understand PDO. And yet a year later, you still don’t understand it, and you still use every small losing streak of a team with high PDO as evidence that they’re regressing while ignoring other possible, and sometimes more likely, reasons.

        And so when you question my deductions and evidence about anything, especially something I’ve known about for a long time that you probably hadn’t heard of five minutes earlier, it is a bit unbelievable to me just because not only were you wrong, as this blog details, but I’ve done that with you so many times on advanced stats when I’ve actually proven that you were wrong, and you just ignored it. Your Tom Gilbert blog is probably still up. How do you explain having Tom Gilbert and Matt Carle ranked above Keith Yandle? Well, because you (or Copper & Blue whose work you promoted and built on) fudged the numbers, as I detailed in my blog. It’s unbelievable to have evidence questioned by someone who you’ve proven has used faulty evidence many times before, and on a topic they’ve probably never heard of to boot. Hopefully you can understand how that’s unfair. If a neutral person is picking between the two of us in a disagreement over whose evidence or calculations are more dependable, they’re picking me. I don’t know why you constantly position yourself on the opposite side of me on any topic. Some people are really good at the trapeze, I’m really good at making calculations and understanding evidence and variables. I don’t know why when your instinct is to disagree, you always assume it’s because I’m wrong. I didn’t ace every standardized test I took from grade school through college because I miscalculate a lot. That doesn’t mean I can never be wrong and you can never be right. You’re certainly entitled to disagree with me. But maybe not on topics where I’ve already explained to you that your understanding is incorrect? We’ve been having the same PDO disagreement for years over twitter. If you won’t take my word for it, at the very least don’t take that study’s word for it. Crunch the numbers yourself. Go calculate what the PDO was for the entire NHL at the end of last season, and calculate every decimal point, see what it says.

        Additionally, why do you always take the word of flawed studies over common sense? The entire 2014 NHL Draft we heard about which prospects had the “best shots” and how this was a skill that mattered. So when exactly does the shooting ability we look for in prospects turn into shooting luck in the pros for 99% of players? It’s illogical. Someone fudged a study somewhere. And what about when your stats tell you that forwards start to decline at 25 or 26, while another one of your studies shows that Thornton is the only player whose postseason production drops below the standard deviation zone (he’s the anti-Briere in that chart), but you have nothing bad to say about him? He’ll be 35 this season. Forwards start declining at 25, according to the most quoted study, which also sounds completely fudged to me (although I haven’t verified this one the same as PDO etc), and Thornton is 35. He’s underproduced at a historic level in the playoffs even in his prime, which is the major knock on him, but you expect that to get better at 35?

        Essentially even advanced stats confirm everything about him that all his critics say, as well as DW confirming this offseason that there’s a “culture problem” under him, and yet you guys still call his critics “MOAR GRIT!” people and make fun of them and call them stupid. Stupid for what? Being completely supported by the stats you claim to value? Or is that only when they don’t say bad things about your favorite player?

        It’s this cocktail of misinterpreted stats (PDO), miscalculated studies (Tom Gilbert, PDO, many others), bias (ignoring how the stats support all the criticisms of JT in the playoffs), and arrogance (making fun of Thornton’s critics even though the stats say they are right) that makes you and others acting in the same manner a negative influence on the hockey community at large. So much so, that I’ve written blogs about it. And I know when you read this your head is immediately going to search for reasons why it’s not true. Once again we disagree, and immediately you think it must be me that’s wrong. How about this time we do things differently? Instead of writing all the reasons I’m always the one whose wrong, go crunch the PDO numbers again first. Go read my blog showing where you and Copper & Blue miscalculated the Tom Gilbert study. If I just made all that up, then I’m delusional and you’re right as always. But at least look at it first.

        Like

        • Derek 8:02 am on July 23, 2014 Permalink | Reply

          “I’ve seen you refer many times to PDO “almost always” regressing to or close to 1,000. It’s only through the nagging of people like me that lately I’ve started to see some hedge a little bit, saying things like “except for maybe the Bruins lately.” If you’re doing that now too, more power to you, but try to remember how inflexible you were on the concept a few years ago before I tweeted you the Bruins numbers.”

          Where? Show me the evidence that I’ve written that. And stuff written by someone else on a website that isn’t Fear The Fin doesn’t count as evidence. You keep completely misrepresenting my position on just about everything then argue against the fictional character you’ve created. Good for you. Anyway, if you think you’ve influenced my thinking on hockey at all you’re every bit the delusional crackhead your writing portrays you as. Look through your e-mail archive, James, and you’ll find the comment I posted above almost verbatim in a reply to you over a year ago. Your nagging hasn’t changed shit.

          “Then there’s Anaheim. Two seasons ago, they started the season on fire, and you said the same thing, how they were relying too much on percentages and were bound to regress because their possession was poor. They were awesome almost the entire year, however, until the last five games of the regular season, where they lost a few in a row. Immediately you and others in the advanced stats community were back in “see?” mode. In reality, their coach, Bruce Boudreau, said on record how they’d stayed motivated for 95% of the season because they thought they could catch the Blackhawks for 1st place, but once they realized with five games left that the Blackhawks just weren’t going to lose enough, they took their foot off the gas. When has taking off the last few games of the season when your playoff spot is already secured ever been regression?”

          Anaheim went 7-12-1 in their final 20 games that season then flamed out in the first round. That’s a bit more than a five-game losing streak. But I’d definitely agree that regression gets grossly overused to explain winning streaks by low-PDO teams or losing streaks by high-PDO teams; regression is a long-term process and isn’t really a plausible explanation for a team winning or losing, say, seven games in a row. Here’s the thing though: I don’t use it like that. Stop conflating me with other people. The “advanced stats community” is not a monolith.

          “For instance, PDO. A stat “mostly” dependent on luck, according to the stats community. And yet it’s mostly comprised of save percentage, which is a skill. Forget the defensive’s effect on it, I mean the goalie. The Bruins sustain high PDOs mostly because they have a great goaltender. So how can something mostly dependent on a skill be mostly dependent on luck? It’s a total paradox and fallacy. Any logical thinking on the matter tells you that the study you’re quoting is flawed. Whoever did it messed up. But you only see its conclusions, and from there on nothing anyone tells you will wake you up to reality because someone did a study that says it’s a certain way. The study is flawed. Most of the people doing those studies are unqualified. That’s just the truth.”

          You still lack even a basic understanding of how people actually use PDO and you clearly did not read my comment or any of the studies I linked to. Of course some teams will have consistently higher (or lower) PDOs than others due to goaltending; no one disputes this, least of all the studies I linked to which you still haven’t read. But even a truly exceptional goaltender, who stops 93% of the shots he faces at even-strength, only boosts his team to a 1012 “true talent” PDO given average shooting. When a team is riding a 1025 PDO, particularly when they aren’t one of the clubs who employ a top-3 goalie, you can safely bet they won’t be able to sustain that. This isn’t stuff I’m pulling out of my ass, there’s mountains of evidence supporting it which you refuse to read and dismiss out of hand. If the people doing those studies are unqualified, you’re free to prove them wrong by redoing those studies and finding different results.

          “Your Tom Gilbert blog is probably still up. How do you explain having Tom Gilbert and Matt Carle ranked above Keith Yandle?”

          This Tom Gilbert smoking gun you think you’ve discovered is ridiculous. First of all, and this is kind of important, I didn’t write the post in which you claim there are miscalculations. Let me repeat that again: the only post you ever link to that provides supposedly incontrovertible proof of my inept math skills wasn’t just not written by me, it wasn’t even published on Fear The Fin. I don’t know if you suffer from a very specific form of illiteracy in which you’re incapable of reading bylines (or URLs, for that matter) but I didn’t write that post, I merely linked to it.

          As for your criticism of that post, which I didn’t write, I have to think you’re being intentionally obtuse when you refer to the margin of error on scoring chance data while advocating for goal-based plus-minus. Players are on the ice for a significantly greater number of scoring chances in a given season than they are goals, meaning the margin of error is that much smaller for chance differential than it is for goal differential. That’s a huge reason why people prefer to look at shots and chances over goals. The zonestart adjustment wasn’t perfect but it likely didn’t have much of an impact on the numbers either way. I could have just as easily linked to years of raw Corsi data showing Gilbert’s teams substantially improved with him on the ice but The Copper & Blue’s post provided some context so I went with that. To be completely honest, my post wasn’t meant to be hard-hitting analysis in the least; it was just my picks for the US Olympic Team over a year out. We conducted a poll of SB Nation writers to pick the roster and I knew guys like Gilbert and Carle would get overlooked so I threw them a bone. If I was seriously picking the actual team, I would have gone with Keith Yandle and Justin Faulk over them.

          “Additionally, why do you always take the word of flawed studies over common sense? The entire 2014 NHL Draft we heard about which prospects had the “best shots” and how this was a skill that mattered. So when exactly does the shooting ability we look for in prospects turn into shooting luck in the pros for 99% of players? It’s illogical. Someone fudged a study somewhere.”

          There are so many levels of idiocy to unravel here. Yes, elite prospects are going to stand out for their shooting ability (among other things) in a league full of teenagers, the vast majority of whom will never play professional hockey, to a greater extent than NHL stars are going to stand out among a league full of professional athletes. You’re talking to me about common sense and can’t even grasp a point as simple as that one? You’ve also conveniently constructed yet another straw man; of course there’s real differentiation in shooting talent at the NHL level, even if it isn’t as wide a spread as at lower levels of hockey. Steven Stamkos’ career 17.5% shooting percentage isn’t luck; a career 9% shooter in Joe Pavelski shooting 19% in a season is. I love that you immediately jump to a conspiracy theory about data manipulation rather than taking the time to understand what people’s arguments about this stuff actually are.

          “And what about when your stats tell you that forwards start to decline at 25 or 26, while another one of your studies shows that Thornton is the only player whose postseason production drops below the standard deviation zone (he’s the anti-Briere in that chart), but you have nothing bad to say about him? He’ll be 35 this season. Forwards start declining at 25, according to the most quoted study, which also sounds completely fudged to me (although I haven’t verified this one the same as PDO etc), and Thornton is 35. He’s underproduced at a historic level in the playoffs even in his prime, which is the major knock on him, but you expect that to get better at 35?”

          It’s cool that you’ll read and incessantly cite studies that support your preconceived notions while dismissing out of hand the ones that don’t. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. Anyway, the notion that the study you’re referring to used “advanced stats” (and that these stats “say Thornton’s critics are right”) is hilarious. It literally used points. That’s it. It compared the rate at which players scored points in the regular season to the rate at which they scored points in the playoffs. Again, points, particularly in a sample size as small as a player’s playoff career, can be significantly impacted by shooting variance and other factors. Thornton has played 132 playoff games in his career; that’s barely a season and a half and shit can happen that’s well out of a player’s control that affects his production over a sample that small. What’s really weighing Thornton down is that he scored 0 points in 6 games as an 18-year-old rookie in 1998 and 0 points in 7 games while playing through broken ribs in the 2004 playoffs. Remove those series (and I can’t understand how they’re relevant at this point) and he’d fall well within the error band. Yes, forwards generally peak at 25 but there are outliers. Considering their production in their early-to-mid thirties compared to players throughout NHL history, Thornton and Marleau are pretty clearly outliers. Trading them for pennies on the dollar in search of a “culture change” is objectively stupid.

          “If a neutral person is picking between the two of us in a disagreement over whose evidence or calculations are more dependable, they’re picking me. I don’t know why you constantly position yourself on the opposite side of me on any topic. ”

          This is rich. I never think about you, beyond assuming you were dead when you disappeared from my twitter mentions for a year and being devastated that wasn’t the case when you made your triumphant return. You’re completely insignificant to me. Meanwhile, you write 50,000-word blog posts in which you take things I write out of context, misrepresent them or flat-out make shit up. Who exactly is obsessed with whom here?

          Like

          • SharkCircle 9:02 am on July 23, 2014 Permalink | Reply

            Show you evidence that you’ve said PDO almost always regresses towards 1,000 or near it? Who’s being intentionally obtuse now? You’ve said that a million times and this shows that your memory is just as bad as your ability to calculate. Why do you need me to search through your old tweets to confirm for you something you’ve said so often, you’ll probably use it in your marriage vows. Now you’re being totally disingenuous and thick, but that’s par for the course with you.

            As for the graph on Thornton, you complain of inconsistency on my part even though you use Marleau’s playoff goal scoring numbers all the time to support that he’s a good playoff performer. But now those same stats don’t apply to Thornton because they’re not “advanced.” None of these stats are “advanced,” that’s just what they’re called, for some reason, when you crunch them into graphs.

            Now you admit the save percentage aspect of PDO is a skill, which would mean PDO should regress anywhere between 1012 and 988 using your example of a 930sv% on the high end, and 906sv% on the low end. Which is a distinction you’ve never made, nor has any other stats blog that I’ve seen. Everyone, and I mean everyone, refers to the one popular study on it that says PDO regresses to 1,000 in the long run (it doesn’t “regress” to 1,000), and that teams with a higher or lower PDO outside of small margins are benefitting from luck. No one has made the distinction that any PDO 12 points above or below 1,000 still has just as good a chance of being skill based as a 1,000 PDO provided the goaltender is elite. No one.

            And now you bring shooting into it, how this is the silver bullet that proves PDO. No, someone did a study that took four groups of players based on ice team (under the extremely logical assumption that outside of a few variants that will be drowned out by the large sample, better players play more, worse players play less), and the study found that in the case of all four groups, the better players shot at a higher percentage.

            Shooting percentage is just as much of a skill as corsi. Your own advanced stats even tell you that, but you just ignored the study. That’s why I question if you’re not doing this on purpose to inflate the value of corsi stats. Once you understand that shooting ability (and shot quality) is also a skill, you can no longer judge players solely on shot quantity, which devalues corsi-based stats.

            So not only does PDO not “regress” to 1,000 on principal, but both factors it takes into account, shooting % and save %, are skills. And yet the predominant view of PDO’s above or below 1,000 is “luck.” If you don’t understand how ridiculous that is, you’re not very intelligent.

            Aren’t you supposed to be on top of these stats? And again, I can’t even find the original PDO article, but here you are: http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2011/10/28/2520115/pdo-if-you-were-going-to-understand-just-one-nhl-statistic

            “Shooting percentage is primarily luck driven.” Wrong.

            “Save percentage is primarily luck driven.” Wrong.

            But you didn’t write it so I guess it doesn’t matter. You’ve just repeated it many times. Even if you deny that, these are stats. Is Hawerchuk not maybe the most prominent person in advanced stats? So if he’s spreading all this misinformation that you just said you don’t agree with, how can you guys be taken seriously? It’s statistics, not creative writing. There’s no room for making things up or direct contradiction. You’re dumbing down hockey fans by contracting yourselves as a community and spreading false information. Either you or Hawerchuk are wrong here if you’re going to keep taking the position that you never said these things, which means one of you is spreading misinformation. Understand how that works?

            One last doozy from Hawerchuk’s blog:

            “Add #1 and #2, and you get a statistic that is almost 100% luck.”

            Yeah, dumbass. “You still lack even a basic understanding of how people actually use PDO.” You are so full of shit I doubt anyone wants to touch you in real life for fear that you’d burst all over them. Almost 100% luck. Is that not what I’ve told you 100x is the consensus among your community? How is it I know your community better than you do? How is it I know what you said better than you do? You are completely delusional. Do you have amnesia? I’ve never experienced such a charlatan. At least most people who can’t think clearly know that about themselves. I’ve never seen a person’s reach surpass their grasp like this.

            As for Tom Gilbert, you used someone else’s faulty math to argue that Gilbert be on the U.S. Olympic team. And when I said it was ridiculous, you backed the methods Copper & Blue used. You used faulty data to make a false argument. Whether you calculated it incorrectly yourself, and I believe I cover miscalculations you made yourself as well, you perpetuated and defended faulty statistics. You spread that lie using your platform and many hockey fans are stupider for it. The fact that you take no responsibility for that is shameful. You will use any excuse you can think of to wither out of taking responsibility for any of the misinformation you spread, including simply pretending you never believed or said things you did many times. Just shameful.

            And the way you attempt to defend yourself is even worse. If you don’t think I can find the tweets where you said something, you deny saying it altogether. And what is easy to find, like the published article on Gilbert, you just pretend you didn’t really mean it. “I threw them a bone. Yeah I was wrong but I meant to be wrong!” Just total bullshit as I remember you defending the picks vehemently back then. “Oh no! I never said that! Find the tweet where I did that!” Just laughable.

            To summarize, the consensus about PDO in your community, from the corsi godfather himself Hawerchuk, is just how I described it. Almost all luck. Your claim that I don’t even know how you guys feel about it is completely disproved and now you look like the kind of person who will lie about anything, even what they said and what they believe, to weasel out of admitting they were wrong.

            As for Anaheim, how much of that 7-12-1 record is colored by their last 5 or 10 games? I don’t go pull up every detail like you do unless they’re important to the point. The point I made is that Boudreau gave a very logical argument for why the Ducks performed worse to end the season, but you ignored it completely and pointed to regression. And in case you needed more evidence that it had more to do with Boudreau’s reason than regression, this season the Ducks continued performing well. I will grant you that 7-12-1 looks worse than I remember, and that the Ducks were a better team this season than the one before because of Lindholm, Vatanen when he played, Fowler’s improvement, and so on. But it doesn’t change the fact that you ignored a very relevant factor, Boudreau’s testimony and the Ducks secure playoff spot late in the season, and just assumed regression. To calculate an equation correctly, you can’t leave out any variables.

            Your argument about the prospects contradicts itself. If shots become less valuable from junior to the NHL, why would we value it more in draft picks than NHL players? Additionally, what you’re talking about is certain skill sets being diminished as they go up against a higher level of competition, which is the same logic you refuse to acknowledge about Thornton and Marleau come playoff time. And again you attempt to rewrite history. I remember reading a study (and don’t say you didn’t write it. The nature of a study is that it doesn’t matter who writes it, it’s a study, it’s supposed to be scientific, plus you referenced it many times) that said shooting skill didn’t exist in the NHL outside of Kovalchuk, and Tanguay. Now the new name is Stamkos, and there are a few others you guys mention now. The elite of the elite. But for a majority of NHL players, the difference in shooting ability is not great enough to separate from the noise. When in reality, the study I mentioned earlier shows that shooting talent exists, and is sustainable, at every level of the game. Third liners shoot better than fourth liners. Second better than third. That completely contradicts the viewpoint you and the advanced stats community has been espousing, except for this one bright blogger who actually did the study correctly and found the truth, who you all just ignored.

            “Considering their production in their early-to-mid thirties compared to players throughout NHL history, Thornton and Marleau are pretty clearly outliers.”

            You are all over the map bud. “Even players who have historically been as productive in their early thirties as Thornton and Marleau tend to tail off pretty substantially in their 33- and 34-year-old seasons.”

            That’s your own quote. And you know the data, you just conveniently forget it when it comes to your beloved players. No matter how productive in the early thirties, each successive season you see more players drop off the cliff, and that cliff gets bigger each successive season too. If these were any other team’s players, you wouldn’t bet on them to do well through the end of their three year contracts.

            Additionally, shooting percentage has been proven a skill at the NHL at every level that is sustainable and shows up outside the noise.

            Additionally, now you not only don’t understand PDO, but you even contradict your community’s stance on PDO, which means that it’s not a stat but rather subjective BS that you can all create your own opinions about because it’s not real science. Either that or, as I know to be true, it is a real stat with specific functions when you understand it properly, but at least one of you or Hawerchuk can’t calculate it correctly, which means that one or two of the writers responsible for many of the accepted advanced stats studies out there actually don’t know how to calculate them properly, which calls into question all the other studies out there by one or both of you.

            Additionally, you contradict yourself arguing that increased competition curbs the effectiveness of certain talents, while you fail to apply the same logic to Thornton and Marleau. On top of that, the logic could apply to Thornton and Marleau because we’re talking about select cases, where the question is being raised of whether the increased competition in the playoffs affects them more than average. What you argued is not accurate because prospects in general are not individual or unique cases. Unless you change their development trajectory (which is something that can happen in real life but which doesn’t effect this scenario), the best shooters in a draft class as prospects will still be the best shooters from their draft class in the NHL. And since the NHL is made up of players from draft classes (including undrafted players signed later), well you get the point (no you don’t hahaha). The idea is that every shot is affected the same for prospects going to the NHL, just as scoring in the playoffs is harder for everyone in the NHL. The only reason this argument might apply to Thornton and Marleau is if they have unique traits which don’t translate as well to the playoffs. But when talking about prospects with good shots, the question in mind is shots so we can’t take that out as a unique trait since it’s what we’re solving for, essentially, and other than that, there are no specifics to apply the same reasoning to. It’s just “prospects” in general. So the way you used the idea was flawed, while the way you refuse to use the idea is the one with actual possibility. That’s just so you my friend lol.

            Lastly, it’s just like you to ask for leniency and inconsistent standards for your favorite player. Remove Thornton’s poor playoff seasons? Is this study not done by comparing him to everyone else? And so if we only took out his poor seasons, wouldn’t that skew the data? The fact that you say that would put him back in the statistical deviation grey area just shows how little you understand stats, because if you altered his data without altering everyone else’s the same way, he wouldn’t be anywhere. Don’t you know you can’t do something to one side of an algebraic equation without doing the same to the other side? You want to subtract “rookie playoff season” and “injured playoff season” from Thornton’s average postseason numbers without doing the same for everyone else who meets those criteria. Did other players in the study not play postseason hockey as rookies? Did other players in the study not play with significant injuries in the postseason? What you’re suggesting is manipulating and defrauding the study to make Thornton look better. How are you a stats expert and you don’t know that you have to treat the data uniformly? This is what I’m talking about. I see these variables and miscalculations very easily. You don’t see them at all. And you appear to hate me for it, saying how you wished I was dead. You’re not just a stupid little bugger, you’re a nasty one at that. I would never wish death on you because that last moment where your entire life flashes before your eyes and you see everything clearly for the first time would be way too embarrassing an experience to wish on anyone, plus, ya know, I don’t wish death on people I disagree with. I just wish you didn’t spread misinformation. But you hate me for my superiority at something you dedicate yourself to, and are supposed to be the expert in, that I don’t even make an effort at and yet I still understand it better. I tried reaching out to you on plenty of occasions to help you learn this stuff and fix the mistakes you were making, but I guess on some level you resented me so much from the beginning for seeing the mistakes you couldn’t that you’ve been an ass ever since. It’s pathetic. The only smart thing you’ve done is steer the conversation to advanced stats, because as bad as you look there, the way you were totally wrong about Steinem and completely duped by CIA propaganda is even more embarrassing.

            Like

    • HockeySaga 5:41 am on July 23, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      So the point of this entire blog post was to prove that you are right and everyone else on the internet is wrong. Your truths are 100% correct and give no room for interpretation, discussion, or change.

      This mode of thinking is no different then the views of the people you disagree with.

      All people are entitled to their opinions whether supported by facts, feelings, ideologies, morals, ethics, or random whims.

      If you want to have an honest open discussion, then have one. Don’t antagonize people for page clicks and then say, “see they made fun of me,” or “they don’t understand.” People generally don’t like to be told you’re wrong and here is 9500 words why. I read your entire Ice Girls blog post as well as this one, and I found both to be convoluted and unnecessarily long. There is something to be said for brevity and a solid well thought out thesis. I understand if that is not your writing style but it might be the reason why some have issues with your page and when you try and have conversations with people that disagree with you on twitter.

      And as far as your tweets being taken out of context or being misunderstood/un-nuanced, tweets by there nature are out of context. If you have to explain a tweet, it will be taking out of context.

      Like

      • SharkCircle 6:57 am on July 23, 2014 Permalink | Reply

        All people are entitled to their opinions whether supported by facts, feelings, ideologies, morals, ethics, or random whims.

        If something is factual, it’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. Likewise if something is disproved by facts, it is a fallacy. People are entitled to say whatever they want, but you’re painting a blanket canvas over everything using the “word” opinion where you place no value on being right or wrong. I support everyone’s right to speak their mind, but being right does have a certain value in any discussion, as do facts or factual deductions.

        If you want to have an honest open discussion, then have one.

        As you said, no one wants that on twitter, apparently. We could have all researched this together and I could have held their hands through it given that I know a lot about this topic, and we could have all come to the truth that way. But they were more interested in ignorant laughter, so I explained the truth this way. The truth does have value to me, even though I respect everyone’s right to opine. But given the ongoing debate about the Ice Girls and sexism, which includes criticizing natural male behavior as well as, some of the most extreme feminists will say, that there is no such thing as biological differences between men and women (outside of reproductive organs), I felt compelled to stand up for the truth since it does affect our society. And when everyone tried to stomp out the truth on twitter, I felt compelled to give everyone the whole story so that people could stop questioning it.

        Of course the blogs are long, although this one is much shorter. People claim I don’t have enough evidence when I only post half the evidence, so I try to post all of it when I can, and that makes them long. Would some respond better to shorter blogs, even if they included less evidence? Yes but it’s a hard balance. I’ve written about very complex subjects the last, whether it divided fan bases over multiple topics such as new NHL stats the last decade and enigmas like Thornton and Marleau who everyone has had trouble explaining for years and where it’s understandable that people are always looking for a better explanation, and how those all interrelate with each other, or whether it be the Ice Girls, modern day sexism and feminism, early second-wave feminism and it’s co-opting by the CIA, and how all those affect each other. These aren’t easy subjects to write about and I do my best. However long they take people to read, they take me longer to write (although not as much longer as you might suspect).

        Like

        • HockeySaga 3:13 pm on July 23, 2014 Permalink | Reply

          You continue to state that you’re giving the truth about the ice girls debate. The only truth is the Sharks are going to have ice girls.

          Everything else that follows in the discussion is whether you agree/ disagree with the addition of ice girls and why. These are opinions not facts.

          Giving more evidence to prove your point doesn’t mean it is the right evidence. It’s about the quality of the evidence/proof not the quantity. For example, when you went off on the tangent about Hollywood and the movie making process, you gave evidence to your argument that hurt your argument more then it did to support it.

          Also, you sound extremely condescending when you say…

          “We could have all researched this together and I could have held their hands through it given that I know a lot about this topic, and we could have all come to the truth that way. ”

          Talking down to people from the position of your “factual truth,” does nothing to help the conversation. It makes you sound like a know it all that thinks everything they believe is right and everyone else is wrong.

          These topics don’t have one right answer. There is evidence for support (on both sides) for pretty much any complicated argument/discussion. Have the discussion, don’t be a pretentious condescending know-it-all.

          Like

          • SharkCircle 4:29 am on July 24, 2014 Permalink | Reply

            The only truth is that the Sharks are going to have Ice Girls.

            Well I’m glad to hear humans are only capable of determining the most rudimentary facts. This is great because now we won’t have to listen to all the people speaking with certainty that the Ice Girls are sexist.

            Understand the distinction I’m making? You criticize my analysis of why the Ice Girls are not sexist because “the only truth is Sharks are going to have Ice Girls” and everything else is an opinion, but you fail to grasp that my analysis only came in response to the initial claim many made that the Ice Girls were sexist. If you were really genuine in your belief that no one should say anything on the matter outside of that the “Sharks are going to have Ice Girls,” I’m sure you would have started with the initial claim, not my response. Since you didn’t, I can’t put any stock in your opinion because its already shown itself to be blatantly inconsistent.

            Also, there are plenty of other “facts” in this blog about the CIA’s involvement with Steinem. These are documented facts, so your claim that the only true is that the Sharks are going to have Ice Girls is false as well. People questioned my information when I brought up the CIA and Steinem, so I posted the facts on the subject, which lead to overall conclusion and “truth” that the CIA played a part in second-wave feminism.

            Additionally, is “sexism” a fact or an idea? It’s an idea, based on a certain set of standards, in response to various facts and statistics, some true, some misinterpreted. But it’s an idea. So criticizing a post discussing an idea because it’s not discussing facts is like criticizing a post about applies because it’s not about oranges. What’s your point? I’m discussing the idea of sexism, and how the “truth” is that the idea of “sexism” is being inconsistently applied, and that many of the arguments those complaining of sexism base their claims on are inaccurate. You’re also missing the distinction between “facts” and “truth.” Pointing out flawed assumptions people make, or their missteps in logic, are not events on a calender like “the Sharks will have Ice Girls auditions on this date. Fact”, but they’re still “true” claims so long as my logic is correct. When you bring up how the Sharks have Ice Girls, you’re thinking of a blatant fact, a tangible event. There are also intangible truths, logical truths, truthful claims and untruthful claims, consistent claims and inconsistent claims. You’re missing all these distinctions.

            You’re a new commenter so I’m taking the time to explain these differences to you, but like I told evilducks, if you continue to either misunderstand these distinctions or misrepresent them, I’m not going to invest my time in corresponding with people like that if the discussion just becomes a constant cycle of me correcting the distinctions they didn’t make. This is your first time so it’s fine, though.

            For example, when you went off on the tangent about Hollywood and the movie making process, you gave evidence to your argument that hurt your argument more then it did to support it.

            And? I offered up counter arguments to my own because I’m fair. That’s not a bad thing. If there’s merit to any side of an argument, I will post it. It’s why my blogs are often very long.

            Giving more evidence to prove your point doesn’t mean it is the right evidence. It’s about the quality of the evidence/proof not the quantity.

            I aim to provide all the evidence on a subject, and I hope to provide it well. Most of all, the evidence itself has to be valid. But if you have any issues with any of the evidence I provided, please post it. If my post is truly high quantity and low quality, that just means there should be even more examples for you to point out of faulty evidence than there would be in something that was low quality and low quantity. A low quality, high quantity post should be the easiest kind to debunk.

            Talking down to people from the position of your “factual truth,” does nothing to help the conversation.

            Did you read my blog? What you’re accusing me of doing is precisely what many attempted doing to me, and in fact what many feminists did in the first place on this topic. Ice Girls are sexist, and if you disagree, you’re wrong and you’re stupid. For the second time you’ve complained about something in my response that you failed to point out in the original claims. You’re clearly partial to those I disagree with, which compromises you’re opinion because now you’re searching for arguments to fit your viewpoint, instead of letting the facts determine your viewpoint. Of course that’s true with many people who already have an opinion on the issue, but the difference is some can separate that from their analysis and some can’t. Given the inconsistent logic you’ve used, as well as the failure to distinguish between “facts” and “true claims,” it doesn’t seem like you’re one of those people.

            Like

            • HockeySaga 5:29 am on July 24, 2014 Permalink | Reply

              You continue to be condescending and that’s fine, you’re coming from a defensive place.

              My original point, which obviously was not clear, or correct (according to you).

              Is that you would rather be right then get it right.

              With the exception of the stuff you wrote about the movie industry I did not disagree, refute, challenge, what you wrote in either blog posts.

              I attempted (unsuccessfully) to try and get you to see why some people on twitter/on here might be misunderstanding you or challenging what you’re saying.

              Congratulations on the web traffic today, I would imagine it has been good. Have fun being right.

              Like

              • SharkCircle 6:22 am on July 24, 2014 Permalink | Reply

                If you weren’t challenging what I was saying, you wouldn’t have referred to the post as quantity evidence and not quality. Are you saying you agree with everything but the Hollywood portion? Then at least a majority of the blog would have to be considered quality evidence, at least to you. But that wasn’t the inference you made, so hopefully you can see the contradiction. Saying the points/evidence provided are not quality is very much challenging it.

                But if the evidence I make is of high quality, then there’s no justification for people on twitter/on here to be “challenging” it at all. If you’re saying people are disagreeing and challenging my points more because I’m condescending, that just shows their inability to separate their emotions from their analysis. I could be the biggest asshole on the planet, it wouldn’t change whether the points were well supported or not, or logical or not. Either they are or they aren’t. I understand that for many people, how diplomatic you are in making your points matters a great deal to whether or not they end up agreeing with you, which I believe is the point you’re making now. But that doesn’t mean it’s right. Additionally, they were just as forceful in their initial claims calling people sexist, so why would you expect me to be any different? To take the high road? I consider being confident and right a much higher road than being confident in points that are wrong. They’ve been ignorant, insulting buffoons. One particularly dull one even said he was hoping I was dead. I don’t make insults like that. The worst you’ll hear from me is that I think someone is stupid or idiotic, which is simply my analysis of points they make or my analysis of their intelligence overall based on a long history of stupid points. But I’m not wishing for people to die or anything like that. I’m just responding with the truth as I see it, no more condescending than anything they’ve written, and minus the really nasty stuff.

                As for you, your original comment seemed to infer my evidence was of low quality and that you disagreed, and you’re inconsistent in your criticisms, which both make me believe you support the “other side,” so to speak. The reason I’m condescending is because you made up an arbitrary standard about how the only thing that could be reasonably analyzed was that the Sharks have Ice Girls, and then you only applied that standard to me. If that’s your standard, not only does it ignore the distinction between facts and intangible truths and logical arguments vs illogical arguments, but if that’s your standard, then tell it to all the people calling the Ice Girls sexist, too. Tell them they can’t reasonably say that because the only truth we know is that the Ice Girls are sexist. But it appears you’re only telling me that.

                And even if you were fair and consistent and told it to everyone else as well, I still think it’s a poor standard. I explained to you where I believe your logic falls off the tracks when you say the only truth is that the Sharks have Ice Girls. I think if you consider the existence of intangible truths, you will realize that’s not the only truth at all. And now I’m taking time to explain how yes, there is more that can be analyzed, on the basis of logic, deduction, evidence, and intangible truth, than just the most basic fact that “the Sharks have Ice Girls.” And because I think that’s something you should know for yourself, I admit to being condescending. The whole idea that I should only be able to talk about that one fact, taking no position on it one way or another based on the evidence, in a response blog t the many people out there doing just that, seems ridiculous to me. You didn’t think of any of that?

                In any case, if your intention really was to help, then I appreciate it. It’s the thought that counts, they say. And you do bring up a good point that people will take my side more if I’m more diplomatic with them. I just don’t see that as my problem. If people can’t tell the difference between stupid points and someone they don’t like who makes good points, then they probably wouldn’t be able to understand my blog anyway. I finally checked out the deadspin link and one commenter was like “of course the guy is a stupid crazy person, but he does actually have a point about Steinem’s CIA connections where he brings up the NY times quote. He’s just a really bad writer and crazy of course. But I’d love to see someone credible take on the issue.”

                That is the power of group think, and honestly how much do you really think my attitude would matter so long as I’m voicing support to a viewpoint held by the minority? The majority group think trumps all. Once these people read that my stance is unpopular, they will disagree with it no matter what when they read it. “He has a point. He’s right. But yeah you guys are right, he’s crazy.” If I’m right, and I have a point, then how am I crazy? That’s textbook logical dissonance. “He has a point with that NY Times quote. I’d love to see someone credible take on the issue.” So the Times, which is so credible to him that it actually convinced him I had a point, is also not credible? Logical dissonance. And I’m right and have a point, but I’m not credible?

                The complaints basically amount to 90% of people who didn’t read the blog and say it’s stupid, and then the 10% who actually read it who see that I have a point, but who still feel like they have to call me stupid because the other 90% did. Thus my point in the blog that the response to my blog was self-determining almost regardless of how I worded the blog. When it’s an unpopular stance, group-think will make most comments negative, period. When it’s a complicated, long blog, most people won’t read and will just call it stupid. And then even the few who do read will be scared to say they agreed because of the group think, not to mention they didn’t know the history of feminism like I did, so they were bound to disagree because we were coming to the issue with different evidence and levels of knowledge.

                And so we’re left with “he’s right but he’s crazy” comments that are completely self-contradicting even from those who read it and see my points. I’m not convinced my attitude would change anything, nor am I convinced I should have to change my attitude when the people I’m responding to are even worse, and at least I have the truth on my side, not that they can tell the difference.

                Like

    • Brandon 7:39 pm on July 23, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      Boobs.

      Like

    • Justin 10:12 pm on July 23, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      It’s hard to watch two intense Sharks fans/bloggers with a better knowledge of hockey than me argue amongst themselves. As a Kings fan it’s disheartening to see (and I have tired eyes because of it). I think all of us can agree that the Sharks are one of the top teams in the league for the last five (6,7?) seasons to not get to the finals or win the cup. That is the real enigma here.

      Like

      • SharkCircle 3:56 am on July 24, 2014 Permalink | Reply

        It is an enigma, but when you rely solely on stats to solve it, even though stats don’t cover everything, and then you don’t even have the expertise necessary to calculate those stats correctly, you’re not just going to fail to solve it, but you’re actually going to create completely new fallacies on your own based on miscalculated math, bias, and faulty assumptions.

        In reality a study done on how players translate their production from the regular season to the postseason showed that Joe Thornton is the only player in the entire NHL whose production drops outside the standard deviation zone (and the standard deviation zone was ridiculously large and misapplied. That’s meant for things like coin flips, where only chance applies and therefore you can attribute any standard deviation to chance. It’s misapplied in hockey because it automatically ignores any differences that occur within the standard deviation zone because that’s supposed to represent what can be explained by luck. Well just because it “can” be explained by luck, and would be for coin flips because that’s all that applies to coin flips, doesn’t mean it is explained by luck. Hockey statisticians using standard deviation in their hockey studies don’t understand the difference between scenarios where luck is the only factor, and scenarios that rely on many factors. This study’s conclusions were completely bogus based on that misinterpretation, but the one thing it did show us is that Thornton was the only player below this artificial zone, and the player in the study with the worst decline in production from regular season to postseason).

        That’s very significant, and it covers the on-ice production aspect of the criticisms many levy at Thornton’s postseason play. And then you have Doug Wilson, who actually gets to talk to the players in private unlike us, confirming that the Sharks have a culture problem under Thornton’s lead as captain. So that covers the “culture” and “leadership” criticisms many levy at Thornton.

        And so you have both criticisms confirmed, about as well as you could ever expect to confirm such things. It’s only when Derek decides to make up his own studies, where Thornton gets to eliminate his two worst playoff seasons before getting compared to everyone else, even though no one else gets to eliminate their worst playoff seasons, that you no longer believe Thornton’s play has dropped (or failed to improve as much as everyone else’s) because you’ve created your own fantasy land through amateur mathematics. Most learn early in grade school that you can’t do something to one side of an algebraic equation without doing the same thing to the other side. But Derek wants to change Thornton’s side of the equation without changing the side with the rest of the data. It’s totally amateur, as many of his studies are, but no matter how many times I try to help him with these things, he never learns. He just ignores the facts and leans on his hand-me-down SB Nation audience for reassurance. That’s why we’re “fighting.” He can say he wishes I was dead and lean on his sheep all he likes, but it’s not going to change the fact that he can’t even go one twitter conversation, or post one comment, without miscalculating something without even realizing. Ask yourself this, if he can’t even comment on my blog without making mistakes like the one I just explained where he conveniently forgot the basics of algebra in order to defend his favorite player, then how is he supposed to be capable of writing full statistical studies and analysis without making mistakes?

        The good news is, people can learn. People can get better at things. But not if they just ignore whenever people try to teach them.

        Like

    • Shorks 11:56 pm on July 23, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      Full Disclaimer: I personally don’t care one way or the other about the Sharks employing Ice Girls. Also, the points I’ll be raising won’t initially be backed by any specific studies or anything, in the interest of keeping this short-ish. If need be, I can go look for supporting evidence later.
      Anyways, First: The whole CIA Argument. I’m not sure I see your point with all that. Even supposing you’re right, and second-wave feminism was entirely orchestrated by the CIA to undermine communism, how does that inherently refute the notion that employing Ice Girls is a sexist practice? Just because the idea was propagated by a group with an ulterior motive does not automatically make the idea itself useless. For example: It wouldn’t be terribly surprising if a lot of the push against slavery from the Union back in the day was motivated by economic factors as opposed to moral ones, but that of course doesn’t inherently undermine the idea that slavery is wrong. Please note that I am NOT comparing what the ice girls do with slavery, I am merely using something we can all agree is bad as a vehicle to point out what I feel is a flaw in your argument. There’s probably a less knee-jerk inducing metaphor I could have used, but whatever.
      Secondly: Regarding the argument that “the women in these positions don’t have a problem with it means it isn’t sexist” is also faulty logic, from where I stand. To use the same type of metaphor as earlier, if a slave for whatever reason had no problem with his lot in life (something like Stockholm syndrome or whatever the hell was being portrayed by Samuel Jackson’s character in Django), that obviously doesn’t mean there is nothing inherently wrong with slavery. Again, I’m NOT saying this is the same situation, I’m just using this to illustrate the short-comings of your thought process.
      Like I said in the beginning, I honestly don’t care all that much on the topic. It’s pretty clearly sexist but Hooters is still a thing and I’m not exactly up in arms over that, either.

      Like

      • SharkCircle 3:18 am on July 24, 2014 Permalink | Reply

        Appreciate the comment Shorks! I see the points you’re making, it’s just that as with many of the people who don’t agree with my points, I see certain small details differently than they do which change my overall conclusion greatly from theirs.

        First, the CIA didn’t fund and promote second-wave feminism to “undermine communism.” That was just the early work Steinem did for them abroad, subverting young communists at the festivals and publishing anti-communist propaganda. This had nothing to do with feminism, it just establishes that she worked as a CIA asset. But I have no issue with the CIA’s motives in that case. I’m pro-capitalism.

        The distinction is that they saw what great work she did during that operation, subverting people’s beliefs, manipulating people’s beliefs with propaganda, so they promoted her in the media at home to manipulate something else entirely, second-wave feminism. And that had nothing to do with fighting communism. So I apologize if I didn’t clarify that well enough, but that’s where your conclusion might change because doing something to subvert communism, which is arguably a noble goal, is a lot different than doing something for goals that might not be so noble.

        What did the CIA want with feminism? That’s the important question. The most obvious answer is that almost all governments always look to increase their size and power, never decrease it, and one of the primary ways of doing this is with money. Before second-wave feminism, the US government couldn’t tax almost half the population, now they can. Besides that, I’ve heard many theories, but that’s all they are. Everyone has to look into it for themselves and decide what to believe. I’ll point you to this comment I saw which includes some claims that have been disproved but does bring up some good points, from dangerousminds.net.

        some have said that the entire movement came to be not because these particular women wanted freedom and equality (which most women do want) but it was an action introduced in order to get half the population, who previously stayed at home with children, into the workforce so they can start paying taxes and contribute in ways they didn’t before. Also, it would allow for this same population to spend money they never had on goods and services. Before feminism became an American issue, houses had one TV, one car, less square footage etc. If you take a look at what has come to fruition since this movement began, women still make less money, are mistreated in the workplace and at home and fought very hard for very little outcome. People still don’t know that the Equal Rights Amendment has never been ratified. As a woman, I’ll agree that I have more rights and protections than my mother had but I’m also a little bit concerned as to what the women’s rights movement actually accomplished. I’m not being a jerk, I just see a massive movement that changed women’s lives not necessarily for the better except for the laws that protect us where there were none before. I’ve worked in male dominated environments my entire career and I can state unequivocally that if my boss didn’t want to hire a woman or a minority, it was very simple for him to do so.

        Then there are those who believe that our society has been built on the relationship between women and men, and that this is a divide and conquer tactic to break that up. Unfortunately in our politically correct society, I can’t even type that sentence of what others believe without someone out there thinking it’s an unfair statement to gays. No, gays deserve the same rights as straights and are just as much human beings. But straight people make up around 97% of the population. The vast majority of American society has been built around the relationship of men and women, and the family. Since second-wave feminism, we’ve seen many more marriages end in divorce, many more children born out of wedlock, and so on. Well what’s wrong with that? Studies show that children born out of wedlock do worse on average (academically, I believe more go into crime, even in terms of depression rates I believe I’ve read although I could be remembering incorrectly, and so on). Same with children of divorced parents. Same with children whose parents are never home because they both have to work to stay afloat economically, where before second-wave feminism, most middle class households only needed one provider. I’m not saying it was better then overall, because I believe in equal rights. But clearly the amount of families that stuck together, and the amount of time parents had to spend with their children, particularly mothers, was more back then. And some believe this is by design. I don’t have inside CIA sources or anything so I can’t confirm various theories. But the CIA certainly manipulated second-wave feminism, and they didn’t do it for no reason. This is the same CIA that smuggled crack into the black community which tore the black community apart which you now see paying huge dividends for the private prison industry which makes its profits off of an inmate population that is 90% black. Is that a conspiracy theory? Because it’s common knowledge. The CIA plays the long game and they don’t do things for no reason. In fact there are also theories about racist roots to feminism because you see the effects in terms of children being born out of wedlock, abortion, and so on most in the black community. For those hardcore racists that wanted to eliminate blacks from the face of the earth, some theorize that convincing them to abort their children was a strategy they used.

        I’ve read about all these theories in the past, seen all the statistics, etc, but I don’t remember every detail so I can’t give you an exact answer of how certain you should be about every one of these theories. They are just theories I’ve heard. I invite everyone to look into the question themselves. But no, outside of operations abroad to help win the Cold War, for example, where the CIA can do good work, I don’t trust their motives on a secret domestic social operation. I believe it’s even in the CIA’s founding charter that they aren’t allowed to manipulate populations at home. There are so many things wrong with the CIA funding a social operation in secret that is being passed off as a true grass roots movement “for women,” that if people don’t see what’s wrong with that and how it discredits second-wave feminism at its core, there’s probably nothing else I could say to explain it to them. It should be obvious. It’s like when Big Tobacco used feminism to get women into smoking. When powerful interests behind the scenes are manipulating these things, it’s rarely for our benefit, but rather for theirs. And if you want to see the divide in another area that has resulted from all of this, in fact one of the better examples of how there’s very much sexism against men in our society now too, just look at the custody courts. That may not seem like a big deal to most, but if you have a child with a women who turns out to be a subpar parent, but she still gets custody of the children and major child support, while you’re only allowed to see your children during supervised visits, as you can imagine it’s a huge deal. And this happens all the time.

        As for the slavery point you make, thank you for admitting that can be a jerk argument lol. I appreciate that. Besides that, although I have made the argument myself before, I was also pointing to the fact that feminists have made that argument. If it makes a women happy to be a porn star, and nothing in the world makes her happier, shouldn’t we support that freedom? That’s what some feminists say. I was just drawing attention to how they’re contradicting themselves. Cheerleading on the sideline and doing porn isn’t sexist, but being an Ice Girl is? That makes no sense. They are contradicting themselves. Now you might say fine, not everyone agrees, even feminists, so let them debate it among themselves. The problem is that they’re using inconsistent definitions of sexism to judge men. If feminists are still having an internal debate over what’s sexist and what isn’t, that’s fine, but don’t start calling men sexist about things that are still under debate until you’ve decided. Otherwise you get situations like we see now. You don’t support a women’s right to cheer, do porn, or be an Ice Girl? You’re sexist! You support cheerleading, porn, and Ice Girls? You’re sexist! No matter what men, they’re called sexist, and that’s not right. Get your facts straight before you insult people, basically, which is a lesson many of the twitter users referenced in this blog could learn as well.

        Additionally, the slavery argument is almost always invalid when it comes to subjects like these simply because they had no choice. I don’t doubt that some slaves felt stockholm syndrome, but they never had any other choice, and were never given the chance to know anything else but slavery under their masters. These women can choose their own path in life, and many still choose cheerleading because they love it. Moreover, stockholm syndrome is something that happens between a person and their kidnapper or master. It’s a personal relationship in a way. Cheerleading is not. Outside of the cheer squad leader, you’re not serving people. It’s the difference between loving a line of work, something you do, i.e. “cheering,” and being someone’s slave where you answer to them. The difference between loving an activity and feeling stockholm syndrome towards a person. I don’t think it’s a fair analogy although I got what you were saying.

        Like

    • john 1:21 am on July 24, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      The CIA also financially backed abstract expressionist painters and modernist composers as ways of fighting against the perceived influence of Soviet socialist realism in the arts. Does that mean abstract expressionism and 20th-century classical music are invalid now too? Or is it possible that ideas can be judged on their merits?

      Like

      • SharkCircle 3:39 am on July 24, 2014 Permalink | Reply

        The CIA battled socialism, and communist governments, to protect its own interests and its capitalistic government. That’s a symptom of a cold war against enemy governments and the ideals they wished to spread. I’m a capitalist, so I support them in that instance. The distinction you’re missing is that second-wave feminism was domestic, and was supposed to be “by the people,” for women by women. I believe it’s even in the CIA’s founding charter that they are not to manipulate the domestic population. And while their fight against socialism and communism, mostly abroad or to prevent something from infiltrating the U.S. from abroad, had obvious motives, what were their motives for supporting feminism, something domestic that largely started domestically? We’ve established that the CIA mostly acts in its own interests, and in the government’s interests, not the people’s, as the crack epidemic after their cocaine smuggling shows. So if feminism wasn’t actually done in the people’s interests, as everyone was led to believe, but in the CIA and government’s interests, that’s very significant, and not at all like their fight against communism. Just because you can point to good things the CIA has done does not mean that their manipulation of domestic social movements and controlling of the media, both in secret, is good. Do you see how the government controlling journalists and television media is a bad thing? There’s a reason freedom of the press is such a big deal. And since Steinem was funded by them and even lied to everyone about gathering intelligence on other Americans under their operation, how do we even know she wrote what she believed? It calls her entire motives and reliability into question.

        Like

    • john 6:57 am on July 24, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      [Insert 30,000 words explaining the genetic fallacy here]

      Like

      • SharkCircle 3:27 pm on July 24, 2014 Permalink | Reply

        I’m well aware of the genetic fallacy, which is that someone or something is not automatically disproved just because of where it originated or in what circumstances. But it often can as be disproved by that information. If someone starts sharing ideas on how to help black people, but then you find out he’s actually a white supremacist leader, that’s going to change how you view the ideas he’s published and make you see them in a different context. They may have seemed like they were intended to help black people on the surface, but now you know to dig deeper, you see it’s actually the opposite.

        Almost every form of argumentation can be a fallacy when used in the wrong circumstances. That’s why context is needed, which I gave. Now you know why subjects like these require more eight words.t

        For example, second-wave feminism is supposed to be natural change, by the people, a social movement by the people (mostly women). That’s what it’s supposed to be at its core, and what most people believe it to be. So in this case, its real origin, that it was actually funded and promoted by the CIA, absolutely proves it to be something different than what 99% of its supporters believe it to be. It’s not a social movement by the people to help them, it’s a social program by the CIA to help it or its bosses, otherwise why would they do it? And that’s the question that we don’t have a definitive answer. I gave the highest probability answer in this scenario, based on what we know, that the CIA doesn’t do things that aren’t in their, or their bosses, interests. To confirm that for 100% certain and learn why specifically, you have to investigate more. And that’s what revealing this to people motivates them to do, to find out what the CIA‘s motives were for doing this. If motive couldn’t help us understand why something happened and what it means, then our justice system wouldn’t use it.

        Is it also important to address the ideas the CIA helped promote through Steinem as well? Yes, and I’ve done this as feminists have brought various ones up in the Ice Girls blog and on twitter. They change their ideas so often that it’s hard to keep up. But sometimes it’s hard to see the forest through the trees when you’re dealing with something so subjective. You can say women are better off because there are more career opportunities for them now, and you’d be right. You can say women are worse off now because families are being broken up, divorce rates are much higher since second-wave feminism, the relationship between man and women is more contentious and difficult to navigate than it used to be, children have it much worse with divorced parents and both parents off at work, not at home to spend time with them, which has permanent effects on them, including the relationships they have with the opposite sex later on. And you’d be right about all those things, too. So is it better? Is it worse? It’s an idea. It’s subjective. People can make whichever case they like, which is the problem. We don’t have a concrete answer, the truth. But by understanding why this social program was promoted, and by who, then you can potentially see the grand design. So it’s very important.

        Also, much of this came from Steinem, and it’s on record that she’s a liar and a seasoned propagandist (as well as CIA-backed). Unless her ideas were faultless regardless, and no one could find any issue with them regardless, which plenty of people have, then you can’t just ignore how that makes everything she’s said unreliable. At the very least you have to go back and look over everything she said and investigate it closely instead of just taking it at face value like many have. If this blog does nothing else but make feminists go back over what they believe and “vet” it more closely than they did before, at least that will be a positive.

        So yes, you probably should have written a few more words than you did, since “genetic fallacy” does not tell me anything I didn’t already know, or disprove any aspect of the post. In this particular instance, knowing the origin of this social movement was CIA completely changes it from a primarily a social movement to primarily a social program.

        Like

  • SharkCircle 10:12 pm on July 16, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: NHL Cheerleaders, NHL Ice Girls Sexist, NHL sexism, , , , Sharks Ice Girls Sexism, SJSharks Ice Girls, SJSharks Ice Team, why ice girls are not sexist   

    Prepare Your Pitchforks! Why The Sharks Ice Girls Aren’t Sexist, But Some Of Their Critics Are 

    Follow me @SharkCircle

    Here I will address the controversy surrounding the SJSharks Ice Team auditions, and take the unpopular stance, at least among the voices that dominate the internet, that the Sharks’ “Ice Team” is not an example of sexism like some have claimed it is. Please check your pitchforks at the door and enjoy!

    A few weeks ago, the San Jose Sharks announced auditions for an “Ice Team.” The news came at a time when Sharks fans were already angry over the firing of Drew Remenda, not to mention the also-important playoff collapse. The “Ice Team” announcement gave these frustrated fans (and bloggers) an ideal excuse in this political correctness-obsessed climate to vent their anger at the organization and create a media stir through the guise of the Sharks being sexist. And vent and stir they did. Now even Puck Daddy has picked up the “story.” I don’t know when fans complaining constituted a story, but I guess we should know by now that all anyone has to do to get national attention these days is call something sexist (or racist). CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING FULL POST!

     
    • Lee 3:32 pm on July 17, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      Does “untapped market” mean anything to you?

      Like

      • SharkCircle 12:47 am on July 18, 2014 Permalink | Reply

        I already explained this in the blog. Don’t tell me you want me to write even more next time. If the Sharks thought they could gain more fans by not having Ice Girls than they be having Ice Girls, why would they be doing it? Call them sexist if you like, but do you really think they can’t count? Clearly their data is showing them that more men want it than women who don’t.

        And again read the part about Hollywood. Nature, nurture. Men’s pro sports isn’t an “untapped market” in the way you’re alluding to, as if the NHL just hasn’t tapped into the female fan base yet even though the average women is just as interested in sports as the average man. They aren’t. More men care about sports than women. Men get into sports easier than women as kids. I gave that example already. It’s always been that way. Men and women aren’t identical in every way. Go search hockey podcasts, see how many are done by women. Go to youtube and look for sports channels, see how many are done women. It’s not as many.

        Now as expected, there are a few women tweeting me over this, taking it personally, when that’s not what the blog is about. The female hockey fans who exist are just as much hockey fans as men. No one is disparaging them in any way. All that matters to the NHL is that there are less of them. Just like if a man enjoys Grey’s Anatomy, he’s no less of a fan of the show than the women who enjoy it. But it’s still a show aimed at, and marketed towards, women, for the most part, because that’s the show’s target audience. And the men who likes it are going to have to put up with that because there’s only one show. This is the same thing.

        Like

      • evilducks 3:59 am on July 19, 2014 Permalink | Reply

        Clearly the answer is “no, I do not understand what an untapped market is”

        There are markets that have 40% women viewership at times. There are markets that don’t. This is untapped potential in those markets.

        Never once, in the history of professional sports, has somebody said “I’m not paying $50 to go see that game… What’s that, they have cheerleaders? Sign me up!”

        Many times in the history of sports has the phrase “you’re not taking my kids to a place where they have half naked girls dancing around”

        You gain no fans that weren’t going (they never show ice girls on TV) but you lose some that might. Almost no Canadian market has them.

        Also, if the decisions the Sharks made always did what they intended, you wouldn’t write 10,000 word nut bag scrawls about how they’re getting everything wrong. They sold out almost every game for over a decade. They don’t need them to boost sales.

        Your economics argument is wrong. It just fundamentally misunderstands economics.

        Your argument that because women choose to do it it is not sexist is also wrong, and just plain idiotic. You could find people that would wear a sign that says “I’m an object to own” and have sex on the ice for enough money, that would still be sexist. Just because the capitalist system supports something doesn’t make it moral.

        The rest if this is just time cube level nonsense that a same person would have edited down.

        Ever notice how nit jobs write several thousand word manifestos about something and sane people write a few paragraphs covering all if the points? Odd that.

        Crazy people rarely think they’re crazy.

        Like

        • evilducks 4:02 am on July 19, 2014 Permalink | Reply

          The last bit of that reply should read:

          The rest of this is just time cube level nonsense that a sane person would have edited down.

          Ever notice how nut jobs write several thousand word manifestos about something and sane people write a few paragraphs covering all if the points? Odd that.

          Crazy people rarely think they’re crazy.

          auto correct is a bastard.

          Like

          • SharkCircle 4:43 am on July 19, 2014 Permalink | Reply

            Or maybe you just think it was auto correct. Maybe you typed it wrong all by yourself, but you’re just so crazy that in your reality, it was auto correct.

            I mean “crazy people rarely think they’re crazy,” right? So it’s plausible!
            ;)

            Like

        • SharkCircle 4:42 am on July 19, 2014 Permalink | Reply

          All my blogs are long. How come only the one you disagree with makes me a “nut job” all of a sudden? Jesus man. At least be consistent. It’s like no one knows how to disagree anymore without painting the other person as Jeffrey Dahmer. It’s actually pretty disheartening. Oh what am I saying, I’m a nut job, I probably don’t even have a heart.

          Never once, in the history of professional sports, has somebody said ‘I’m not paying $50 to go see that game… What’s that, they have cheerleaders? Sign me up!’

          Sure that sounds implausible when you phrase it that way and I’d agree with that. That it sounds implausible. But then why are the Sharks doing it? Because they enjoy being called sexist for zero profit? Clearly, however implausible it sounds, they actually do believe more fans will come due to cheerleaders. Why else would they do it?

          Many times in the history of sports has the phrase ‘you’re not taking my kids to a place where they have half naked girls dancing around’.

          They’re not nearly half-naked so even though I see your point again, that would only be true if they were really half-naked. I don’t think many parents are going to object to taking their kids to the games because of an inch of midriff. They’re still wearing pants. And their breasts are covered. Not even in a bra or a swim suit. Fully covered.

          Regardless, again, I see your point. Some fans will be turned off by this for various reasons (mostly the sexism angle). However, clearly the Sharks think it will bring more fans to games than it will remove fans.

          Your argument amounts to saying that never in the history of sports has this attracted fans, but often in the history of sports it’s kept fans away. If that were true, why would the Sharks be doing it? Either your assumptions are wrong, or the Sharks’ marketing data is wrong. If I had to guess, the Sharks data is probably more accurate. But even if it’s not and you’re right that this will lose them fans overall, I still don’t believe it’s sexist.

          Also, if the decisions the Sharks made always did what they intended, you wouldn’t write 10,000 word nut bag scrawls about how they’re getting everything wrong. They sold out almost every game for over a decade. They don’t need them to boost sales.

          I see what you’re arguing again, but arguments fall apart when pieces to them are missing. You’re comparing Sharks’ personnel decisions to economic decisions. Economics deals with money, numbers, which can be calculated. Personnel decisions can be very subjective. Does this mean the Sharks can’t be wrong about this as well? Sure they can, but it’s not the same. Their economic data is not only much easier to calculate/quantify than their personnel decisions, but even it turns out to be wrong, they were still acting in the moment based on data that said this would bring in more fans. So even if they’re wrong in the long run, they still acted in the moment with the purpose of bringing in more fans. That’s their motive, clearly. It’s not to be sexist.

          But that’s not even my argument, given that someone can still be sexist even if it’s not their “motive.” But my argument is about the “eye candy” comparison. Entertainment watched mostly by men has more “eye candy” aimed at men, typically, and vice versa. If men decide they don’t want female eye candy at their games, and the total percentage of fans (men and women) who don’t want it goes above 50%, then that will be different. But for now, NHL teams seem to believe that many men still like eye candy. And because a large majority of NHL fans are men, the NHL is giving a majority of their fans what they want. There’s nothing wrong with that. Where exactly do you disagree, specifically, with the comparison I gave using The Bachelorette? That show is filled with eye candy aimed at women because mostly women watch. This would be the male equivalent. Do you think the men who watch The Bachelorette should be able to demand that less eye candy aimed at women is shown on the show, and do you think the producers of The Bachelorette have a responsibility to change the show on their behalf, even though a majority of their audience disagrees with them and likes the shirtless men? If so, I’m open to your argument. If not, then why is this different?

          As for untapped markets, you don’t understand the difference between people, who have preferences, and some untapped mine full of some valuable metal that has no thoughts of its own. Getting every women who would like hockey if they were introduced to it may be an untapped market, but not every man who would like hockey if they were introduced to it has been introduced to it, either. By your logic, men are a partially untapped market for the NHL, too. The point is that the number of women who would like hockey under any circumstances is lower than the number of men who would like it under any circumstances. If you’ve ever been in 1st grade you know this. Is that nature or nurture? Some of both I’m sure, but you can argue it’s all the society if you want. But that is how it is now, and even if it was all the society, the NHl can’t be expected to fight back all the conditioning of our society. “More men buy tickets, but you know, that’s not how it should be, if women weren’t conditioned to not be as interested as sports. So even though we can make more money from men in relation to women right now, we have a moral duty to not do that, and to try to undo the conditioning done to women to not be as interested in sports on average, even if we lose money in the process.” That’s not the NHL’s responsibility. People have to work, and live, within the confines of how what our reality is at the moment. They can’t just have the attitude that “well, reality could be anything, it’s all due to the conditioning of our society, so that means we should just ignore the current reality because it’s all falsely constructed due to conditioning anyway.”

          As for the morality argument, why is being a cheerleader morally wrong? Why is being sexy wrong? I actually wrote a paragraph on the morality argument but didn’t even include it because I thought it was obvious. And what I wrote was something like, “if they were chopping people’s heads off during intermissions, then yes, we’d have a problem. Whatever makes the most money is not a valid excuse to just do anything, even if it hurts people. But what makes this morally wrong, exactly? The distinction you’re missing when you say people will do anything if they’re paid enough is that you’re talking about things people don’t enjoy. Some women actually relish this unique opportunity to be seen in front of 17,000 people. That’s not something most people get the chance to do, the exposure, and some people want that. In any case I don’t see anything morally wrong with cheerleaders.

          Crazy people rarely think they’re crazy.” Well thanks. And wrong people rarely think they’re wrong, but you don’t see me calling you names. We disagree. I heard some of your points and pointed out the factors I feel you’re missing that would change the conclusion of those points. You’ve just written stuff like “your argument is just wrong.” If it’s so wrong, then surely you can explain why? Or am I about to hear a “You know what, you’re just so stupid and crazy, I’m not even going to bother. It’s not even my responsibility to explain these things to you! Forget it!“?

          Like

    • hockeysaga 10:58 pm on July 21, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      The problem with ice girls has nothing to do with whether it is sexists or not. But the reasoning why the ice girls are being added to the in arena fan experience in the first place.

      The Sharks and their fans have enjoyed 10 very prosperous years of constant sell outs and playoff appearances. Why does a team that has no problem with selling out home games feel they need to change the experience of fans now? What has changed?

      I believe that after the 3-0 epic collapse from this past April, the Sharks organization is no longer confident in their ability to sell out games. They are worried that the on ice product, the thing that causes most fans to purchase tickets, is going to suffer. After all the talk of “re-building” and giving the youngsters in the organization a chance to shine, in combination with the new additions to the organizations make the appearance of a team running scarred and afraid.

      Team is scarred of ticket sales are going to dip, add ice girls. Team is scarred that rookies are going to be pushed around, re-sign Mike Brown and add John Scott. Neither one of those things makes the team better.

      The continued employment of Scott Hannan also is troubling, in that it gives a roster spot to mediocre aging veteran instead of to a rookie who should be able to earn his spot on the team’s swiss cheese of a blue line.

      The Sharks are full of questions right now, it is too bad they aren’t any closer to the answers.

      Like

    • Betty 12:19 am on August 9, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      “It’s a step backwards, and it again reinforces the idea that the NHL says it’s for everyone, but it’s not really for women – or at least, it’s not for women who are in it for the hockey. Ice girls look a lot like professional puck bunnies, and their presence undercuts the notion that teams value female fans as highly as male fans. […] These things might sell, but they’re also degrading – not necessarily to the women involved, who are actively choosing to fill this role in return for a paycheck, but to the ones who are supposed to grin and bear the fact that this is how their favorite NHL team views women.”

      Like

      • SharkCircle 1:53 am on August 11, 2014 Permalink | Reply

        You should probably link where you quoted that from (EDIT: I’ve been notified by the author of the quote, Melissa Geschwind, that the quote is from her guest blog on Puck Daddy HERE), but in any case, it’s incorrect because it, or at least every one of the lines you quoted from it, uses the same narrow logic to arrive at predetermined points.

        Fallacy #1: The NHL says it’s for everyone, but it’s not really for women.

        Incorrect. The Ice Girls aren’t specifically for (straight) women. Is there nothing else to the NHL, then? For the writer of this quote to conclude, based on Ice Girls, that the NHL isn’t for women, the writer must be of the believe that the NHL is only comprised of Ice Girls. In reality, the NHL also includes hockey, which even includes male hockey players who some women are attracted to the same way some men are attracted to some Ice Girls. Therefore, the writer of this quote has committed a logical fallacy in making the illogical leap from the Ice Girls not being “for women” to the NHL as a whole not being “for women.” This is akin to saying a pastry shop is “not for the lactose intolerant” because one of its pastries has milk in it, when in reality, every other pastry in the shop is made for the lactose intolerant. A complete lapse in logic. You know those pink hockey jerseys made for women that many NHL teams have in their merchandise stores? This person’s logic is akin to me saying “the NHL says it’s for everyone, but those jerseys that are aimed solely at women prove that it’s not for men.” This is the exact same as that, and it’s ridiculous. Not to sound repetitive, but I keep coming back to this phrase for a reason: in reality, many men and women attend hockey games, and because men and women are different, the NHL does things to cater to both in different ways. Cherry-picking one example of how they cater to men using selective, narrow-minded logic does not prove that the NHL is not “for women.” That’s ridiculous. Now do they cater more to men? I should hope so, since men make up a majority of their audience. Go look for anything with a majority female audience, and I gave some examples in the blog itself, and you will find that it caters more to women. Call it common sense, call it economics, call it whatever you want, but it really shouldn’t be this hard for everyone to understand.

        Fallacy #2: Ice girls look a lot like professional puck bunnies, and their presence undercuts the notion that teams value female fans as highly as male fans.

        What does a “puck bunny” look like, exactly? “Puck bunny” is a descriptor of motive, of inclination, not of appearance, and yet the writer here uses it to describe an appearance. This is a projection. In reality, a “puck bunny” is simply, as most use the term, a women who is attracted to hockey players, and who aims to sleep with hockey players. The writer’s flawed logic here is clearly that, in their aim to sleep with hockey players, “puck bunnies” might dress in revealing ways, and since the Ice Girls dress in slightly revealing outfits, they look like “professional puck bunnies.” However, this is a logical fallacy because there are many reasons to dress in revealing outfits, and there are many people who dress in revealing outfits for many different reasons. “Puck bunnies” do what they do out of a desire to be with hockey players. There is no monetary aspect to it. So the phrase “professional puck bunny” is a non-sequitur. A professional “puck bunny” would just be a prostitute that targets hockey players. Congratulations, whoever wrote this quote and compared Ice Girls to “professional puck bunnies.” In your aim to defend against sexism, you just called all the women who sign up for Ice Girls prostitutes, which just so happens to be the single most sexist thing I’ve read on the issue from either side. When it comes to certain feminists, the term “inner confusion” does not even begin to cover it.

        What makes this such a horrible analogy is that unlike “puck bunnies,” Ice Girls are dressing the way they do for their jobs, not to seduce hockey players. If you’re going to make random similes, you may as well say the Ice Girls look like professional swimmers, or professional tanners, or anything else. Swimmers may not exist to be attractive like the Ice Girls do, but the Ice Girls’ purpose isn’t for sex like “puck bunnies,” either, so each is ridiculous as the other. But tanning is done for appearance, same as the Ice Girls. The writer of the quote could have used that comparison and it would have been much more logical than “puck bunnies.” There are plenty of other examples of women dressing similarly that the writer of that quote could have used, but the writer chose, in his or her mind, the most demeaning and harsh example despite the faulty logic involved because the writer wanted to make a point no matter the validity behind it. That is bias, and that is projection.

        Fallacy #3: These things might sell, but they’re also degrading – not necessarily to the women involved, who are actively choosing to fill this role in return for a paycheck, but to the ones who are supposed to grin and bear the fact that this is how their favorite NHL team views women.

        And now we come full Sharkcircle, back to the first fallacy. The Ice Girls are just one example of many things the NHL does relating to women. What proof is there that this is the example which best demonstrates the NHL’s overall view of women, and not everything else? Do you follow?

        Example: the NHL employs Ice Girls, who wear revealing outfits. The writer of that quote is making the jump, then, that the NHL views all women in an appearance-based way, because that’s what they’re employing the Ice Girls to be, pretty. In the writer’s logic, if you’re employing women in a certain way, that indicates your overall view of them. Good so far? Everyone nodding in agreement like “exactly! That’s exactly right!”?

        Now let’s show how absurd and flawed that logic is. How? Because the NHL also employs women as janitors. I guess the NHL views all women as janitors then, right? But how can that be if they view all women as Ice Girls! It can’t be both! When dealing with narrow-minded absolutes in this way, it has to be one or the other.

        The NHL also employs men as janitors. I guess the NHL views all men as minimum-wage cleaners as well? The NHL also employs women in their marketing department. I guess the NHL views all women as marketers. And is it possible that some of those women in the marketing department signed off on the Ice Girls idea? I guess the NHL views all women as marketers, and then all those women view women as Ice Girls, which in turn causes the NHL to view all women as Ice Girls by the transitive property of… well, completely illogical bullshit. Plus, you know, janitors. They don’t fit anywhere in that example.

        Have I made my point? That’s rhetorical. I have. Whether you understood it or not, well… But here’s the summary. The NHL caters to men and women in many different ways. The NHL employs men and women in many different ways. You can’t just pick the one way you like least, on only one side of the equation, and say “see this is how the NHL views ALL of you!” At least, you can’t do that if you don’t want to be wrong.

        Lastly, the NHL doesn’t have eyes. What what? Yes, they do not have eyes. Still not following? Let’s back up. This is how the NHL views women, they say. “Views.” Views with what? The NHL doesn’t have eyes. So you mean people then, yeah? Probably the male executives running the NHL, or your “favorite NHL team,” yeah? Ok then. Even ignoring all the fallacies involved in this one short quote, what’s the problem? If you still don’t follow, let’s change the sentence from the quote around so it says what it really means. This is how your favorite NHL’s team’s male executives, or male fans, view women. But we’ve already established they also hire women in many other areas, and many have wives and daughters and so on. We’ve established that the absolutist view of this is narrow and logical flawed. The real sentence should read like this: This is one of the ways your favorite NHL’s team’s male executives, or male fans, view women. Fair?

        Well, there you have it. One of the ways men view women is sexually. OMG!!!!!!!!! How horrible!!!!! Thank god someone pointed that out!!!!! It’s not like the furthering of the human race depends on that or anything!!!!! People. People… PEOPLE! Come on now, you don’t need me to explain this to you. Start thinking for yourselves. Don’t just fall for trigger words like “degrading” and forget to actually check if what the writer is saying is true, if it stands up to logic. There isn’t one thing in this quote that stands up to investigation, as I’ve just painstakingly shown. But I won’t always be here to fact check for everyone. People need to start seeing these things for themselves.

        Like

    • evilducks 9:01 am on July 19, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      Because I know you’re going to misunderstand this and I could have said it better:

      “The % of male’s that make up that audience is smaller now than it was 10 years ago. Which means the league is doing well at penetrating the female market, which means that the population of women watching hockey has more than doubled, where as they haven’t been able to attract more men than they had”

      I mean that the female population has more than doubled, the male population has not doubled, but is obviously growing. The female audience is growing faster.

      Like

    • SharkCircle 7:55 am on July 23, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      Hey ED I received the longer thing you wrote but it got caught in spam, not sure why. Maybe length? Irony. Might be for the best though since you wrote some (untrue) conspiracy theories about “me” and unfortunately some people will believe anything they read. Whatever history you think you have with “me,” all these insults you’ve thrown at me make so much more sense now. Maybe email me the full story at sharkcircle@gmail.com. I’m morbidly curious. And I could make jokes about how imagining “me” makes you crazy but actually I’ve wondered about double accounts on twitter in the past. But FTR, I never post on stats blogs because it’s obvious from twitter that they’re not receptive to any other arguments.

      I wonder if you got that from someone else. The reaction to this blog has really opened my eyes that people will believe and repeat anything they read, or come to totally false conclusions or assumptions.

      It’s like when someone tweeted asking me what I thought of feminism, and I started giving a detailed answer of multiple tweets, although still trying to cram as much as I could into each. Then people whose evidence has been mathematically discredited in the past, like a certain Sharks blogger, questioned my evidence. Being disagreed with is normal, especially when you’re one of the few people willing to take unpopular stances like I am, but I have never published blatantly incorrect mathematical calculations and used them as evidence to spread lies to thousand of readers until nearly the whole hockeysphere has bought into fallacies. Not fallacies in my opinion, but objectively, mathematically proven fallacies. And there were more. I mean you saw the ridiculous reaction on twitter a few days ago, which I just summed up in a new blog earlier, or at least you alluded to it.

      As for your thoughts on that, you said that “Operation Mockingbird was started in the early 50′s during the Eisenhower administration and ended in the mid 60′s” but US Congress didn’t investigate it and publish a report on it in 1976, so it still wasn’t “admitted” until four years after Steinem funded Ms. Magazine. Her astronomical rise to that position, if not also the magazine’s founding, came in a period where the CIA completely owned the MSM, including “respected members of The New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles,” according to Deborah Davis in her book Katharine the Great.

      You said about the CIA and Operation Mockingbird that “In the early 60′s, giving money to a feminist that wanted to go to a festival in Vienna did something to further that goal. a mere 5 years later that same feminist was protesting America’s involvement in Vietnam and so they leaked that they had given her money in the past to undermine her credibility. This is all outlined in the video you showed.

      You then make the illogical leap that after the CIA outed her as a former operative, that they again funded her agenda, that often included attacking the US government for it’s policies, they would give her money to start a magazine and never again leak any proof that she was a member of the CIA. This evidence has remained secret, even though the CIA had tons to gain by leaking it to discredit her later (like they had before) for over 40 years.

      You say you have to think about these things. I don’t think you actually do. I think you have conclusions and look for facts to fit them, instead of the other way around. I honestly didn’t know what the movement was when you brought it up, but the more I read about it, the more untenable your position became to me. Show me evidence, as there should be plenty, that the CIA had any involvement with Steinem after 1967 and that video and you may have something. Evidence, not conjecture from other people.

      As for proof about Steinem, read my blog, although I really have no idea where you’re getting the information that Steinem went against CIA interests, and then they exposed her ties to them at the height of Mockingbird. So they purposefully linked their funding of a journalist during a time when they were trying to covertly fund journalists without being caught? That doesn’t make sense. Additionally, Steinem is not anti-establishment. She supported Hilary and Obama. She got a medal from Obama. She is a-ok with the people in power. She even works for Jay-Z.

      Don’t even ask me about that.

      Now, you mentioned how you you’d never heard about Mockingbird before yesterday, and I appreciate the honesty, truly. You could have pretended but you didn’t, and that’s the first time I’ve seen you take the high road, so I give you full credit for that. But it still doesn’t change the fact that this is your problem, right here. It’s actually pretty common. A lot of people believe that just because they’re on the internet, that makes them an expert on everything. That registering a twitter account, or creating a username somewhere, makes them just as qualified to comment on any subject as anyone else. But ask yourself this. What exactly, if not hubris, made you think you were qualified to even give an opinion, let alone overrule my information, about a subject like Project Mockingbird, when even you admit that you’d never even heard of it before yesterday? I’ve known about it for a long time and read a lot about it. You’ve never heard of it. But you thought yourself qualified to educate me about it? Do you understand now how ridiculous that is? Anyone reasonable knows that there’s a time to speak and educate others with your opinion, and there’s a time to just listen and learn from someone who knows much more about a subject than they do. But you always think you know everything, even about subjects you’ve never heard of. Come on. You don’t want to admit it, but even you know somewhere deep inside how absurd that is. And when two people disagree like you and I do, there aren’t a bunch of mulligans for absurdity. You want to know why we’re disagreeing? It’s not because of me, it’s because of your absurd idea that you can speak to topics you’ve never heard about. When it comes to debates, there isn’t any yes I was being ridiculous there, yes I was wrong about that, but you’re still the reason we disagree! You’re still the problem, the wrong one! No, it just takes one instance like that where you’re wrong for your comment to go off the rails and for you to wrongly assume that the other person is wrong, when in fact it was you the whole time. Not that this is the only time. Ask yourself this in a hypothetical scenario: two people disagree. Both think the other is wrong. One has never heard of the subject at hand but attempts to discuss it anyway, and then is proven wrong about it. Which person is correct overall? Just ask yourself that.

      And people on twitter yesterday were trying to do the same thing. They didn’t want to admit I was right, but at the same time, most people who are feminists or support feminism typically distrust the CIA more than anyone. I mean didn’t the CIA play a big role in the crack/cocaine epidemic that tore the black community apart? It’s the fricken CIA! I mean come on. So they were in a tough spot. Before yesterday, all those people probably hated the CIA. No oversight, copied their blueprint from the Nazi’s intelligence agency and even brought over tons of surviving Nazis after World War II to help with intel on the Soviet Union for the cold war and growing the CIA, and so on.

      So I know these people don’t like the CIA, as most people don’t. But to avoid admitting I had a point on twitter, they had to pretend they did. And when someone’s whole motivation in a discussion is to “win,” that doesn’t make for honest or fair discussion. if I just cared about “winning” arguments, I wouldn’t take unpopular stances like this. Say what you will about me, but I hear everyone out even if they don’t agree with me.

      But all I got back from these people was the opposite. That’s why I said it’s disheartening. The first issue was that it was clear from those exchanges that most the people commenting weren’t on the same level as me intellectually, excuse my inability to dress that up with modesty. But it’s one thing to know to expect that to a degree with most people just from life experience. This was even worse, like many of them couldn’t even keep up with what topic we were on. Like just because someone is smarter doesn’t mean you still shouldn’t be able to speak the same language, figuratively speaking.

      For example, In the course of tweeting with someone about sexism and feminism overall, I commented about how there’s so much brain chemistry and evolution most people don’t even understand and have never even thought about. And I gave actually a very basic and well-known example (since I want people to keep up) of how, if she was aware of the Titanic disaster, the crew only allowed “women and children first!” to get onto life boats, and how many men just stood there on a sinking ship, peacefully waiting their turns, without trying to fight the women for the spots or anything, and letting the women get on the boats so the women could live, even though the men were sacrificing their own lives.

      Most don’t even give those things any thought, and in fact some of the more nasty people calling themselves feminists have actually called those men’s sacrifices “sexist” themselves. But in reality, they did a remarkable thing. Most people, men included of course, would do crazy things to not die. The survival instinct kicks in. But when faced as a group with such a harrowing situation, these men didn’t (with only a few exceptions as I remember). Instead, they stood strong so the women (and children) could live.

      But if the deck officers had called for “men and children first!” and made the women stay behind, while their children and husbands got on the boat, how do you think feminists would have reacted afterwards? For all this MRA stuff now that feminists use to insult Joe Rogan, I don’t remember seeing any angry columns by men about how they were discriminated against on Titanic. So why is that? It seems like something in men’s DNA made them feel like it was their duty to protect the women, to give them the best chance to live even if it meant they would die.

      That’s just one example of how there are things that go on in our brains that can be hard to understand. People who believe men and women should be the exact same in everything, and that the only reason we have any gender differences or preferences is “social conditioning that can undone,” are people who don’t understand brain chemistry. When humans first evolved, there was no “Patriarchy,” and there was so “social conditioning” outside of nature, yet men and women still had preferences and especially roles. These days we’re fortunate that I believe anyone of either sex can, and should, do whatever makes them happy as long as they don’t hurt anyone, but that doesn’t mean those differences that have evolved over three-hundred-million years don’t still affect our psychology, our natural dispositions, and what exactly makes us happy in the first place (or doesn’t).

      Apparently you were reading my twitter feed because you mentioned this conversation.

      You said it’s human nature to want to protect women. That’s just incorrect. Historically, men have treated women like property because being genetically stronger gave us that ability to do so. Women were sold to other men throughout history. Women were stoned to death for sleeping with men who’s property they were not (the men were not harmed). The concept of chivalry and being a gentleman is an initial notion of going against our nature, to be better than the savages that gave into their base needs. It is not human nature to let women and children get on a life raft and go down with the ship. That’s something we were taught how to do. That was an improvement over how women were treated before, but we can still do better. The fact that you even brought up chivalry as proof we can’t change is ironic, because it’s one of the best examples of humans proving they can train themselves to go against human nature at it’s core.

      I said it was in men’s nature to protect women they cared about. Men have done plenty of bad things throughout history as well. You bring up how women were sold to other men but not how men were sold to other men. Another disingenuous arguments. Women stoned to death… yes during strict religious times throughout our history, many people were punished very harshly for disobeying religious guidelines. There were also no pregnancy tests back then, so if men wanted to have families and not wonder their whole lives if their children didn’t actually belong to another man, they had to make sure their wives weren’t sleeping with anyone else. It’s not like today with condoms, abortions, and DNA tests. I obviously don’t believe in stoning anyone, but as much as people don’t like being cheated on today, you can understand why it was an even more harmful thing back then. No one wants to even have to doubt for one minute that their children are their own flesh and blood (unless they adopted which is different), and whether for that reason or religious reasons, some societies went to extreme lengths in the past. But I don’t know how in the world you once again didn’t remember all these extenuating factors. You will never get a complete picture, or come to entirely correct conclusions, when you forget to factor in relevant information.

      Now, you’re certainly correct that certain men have used their genetically superior strength to abuse women, but that doesn’t mean the average man doesn’t have a protective instinct for women. And even you admit that without noticing when you say some men made women their property. Well you’re protective of your property, right? And that’s just the worst example of it. Mostly it’s more genuine and good. But it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about bad men who treated women like property, or good men who loved their woman, all of them needed women to procreate, and in spread out tribes they were often in short supply so even if you only look at the worst examples like you do, even those men definitely had motives to protect them. Again, how do you not think of these relevant factors? I think of all the ones you leave out the instant I read whatever you’ve written. I see the whole picture instantly. Why can’t you?

      As for chivalry, men could act like savages and have sex and children strictly through rape, but that would lead women to avoid those men at all costs whenever possible and flee. Once again, why can’t make these deductions yourself? Not to mention, it’s hard to find love like that. Or is love also something we were taught to do? And who talk us, exactly? “Something we were taught” really means, even in your version of history, that we taught ourselves, which means it was in our own capacity. Regardless, many men value love and family just as many women do, and it’s hard to foster relationships with people when you don’t treat them at least somewhat decently. So as usual, there were biological/emotional reasons to this as well. No one came out of the sky and “taught it to us.” I don’t know where you get this stuff. And I really can’t believe you don’t see the Titanic connection. The reason our society believes women need more protecting than men is because women can give birth. “Women and children.” Often those are one and the same when the child is inside the women’s belly. The further pregnant, the more women needed protecting and needed other people to hunt food for them. As for the Titanic itself, men were probably seen as having more of a chance to survive the ship’s sinking than the women because of their greater genetic strength on average. Not that anyone had good odds in that water, but that prevailing belief that’s been around for a long time that when shit hits the fan, men are more capable physically of dealing with it, more hardened emotionally for dealing it, and that women are more precious, but also more fragile, and all of that stuff. Whether you agree with all of that or not, that instinct is in our heads because of millions of years of evolution where, in the wild, much of that was certainly true.

      As for the twitter convo on this subject, I mentioned Titanic as just one example of how humans have evolved, and the other person wrote back “are you seriously comparing Titanic to Ice Girls? Wtf?” They literally could not even keep up with the basics of the discussion. We weren’t even talking about Ice Girls, we were talking about sexism and brain evolution. She actually admitted that I was right about (straight) men having evolved be attracted to and have sexual desire towards women (d’oh!), but then she said “just because it’s how men have evolved doesn’t mean it’s right or that it’s not sexist.” And I told her, when it comes to your average, healthy man, it actually is “right” and “not sexist” that they have stuff like attraction and sexual desire because that’s how men have evolved. You can’t expect people to not be how they are, how they were made or created. Who is some person on twitter to overrule millions of years of evolution just because she thinks men should be different than how she clearly admitted they are?

      In any case, she made some comment about how it’s sexist and “we want to keep evolving, not devolve,” so clearly she doesn’t like how men have evolved to be for 300 million years, and she wants them to change. I tried telling her that the brain doesn’t discard old “parts” as it evolves, it builds upon itself. I explained how we have our lizard brain (aka reptilian brain) from 300 million years ago. She thought I was crazy and said I didn’t understand evolution, so then I tweeted her a diagram that shows which part is the reptilian part. Then she went quiet and eventually switched the subject to addressing the tweet I’d sent just before that, which led to her dumb Titanic reply.

      So these are the people I’m dealing with. However, I still consider their points, even to a fault. When someone says I’m being stupid or anything else, I examine their logic, if they provide any, to see if they have a valid point. I’ve always been very self-reflective about those things. But if this kind of ignorance is what results whenever I present complicated ideas, then maybe I’m giving people credit than they deserve. At some point, even someone as patient as me has to pick up on the trend. For one, we know my aptitude and how it stacks up against most the people on twitter. Also, simply observing how many people seem incapable of even understanding the points I make gives a more tangible example that not everyone can keep up with some of the complex subjects I choose to address and the level of nuance I bring to them. Add those things up and it’s very clear that most of the people “disagreeing” over my “Ice Girls” blog are only doing so because I took a stance they disagreed deeply with on an emotional level from the very beginning. My only chance of convincing them to think differently were the arguments I made, but my arguments flew over their heads.

      In other words, they had their minds, and their emotions, made up before I even wrote my blog, and they were incapable of understanding any of the arguments that might have led them to change their minds, that is if they even read the blog, which many didn’t. That, you should recognize, is a scenario with a predetermined outcome, and naive as I may be, why engage in debates where the thinking of the other side is predetermined?

      The only aspect of those specific people’s response to the blog that I believe I could have affected differently is the softening of the frustration they felt from reading something that clashed with their preconceived notions. But believe or not, I don’t believe it’s worth the effort to sugar coat my points for people who don’t appear capable of understanding them anyway. And I don’t like manipulating people. I could do like Nora Samaran did with her Media Co-Op blog, where she started by saying, “I don’t have the answers, and I hope we can think this through together. But this needs saying” before she went on to give about fifty different “answers” telling men how they need to act in order to be “safe male presence[s],” and how she said with certainty that “Yes, you know men who have raped, yes of course you do, and yes they are ordinary men.”

      Those quotes of certainty sure sound like she’s got her own “answers” to me, but she started the blog off by saying how it’s the most troubling post she’s ever written, and she needs the help of everyone reading to come to an understanding because she doesn’t have all the answers herself, as a tactic to soften the blow of her preaching to everyone and make them feel like they’re included in her opinions, even though they were not to such an extreme that the blog doesn’t even allow comments. Now I could play that game too, but call it principle, I feel like people should be able to see through that stuff on their own. I know the result is that some people reading my blog might have felt it was blunt and insensitive to their dissenting opinions, but the truth is I think female hockey fans are great. I like talking hockey with them. I wasn’t putting women under attack at all, just presenting my arguments and what I believed, which included defending the women who want to Ice Girls without facing social stigma and negative peer pressure. And let’s not get it twisted, unpopular as it is to say, this is men who are being criticized here. My grandfather, despite his age, still comes over to watch football games on sunday pretty regularly, and he’s always loved the cheerleaders. Not in some gross old man way, although I have to give him the look every once in awhile with the jokes he makes, but mostly he just thinks they are attractive in a good-natured way and add to the fun of the big show. And obviously it’s natural for most men to be attracted to pretty women. So it’s hard not to take it personally when someone says men’s natural inclinations like that are “sexist.”

      And that’s not even the main argument I saw critics of the “Ice Team” make, but you brought it up now too. The argument I was addressing that I’d seen critics make most prominently was not that women were being objectified just by nature of wearing sexy outfits at hockey games, but that it was unequal because the men weren’t wearing the same sexy outfits. The impression I got from those critics is that they would have been fine with it so long as the men and women were dressed in the same outfits. They didn’t seem to have a problem with “eye candy” at the hockey games in general, they just had a problem with the fact only the women were being made into “eye candy,” not the men.

      So if your argument is that any “eye candy” at all amounts to “objectification” which amounts to sexism, then your argument actually clashes with the one I addressed in my blog that most of the critics are making. Because they’d have no problem with the men in those sexy outfits. They just wanted it to be equal, or rather complained that it wasn’t. But if they believed that sexy clothes amounted to objectification, they would have just argued that, rather than the equality angle. Because if the very nature of anyone being dressed in sexy uniforms amounts to objectification, then it wouldn’t matter if it was done equally, it would still be objectification, just happening to both the men and women on the “Ice Team” in that case, rather than just the women. Which also illustrates that objectification does not always have to equate to sexism. Because what if the men were also dressed in sexy uniforms? It would still be objectification under your definition, but so long as it’s happening equally to both sexes, that would not constitute any discrimination based on sex, which is the definition of sexism. So that’s an example of when objectification, even if we accept your definition for this example, would not constitute sexism.

      And yet you say “Hiring women to be ogled by men is objectification of women and practically the definition of sexism.” How is the “definition of sexism,” which needs to be discrimination based on sex, something that happens to both sexes? Women oogle men, too. Make strippers. Magic Mike. Male models. Shows like Grey’s Anatomy. It was the whole point of the Twilight movies with Taylor Lautner. So when men are shown shirtless on TV to be ogled by women, is that the objectification of men and sexism against men?But you already admitted that men oogle women as well, so how can it be sexism if it’s done by, and done to, both sexes? That makes “oogling” the definition of human, something all humans naturally do, not the definition of sexism.

      How do you not make these connections yourself, again? I can’t count the times I’ve corrected you about something obvious. One more tip: saying something is “practically the definition” of something does not explain or proof that to be true. Neither does bringing up slavery, where slaves had no freedom and no choice and many were abused. And indentured servants were not allowed to marry, were subject to physical abuse, and did not have the right to quit when the job no longer suited them. Like slaves, they essentially did not own themselves, and had no power or freedom for a predetermined amount of time. “Ice Girls” can choose whether to sign up, choose what to do in their off time, and if they ever don’t like what the job entails, they can quit on the spot. They always have the final say because they can leave. Why are you even trying to tie these things together? And just to make this clear one more time, many women are crazy about this job. Even the NFL cheerleaders suing the NFL for failure to pay minimum wage admit that signing the contract was a dream come true and a huge adrenaline rush, and how they love to cheer and be in front of that huge crowd and pretty much everything I already said. Watch the latest Real Sports if you don’t believe me.

      At this point it’s hard to even follow what your argument is exactly. My blog was addressing the main arument from “Ice Team” critics, which was the equality one. Maybe you should post what exactly your argument is for why this is sexism so I don’t have to guess. But clearly your definition of objectification happens to both men and women, so it doesn’t constitute sexism. You could make twenty people strip naked do cartwheels on Good Morning America, but if ten of them are men and ten of them are women, there’s no sexism taking place. You would literally be indiscriminate which is the opposite of discrimination i.e. sexism. You could say it happens more to women but that’s only because there’s a greater demand for it among men, i.e. the exact scenario of the Ice Girls where 70% of hockey fans are male. In entertainment watched by 70% of women, you’re much more likely to see male eye candy for the women to oogle.

      Why can’t you make these distinctions yourself? And even if it was being done to more women in environments with equal gender splits, and even if the 50% portion of men wasn’t more interested and more willing to pay for eye candy than the 50% of women, there’s another factor at play: why is sex bad? For example, if more women were being given free chocolate pudding than men, would that be sexism against women? No, right? So we’ve established more isn’t always bad or sexist. In fact, this would actually be an example of sexism against men assuming the puddings were being dolled out to more women based on their gender and not any other factors.

      Meaning what? That it’s only sexism towards women when the thing being done more towards women is bad, i.e. harmful or morally wrong. Chocolate pudding is good, so it’s actually good for women to get more, and bad, i.e. sexist, that men aren’t getting as much. So again we get back to an important point: why is an adult, consenting women wearing a slightly sexy uniform of her own free will bad? Why is it bad to want to feel sexy and be seen in front of huge crowds? Why is it bad for men to look at attractive women at hockey games? Why is watching John Scott get punched morally acceptable, but watching the “Ice Girls” isn’t? If wearing a sexual uniform amounts to being “objectified” under your definition because only a women’s appearance is being put on display, not her personality, then wouldn’t you say that John Scott’s fighting also amounts to “objectification” under your definition because only his fighting ability is being put on display, not his personality? I mean Thornton is being valued for his skill as a hockey player. Scott is being valued for his fighting. The “Ice Girls” are being valued for their appearance. Are you saying any time someone only represents one thing, that’s objectification? “All we’re putting value on is the Ice Girls appearance in the moment, which dilutes her down to just being a sexual object for men to look at?” I mean if that’s the argument, then Thornton is being diluted to a hockey object because that’s all we’re valuing about him when we pay to see him play hockey, and Scott is being diluted to a fighting object because that’s all we value about him.

      So I really think whoever came up with this idea that whenever we only value one thing about a person, rather than the entirety of their being all at once, we’re objectifying that person, didn’t think the concept through. I think it’s a complete logical fallacy, especially in the context of spectator sports. It’s difficult to experience all of person’s “being” and potential and talent at once under the best of circumstance even when you get to sit and talk with them. In a spectator sport environment where all you’re there to do is watch from your seat and you don’t get to talk with the players or get to know them at all, it’s impossible. Whether it’s the “Ice Girls” or the hockey players, the fact is we’re there to watch them for whatever assets they bring to the table visually, whether it be attractive hockey or attractive women. If going to see people for what they can offer you visually, and nothing more, is objectification, then we’re objectifying all the hockey players, too. I’m open to you giving me more background on what the logic is supposed to be behind this, but it appears to be a logical fallacy. But it certainly seems that the further we chip away towards the foundation that all your beliefs about feminism and sexism are built on, the more see that most of them are fallacies.

      Or can only sex qualify as “objectification”? When you look on from the stands and distill John Scott’s entire value to you down to his fighting ability on the ice, is that not objectification because it doesn’t have to do with sex, while the “Ice Girls” situation does. If so, we again get back to the pertinent question, why is violence better than sex? And where does something neutral like pure hockey playing ability fit in the equation for a player like Thornton who is still only being valued by hockey fans for his hockey ability?

      I think that pretty much encompasses everything. The only issue I could see you coming back to is “just because more men are at games so the NHL has to cater more to men’s interests for economic purposes does not mean that “Ice Girls” is an acceptable male interest.” But again I don’t understand why not. I think everyone in this day and age agrees there’s nothing wrong with sex. So it must be that you feel people are being distilled from their entire beings, and everything they have to offer, into just “objects” of “eye candy.” But if you’re sitting up in the nosebleeds looking down at the ice, out of ear shot of anyone down on the ice, and where it’s too far to smell anything, either, what sense does you have left but your eyesight? It’s spectator sports. Spec. Spectacles. Eyes. I should sign up for a spelling bee. It’s impossible to experience the full spec(!!!)trum of a person’s character from the seats while they’re on the ice, with glass and security offers in between you. Clearly everyone on the ice, “Ice Team” or hockey players, are just meant to be watched.

      So again what’s the distinction then? Hockey teams are watched, even though everyone understands the hockey players’ abilities do not comprise their entire worth as human beings. Ice Teams are watched, even though everyone understands the “Ice Girls” appearances do not comprise their entire worth as human beings. How is it any different? Is it supposed to be a “skill” vs “appearance” thing? Because if women didn’t consider “appearance” to be a skill, the fashion industry wouldn’t be what it is. Sure, the “Ice Girls” aren’t choosing their uniforms, but they’re choosing their hair style (and being a stylist is a career that takes skill), they’re doing their makeup (also varying levels of skill at that), they’re working hard to keep their bodies in great shape like hockey players do, and they’re choosing how to present themselves (like actors). Not to mention appearance has an evolutionary importance for finding a mate and can represent good health, which can play an important factor in offspring. We are wired to value it, so putting an arbitrary distinction around it that it’s the one thing we’re not allowed to value as spectators is you not only asking me to trust your judgement over biology’s, but a completely unfair ask of anyone to go against their non-violent, healthy nature. Now of course, I’d put more importance on Mother Teresa’s skills (or work in life) than someone’s appearance, but that’s because hers was the rare skill, or work, that was dedicated to improving people’s lives, and as far as I know, indicative of her identity. What makes John Scott’s fighting ability anymore valuable to society, or any greater part of his identity, than an Ice Girl’s appearance is to her own identity? I’d put the importance of Mother Teresa’s work ahead of John Scott’s, too. And why is the assumption that when we value “Ice GIrl’s” appearance, we automatically believe there’s nothing else to her, but when we watch John Scott fight, we don’t automatically believe that about him? What makes valuing appearance something that is assumed to be so excluding of valuing anything else about a person, but valuing hockey skill or fighting ability or any other “skill” assumed to not be the same way? I think if a guy saw an “Ice Girl” whose appearance he thought was really beautiful and unique, he would probably wonder more about what she was like as a person than he would wondering what most hockey players are like. Unless there are character concerns about a hockey player where you hear things or start to wonder based on the evidence that something off the ice could be affecting his play, I think hockey fans just think of them as hockey players. Hockey objects, you could almost say. That’s why we fans can obsess about trading them all over North America and uprooting their families without even giving it a second thought. We view them as hockey players that are pieces in the puzzle that is NHL hockey. We obsess over their hockey-playing ability and what it means for their teams, and what it could mean for ours. The only reason we know their personalities more than we would know the personalities of most “ice Girls” is because they get so much attention from the media in post game interviews and the like, which “Ice GIrls” don’t get. Otherwise I really don’t see how the “Ice Girls” have been made into “sexualized objects” any more than the hockey players have been made into “hockey objects.”

      You also said “What a horrible horrible analogy. Who is saying that the Bachelorette is OK? I would argue there is something seriously wrong with nearly every reality television show. There is certainly an enormous amount wrong with a show where 1 person is shopping through 12 toys to see who they get to have. This is true of both the Bachelorette and the Bachelor (yes, there is a male version, that existed first, shocking.)

      I know about the The Bachelor, but both are aimed mostly at women I believe (haven’t checked the stats so we’ll see if my innate sense of gender differences is accurate or not), and I chose The Bachelorette because it’s on now and it has more men on it.

      Your opinion on reality TV shows, even if I share it by the way, has nothing to do with the analogy. I also agree that shopping between 12 toys is no way to find true love, but it’s not the point. Why is having “male eye candy” not sexist, like on The Bachelorette, but having “female eye candy” at hockey games is. And if all “oogling” is sexist, why was the main argument critics made against the “Ice Team” that there wasn’t also “male eye candy”? People didn’t seem to mind the oogling, they just cared that it wasn’t “equal.”

      You’re falling into the natural fallacy. Just because it’s in our base nature doesn’t make it OK. If somebody cuts me off in traffic on a bad day I’ll have a few moments where I naturally want to end that person’s life. It’s not something I’m proud of, but I know better than to indulge in it. Still, it’s human nature to injure and even kill those that insult and disrespect you.

      Once again, why is the instinct to want to end someone’s life at all comparable with sex? Sex makes lives, violence destroys them. Everyone feels frustration and rage but sane people like yourself know the pain it would cause if you killed someone, not to mention you’d be robbing someone’s life, so you don’t do it. What percentage of mentally healthy people would you say commit murder? Very low, yes? And often those are “passion crimes” where something so bad happens they lose it momentarily. Doesn’t excuse it but just saying, even those constitute horrible aberrations. In any case, maybe 0.01% of normal people kill or commit serious violence. 99.9% of normal people have sex. You are comparing a perfectly normal, non-violent, biologically necessary instinct to a very abnormal, aberrant instinct and trying to tie them together with the term “base instinct.”

      Still, it’s human nature to injure and even kill those that insult and disrespect you.” I’m not going to grand stand here, I’ll just that once again, if that were true in the same way that sex is human nature, nearly every adult would be a murderer just like nearly every adult has sex. You are comparing a behavior that 99.9% of the population does, and that is necessary for the furthering of the species and prevalent throughout nature, with a behavior 0.01% of the population does, that you seldom see in nature (most mammals don’t hurt their own kind). 99.9% ≠ 0.01%. If you’re very religious and you don’t agree with sexuality, then let me know and I’ll have a better idea of where you’re getting all of this, and I’ll understand. I am respectful of people’s beliefs. But that would just explain where we disagree and why you view sex as near-equivalent to murder.

      Also I would say that because something is legitimately natural, like sexual impulses, that it being legitimately natural does make it expected and acceptable human behavior. Sexual impulses are normal. Attraction is normal. If you think the very act of oogling or valuing people for their attractiveness is wrong, then not only are you going to take issue with Hollywood and many actors (not that I could blame you there), but you don’t understand biology. Attractiveness is an important part of finding a mate to further the species with. Most of the things that you probably believe are just social constructs actually have evolutionary purposes. I even read that the reason we have arm pit hair is so that when we sweat, the smell gets caught on the hair instead of falling off of us, and it stays on our hair so that potential mates can smell our pheromones which play a part in determining the best genetic match for breeding healthy children. And that goes for women too! But just because you want to decide how other people should live doesn’t make that right. You’ve already said men have evolved to oogle sexy women. So you’re basically telling men even though they’ve evolved to be this certain way and have an instinct to do this certain thing, that they should not do it because you say so? Within the bounds of not being rude and staring at someone so much you make them feel uncomfortable, is their attraction hurting anyone else? No. Then who are you say to its wrong? Who are you to overrule evolution? That’s like what some people tell gays. “I know you’re naturally attracted to the same sex, but that doesn’t mean it’s right. You need to fight it off and be how I want you to instead.” It’s not fair to require of people not to be themselves, and then call them sexist when they are.

      I remember doctors used to remove the tonsils because they thought they were just some extra organ that had no purpose, then later they realized they were wrong. That’s what you’re doing now except the information is already out there, you’re just not aware of it.

      You say, “The league has grown to almost double the revenue in the last decade since the lost season. The % of male’s that make up that audience is smaller now than it was 10 years ago. Which means the league is doing well at penetrating the female market, which means that the population of women watching hockey has more than doubled, where as they haven’t been able to attract more men than they had.

      Frustrating frustrating frustrating. Again I have to correct you. Again you base conclusions on miscalculated evidence. Your math is all wrong here. Just because the percentage of men is down and the revenue has almost doubled doesn’t mean the female fan base have doubled. What you’re thinking of is if the total number of male fans was less than before, but the total number of all fans was almost double, then that would mean that extra half would have to be new female fans, since the men’s number hasn’t grown at all. But the percentage of male fans doesn’t tell you that. You’re confusing percentages with the total number of fans. And revenue is not the same as audience. Revenue is impacted by factors like the Canadian dollar and the Winter Classic which wasn’t around before 2005, so even though revenue has soared doesn’t mean the number of fans has to the same degree. You use revenue increases assume audience increases, so even if you hadn’t also confused the difference between percentage and total number of audience, your conclusion would still be wrong. That’s two fatal mistakes in just one deduction, if you’re counting. I just noticed you even posted a second comment clarifying this and still didn’t recognize either of the major errors in the comment. You just wanted me to know that the sentence “they haven’t been able to attract more men than they had” referred to the male percentage that hadn’t increased, not the total number of male fans which has obviously increased. You got the difference between percentage and total correct there, but not where it mattered. You should know this yourself, I shouldn’t have to tell you this. How many times is that now that you’ve been wrong? But you still want me to believe that your conclusions are correct, and mine are the ones that are unjustifiable. Yeah, OK.

      There is nothing wrong with being sexy. There is a lot wrong with hiring women to be objects for other peoples amusements and it’s well documented:

      Women are people, not objects. Sexy women are people, too. I don’t know where this “object” idea is coming from.

      The list goes on for miles. Just because people enjoy doing something doesn’t make it right or healthy. I enjoy making fun of people and calling them names. I would love if people paid me to do it. I would relish it if that person was you. Do you think that’s right?

      First violence, now “making fun of people.” What does this have to do with sex? You’re talking about violent physical attacks, or attacks with words, both aimed at someone to try to damage them or laugh at their expense and humiliate them. How do these at all equate to sex? Sex is normally thought of as a beautiful thing, but you keep comparing it to nasty things. Beyond that this leads you to false conclusions because you’re basing them on false comparisons, just why? … You also offered your thoughts on revenue.

      “On it being a revenue stream for the company:
      You’re making assumptions you have no evidence for. We know exactly why they’re doing it, or at least the reason they claim. They hired Tortora to run the business side and he’s bringing in his own beliefs on how to improve the atmosphere in the arena from 14 years of working in NY for the NHL. He’s relatively new to the area, so it’s not surprising that he would incorrectly gauge the response he would get in San Jose and the bay area in general.

      You claim I make assumptions without evidence and say “we know exactly why they’re doing it or at least the reason they claim,” but then you switch over to why they hired Tortora. The topic is why they’re hiring “Ice Girls,” not your opinion on Tortora. The only line in there that specifically mentions a reason you believe he’s doing this is to “improve the atmosphere in the arena.” Okay… and the better the experience for a fan, the more likely they are to want to come back. Better experience = more fan demand. So you already contradicted yourself and explained a legitimate reason Tortora had in his mind for doing this. Then, after accusing me of making assumptions, you say “it’s not surprising that he would incorrectly gauge the response he would get.” How do you know he gauged the response incorrectly? That’s a bigger assumption than any I made. The only assumption I made is that businesses make their business decisions with at least the intention of acting in their own economic interests. Slam meet dunk. Whether he misgauged or not, which we have no way of knowing because we can’t read his mind, doesn’t matter so long as his motivation was still monetary. That is completely different from doing something to intentionally discriminate against women

      This is not a new idea to the club and had been shot down many times by those familiar with the team and it’s fans. Considering the blowback, where he’s had to make multiple statements decrying that this is not ice girls and will not function like ice girls anywhere in the NHL (a statement I find unlikely personally) I think he’s starting to see the error of his ways.

      I agree with that, but if you’re assuming that it shot down in the past because no one but this new guy thought it would be profitable or attract more male mans, that’s highly unlikely as if they already had data that showed it wouldn’t be profitable, the new guy would most likely know about it as well. I think in the past they just didn’t need to do anything. The team was winning playoff series here and there. The building was sold out. The Sharks weren’t about to enter a rebuild, and they weren’t losing money from a bad TV deal yet. I think a lot of this stems from the TV deal. They’re trying to find new sources of revenue because for the first time, they have to.

      Also, like I said, the team has sold out nearly every game over the last 15 years. There is no way to even bring in more fans, and as everybody knows, ice girls time at the rink means commercial time on TV, so there will be no new fans there. This statement makes no sense. You’re assuming a motive you have zero evidence for. Find me a quote where they claim this will increase revenue, they haven’t made it.

      You’re assuming their motive is sexism, aren’t you? That’s a large assumption. I am deducing that the motive was monetary because that’s what every business’s motivation is, to make money. If you want we can go down the S&P 500 one by one and see how many of those businesses operate with the goal of making money, and how many of them operate with the goal of being sexist towards women. Clearly, my grasp of the obvious is a much safer bet than your conspiracy theory that Tortora intentionally made a decision he knew would lose money just so he could be sexist towards women.

      And you keep flaming this theory by making up scenarios in your own head where the Sharks could never possibly have benefitted from this. Never in the history has this ever brought in fans. Plenty of times in history it’s turned away fans was your earlier point on the subject, which was totally disingenuous and inaccurate. Of course it’s brought in fans. This argument of yours is much better because you bring up the sell out aspect, however you’re wrong about the TV aspect since I’ve seen “Ice Girls” on NHL telecasts plenty of times (mostly Dallas Stars games for some reason). As for the tickets, there are almost always tickets available, and they’re probably concerned about losing fans after the collapse against the Kings, and possibly a Joe Thornton trade this summer. You couldn’t think of those extenuating factors either?

      You don’t always do things purely for revenue, Chick-fil-a doesn’t close on Sunday’s for revenue, Bill Gates doesn’t fight Malaria for revenue, there are plenty of other potential reasons.

      Chick-fila-A has always had a religious element, hasn’t it? I don’t really know their history. The Sharks never have. Has Tortora that you know of? Again, if this is an assumption contest, you’re winning, Mr. NEVER in HISTORY has Ice Girls brought in more fans. That wasn’t just a totally unfounded, anti-common sense assumption, but it was a totally hyperbolic one. But the goal of any for-profit business is to make a profit, also known as revenue. You found me two examples, one of them misplaced, of businesses that don’t make decisions based on profit. Except the company you’re thinking of is Microsoft, not Bill Gates who stepped down as CEO, and does “humanitarian” work for his “non-profit” foundation that is, I believe, actually very much for profit. And Microsoft is obviously very much for profit. Chick-fila-A may close on sundays, which probably brings in way more people all the other days of the week because it makes them look like a respectable, religious place instead of just another fast food type of restaurant selling processed foods, and they are a for-profit business as well.

      Perhaps Tortora just likes seeing girls in yoga pants clean the ice. Stop making claims you have no evidence for.

      Stop making claims you have no evidence for. By the way I think Tortora just likes seeing girls in yoga pants. I can’t imagine two more ridiculous, completely unaware sentences back to back. You say “stop making unsubstantiated claims” when the least substantiated claim I made is that businesses try to make money, and then you back that up with a real unsubstantiated claim. Do you know how ridiculous this all is to me? I make these connections in a mili-second. I see the way every sentence is interconnected, interrelated, whether factors persist or have inverse relation or have different degrees of relativity to each other (men and women often relate inversely in arguments we’re speaking to, that is unless you attach them to specific subjects or behaviors like oogling where both sexes do it, then it’s not a simple inverse ratio where one does and one doesn’t, but you have to look at the relativity of whether one does it more, and then whether there are legitimate factors that explain this difference, essentially what exists with inverse-relation to only the remainder of the greater amount of oogling of one gender over the other one, contextualized against population percentages because there could simply be more of one sex alive in the world or country at the moment which can effect the numbers), the different ways every factor in a word-equation interact with and effect each other.

      That’s probably the best I can explain it. Meanwhile you don’t even know that you’re typing out a blatant assumption and making yourself look ridiculous one sentence before chastising someone else for making assumptions that aren’t actually even assumptions because you’ve mischaracterized them and don’t even know the difference between an unfounded assumption and a common sense definition of what for-profit businesses do. Really the kindest anyone could be to what you’ve done is say you failed to recognize relativity and best-case-scenario logic. Meaning that Tortora’s motives are in his head. We are not inside his head. So how does one discuss his motives, then? Well, his job is marketing, to make more fans and make more money, so naturally because that’s his job, that is going to be the motivation for his decisions unless he wants to get fired Very obvious. Unless, of course, he’s a some undercover agent for some women’s-hating group, which is your assumption.

      Even if you characterize both of these as assumptions, which would be a stretch because we know the purpose of his job, your mind has failed to recognize relativity, which is that not all assumptions are equal. When you can’t read someone’s mind but you still have to talk about their motives, it’s common sense that you go with what’s most likely. That is the best case scenario, the closest you’re going to get to certainty without reading that person’s mind. As I said earlier, we can go company by company and see how many of them prioritize making money, and how many of them prioritize oppressing women. You’ll find that that making money is the much more common goal. You’re making a very low-probability assumption, while I am making the most high-probability deduction that exists within this scenario. And again I can recognize what that is within any scenario in a mili second. That doesn’t mean you should bow down to me or anything because I’m sure you have your own strengths, and that you are more gifted than I am in plenty of areas. But this isn’t one of them. I think of everything you think of before you even think of it, along with every single factor that you’ve overlooked within any given scenario and how they interrelate. That’s how I’ve been able to point all fifty or so factors you’ve overlooked so far in the space of 51 minutes right now. For me talking to you is like how the average adult feels talking to a ten year old, except most ten year olds haven’t been brain washed into falling for CIA social programs yet. I only even bother writing all of this because, as with everything else, I write quickly. And yes I saw the joke about being a poor lover the exact moment I typed that, as I was typing it, so don’t even go there buster! You picked the wrong person’s work to read to go in with the attitude of looking to disprove everything. If you just read my work with an open mind, you’d probably learn a lot and be thankful for finding my blog. But instead you want to tear down everything I say, apparently because you think I’m someone else, which is again so ridiculous it makes me wonder if you really are ten. But when looking to feel superior over someone at something, you probably shouldn’t pick someone who’s far and away superior to you at it. All you’ve done is make me feel both superior and a little bit frustrated because it’s just another reminder of how I can learn more about most subjects from thinking quietly to myself than I can from talking to most people. But at least most of those people would have the self-awareness to know what they don’t know and not try to overrule someone on a topic they’ve never heard of before who both knows more about it than they do, and is more capable of connecting all the pertinent pieces correctly than they are.

      In the future, if you want to keep commenting here, try treating me as at least your intellectual-equal. We’ve established that’s probably a slight overestimation, but after saying what needed to be said in this comment, that’s how I’m going to treat you. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I’m not just going to assume that any point is wrong because you made it. I’ll read each and every one of your comments open to the possibility that you could write something accurate. And that’s all you need to do with me if you want to keep commenting here. But don’t keep presuming to know things I don’t unless you do. Just stop being wrong. I don’t want to continue this cycle with you where you write a bunch of fallacies, and then I correct them, and then you write a bunch of fallacies about my corrections, and I correct them again. The comments are for discussion, not fact-checking. If you’re not capable of posting facts, or at least knowing the difference between facts and opinions, then you’re not capable of contributing anything of value to any discussion.

      For example, you said, “Since you brought up the Remenda thing, I’m curious how terminating a broadcaster generally considered one of the best in the industry (whether you agree or not), that has a huge following, even outside the Sharks org, and is generally beloved by most of the fan base and not even announcing a replacement (which suggests they haven’t even found one yet) will improve revenue? I can think of a lot of ways this will hurt revenue from an already angry fan base. You might note that this has happened before and failed so miserably the org had to beg Remenda to return.

      He wasn’t “terminated,” his contract just wasn’t renewed. See how I have to correct you constantly? Constantly. And it helps the Sharks financially because they’re no longer paying a broadcaster “considered one of the best in the industry” the price that goes along with that reputation and that level of experience. They can replace him with someone much cheaper.

      I rest my case. It just keeps happening. Every snippet of your comment that I pull up, there is something you’ve miscalculated or misunderstood. Every single snippet. But I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you just had a headache or something. We’ve all had bad days. Just in the future, realize that you’re not always right, and let’s just face facts, while my opinions may not always be correct, since few people’s always are, my logic and my ability to deduce is very high otherwise this exchange wouldn’t read so much like an english teacher correcting a five-year-old’s first essay, and I wouldn’t be able to point out 100 errors in just one single comment you’ve made, bad day or not. You would do well to find someone else on the internet to poke holes in their arguments. if you’re craving that type of satisfaction in your life. If you want a good place to start, try some one of the people who tweeted me after I posted this blog.

      Like

  • SharkCircle 7:00 pm on July 8, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: advanced stats errors, , , , , , , , , , Should the Sharks trade Thornton and Marleau?   

    My Thoughts On Thornton, Marleau, and The Sharks Future (DR, Part Three) 

    Follow me @SharkCircle

    Here is the third and final part in the blog-series Diverging Realities. You can read Part One here, and Part Two here. Please enjoy part three!

    After the first two parts of Diverging Realities where I talked about the all the divides and contradictions among fans in terms of what other people believe, some of you reading may have had the thought, WELL WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IN, EXACTLY! WHO ARE YOU! DO YOU EVEN BELIEVE IN ANYTHING AT ALL?

    So to answer that thought, well… Hi, I’m Shark Circle. And I believe in marmalade on a hot summer’s day.

    Oh, you meant when it comes to hockey? And in this case, analyzing the Sharks? How about, I believe in… noticing what happens in the moment, and then what that moment turns into the past, I believe in remembering what I noticed. Because, you see, memories in sports can be fickle. Especially complex sports like hockey. There are hundreds of “events” every game (thousands, really), so most people don’t remember the details of a playoff series that happened five years ago. It’s not like football where you can just point to a couple of plays that decided the Superbowl or a playoff game. But for all the “fancy” stats available today, I remember some “simple” stats, not to mention performances, from past playoff-years that have colored my opinions on Joe Thornton and Patrick Marlaeu as much as anything else. CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING FULL POST!

     
    • evilducks 9:02 am on July 19, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      wrong place to post this, mistakes happen. Delete this if you want, leave it here to make me look bad. I don’t care either way.

      Like

  • SharkCircle 9:08 pm on July 7, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , Joe Thornton trade analysis, , , , Patrick Marleau trade analysis,   

    Diverging Realities Part Two: The Sharks Fan Base, Jumbo And Patty, And Why The Playoffs Matter (Really! They do!) 

    Follow me @SharkCircle

    Hey, Shark Circle here. Part One of this blog-series focused on what I mean by Diverging Realities, what caused them, and how the phenomenon has divided the hockey world at large. Here is Part Two, which will focus on the effect within the Sharks fan base, in particular the debates surrounding Joe Thornton, Patrick Marleau, and the question of whether players are responsible for their performances in the playoffs. If you haven’t read Part One yet, I recommend you start with it first, otherwise Part Two will be very difficult to understand. Please enjoy!

    I spent the last blog detailing how realities have diverged among fans across the NHL, but that doesn’t mean the phenomenon isn’t at its worst, or close to it, in San Jose. Nowhere have I noticed the divide between the people who try to understand as much of reality as they can, and the people who inadvertently create their own through mathematical miscalculations and manipulation**, more than within the Sharks fan base. Specifically, the debate surrounding Joe Thornton and Patrick Marleau’s playoff history. The advanced stats community (aka #fancystats on twitter) has always discounted the entire idea of “performance” and self-determinism in the playoffs, so it’s no wonder that a discussion surrounding great regular-season performancers who decline in the playoffs completely confounds them. And for the first time since these fans have risen to prominence arrogance within the Sharks community, they are greatly displeased with the way things are going, what with Sharks GM Doug Wilson saying he’s moving towards major decisions they don’t agree with. And as we all know, it’s not until adversity hits that you necessarily see all of people’s true colors. And this group of fans has turned on Doug Wilson very aggressively since he stated his intention to change the direction he takes this franchise in.
    CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING FULL …POST!

     
  • SharkCircle 5:29 pm on July 1, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , San Jose Sharks rebuild, , Tom Gilbert advanced stats   

    Diverging Realities Part One: The Great Divide From Sharks Fans To All Of Hockey 

    Follow me @SharkCircle

    Hey, Shark Circle here. Just wanted to pad the length here by putting up a “note” explaining this next series of blogs, Diverging Realities. In contrast to the more specific, ne’er continued series Beware of Advanced Stats In The Hands Of Less-Advanced Statisticians, Diverging Realities is going to take a more general look at the consequences that false statistics, biased “studies,” and the advanced stats community’s inability to acknowledge anything they can’t calculate are having on the hockey world.

    Part One will touch on the Sharks, but focus mostly on explaining what I mean by “Diverging Realities” and what caused the phenomenon, and how it has divided the hockey world. Then Part Two will really dig into how this phenomenon has attached itself to the debate around Joe Thornton and Patrick Marleau in SJ and made the Sharks into a polestar for this divide.

    Not For nothing, it’s been the most difficult blog I’ve written here, even more involved than the Beware blog, or the blog advocating for more skill in the NHL-game, and bigger ice. Or even the ill-conceived Scout With Almost No Footage one. But as someone who likes to be part of the ongoing, evolving conversation that is NHL-hockey, I feel this is one of the most important subjects I’ve written about. Because the way we all experience, analyze, and understand the game is very important to the way we discuss it, and I’ve been disappointed the last few years to see hockey discourse become almost as partisan as political discourse. And that’s what I felt needed addressing, so I hope you enjoy the slog blog!

    “Some men cannot be reasoned with.”

    If you’ve listened to Sharks’ GM Doug Wilson speak frankly this offseason, then you know that’s probably a pretty good approximation of what he’s been thinking to himself about Joe Thornton and Patrick Marleau lately, as it now appears he’s finally come to realize what most NHL fans have believed for years: that there is something going on with those two as leaders of the Sharks that has hindered the team’s ability to succeed in the playoffs relative to what was expected of them (internally and externally).
    CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING FULL POST!

     
  • SharkCircle 5:48 am on December 31, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: 2014 Sochi Olympics Hockey, Canadian Olympic Rosters, James Neal Team Canada, , Olympic Hockey, Team Canada, Team Canada Top Line   

    My Olympic Rosters: Team Canada Forward Line 1 

    Watching some of the projections by people in the know, like Darren Dreger and Bob Mckenzie, of what the Olympic rosters will look like, I have been absolutely stunned. For instance, apparently James Neal isn’t even being considered for the Team Canada, and Marc-Edouard Vlasic is actually on the team, ahead of Dan Boyle (and like twenty other better defenseman).

    I thought the idea of Vlasic playing for Canada at the Olympics was just your typical Drew Remenda homer-fantasy. On drugs. But according to the likes of Darren Dreger, it’s reality. So I’ve decided to draw up my own roster of what an actual sane person’s Olympic rosters should look like, starting with Canada. CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING FULL POST

     
  • SharkCircle 11:43 am on October 3, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Capitals Flyers Hurricanes Blue Jackets Devils Islanders Rangers Penguins Season Preview and Predictions, , Columbus Blue Jackets, Metropolitan Division Preview and Predictions, , New York Islanders, , , NHL Predictions, , , ,   

    Shark Circle’s Metropolitan Division Preview and Standings Predictions 

    I’m continuing my season preview with the Metropolitan division. To see my Atlantic Division Preview, click here. I must repeat the disclaimer that I’ve only looked at the roster page for each team, and that’s it. No advanced stats, not even the power-play and penalty kill percentages for each team last year. Just my memory and intuition.

     

    METROPOLITANLOL

    1. Pittsburgh Penguins: CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING FULL POST

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 734 other followers

%d bloggers like this: