18 ms·
it would be close to impossible to prove that it makes any difference whatsoever. and i'd imagine skill players would take offense at the idea that they look to
by evilneanderthal 18y ago
it would be close to impossible to prove that it makes any difference whatsoever. and i'd imagine skill players would take offense at the idea that they look to see where the goalie's pads are.
- ojbyrne 18y agoI think that's pre-Bill James thinking about sports, especially the part about taking offense. If half the goalies in the NHL suddenly adopted this, it wouldn't take very long at all to measure statistical differences.
- evilneanderthal 18y agonot good enough; you have to measure improvement. but since no goalie is consistent enough for that to be possible to do, you'll never have proof.
- tokenadult 18y agoThe proper experimental design would show whether or not the pads make a difference. http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
- evilneanderthal 18y agoI agree, but there's no way to achieve the required rigor. How can you get a double-blind study when everyone can see the pads? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
- ojbyrne 18y agoThere are plenty of experimental designs other than double-blind that have been demonstrated to prove causality. Or actually "quasi-experimental" but still. I had this book inflicted upon me in a past life: http://www.amazon.com/Experimental-Quasi-Experimental-Designs-Generalized-Inference/dp/0395615569 http://www.amazon.com/Experimental-Quasi-Experimental-Design...
- evilneanderthal 18y agoI know we're just arguing on an internet forum, but in all seriousness, how can you possibly achieve control? At this point I'm more interested in whether such a thing is even possible and less interested in being right on the internet =]
- Retric 18y agoDouble blind is setup so you can see low order effects. If your testing is 1 pound of cyanide is lethal it does not take a lot of scientific rigor to find out. If the pads are 1% better it would be next to impossible to find out. But if they are 1/5 or 5 times as good it would be obvious.
- scott_s 18y agoDouble-blind is needed when the prejudices of the experimenter and the subject may influence the outcome. In this case, it's safe to assume that the subjects care more about winning than they do about the study itself. Further, what you're testing is their reaction to this new thing. It's inherently impossible to not let the subjects know if they're in the control or experimental group. Good experimental design is not synonymous with double-blind.
- evilneanderthal 18y agoI don't think that's a very safe assumption at all. Lots of athletes do strange things for no good reason. See: Patrick Roy stepping over the blue lines compulsively throughout his entire career. I wonder if he still does it now that he's a coach. I know I play differently if I think something's different with my equipment, even if I have little evidence to support that.
- scott_s 18y agoThose examples have nothing to do with wanting to, consciously or inadvertently, influence the outcome of the experiment. Double-blind only helps in that situation.
- evilneanderthal 18y agoNobody cares if the players want to influence the experiment. The point is to determine whether camouflage pads are more effective than regular pads, which isn't possible. There are simply way too many variables that you can't control.
- scott_s 18y agoAs has been pointed out by others, with enough data, we can infer causality with reasonable confidence. It's not as good as being able to design the experiments ourselves, but it's all we have. The alternative is to throw up our hands and declare that everything outside the lab is outside of science.
- mrtron 18y agoGenerally I aim for just inside the post...so I don't look at the goalie. The puck definitely does go where I look though - so it could make a bit of a difference.
- a-priori 18y agoWhat about pads with a fake goalpost on the outer edges?
- mrtron 18y agoI don't think that would be nearly as effective as the netting - the orientation of the pads would make it only be somewhat upright a small percentage of the time.
- teuobk 18y agoDo you aim there even if the goalie is hugging the post? What if you're in the slot and he's showing a huge 5-hole? Obviously, you're not going to try to hit the goalie, so that implies some awareness of the goalie's current location and a reaction to that information. [Actually, I'm just trying to learn your shooting habits so I can inform my goalie brethren. What's your name, and where do you play? :-) ]
- mrtron 18y agoIf the goalie is hugging one post, I am going for the opposite side. That is my patented wrap-around move since I am not as quick as I once was...the goalie always makes it to the same side so I come out a bit and go opposite top corner. Huge 5-hole I think I look at where his pads are and then try to shoot in between...maybe that is why I am rarely successful there! [I play in Toronto, and I have an unusually large amount of penalty minutes and not many goals because I play defense]