Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

#46 Andrei Kostitsyn 2007-08


jl-1

Recommended Posts

We played much better with andrei kostitsyn out of the lineup. Ergo, Kostitsyn's absence correlates with us winning and outplaying the other team. Is it the sole reason? No. Is it a contributor? Absolutely. Weep, a correlation are two things that occur simultaneously. How can you favour potential over proven efficacy? The lines are working. And now you want to disrupt them because this kid has potential to do well?

From wikipedia's entry on correlation:

"In probability theory and statistics, correlation, also called correlation coefficient, indicates the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two random variables. In general statistical usage, correlation or co-relation refers to the departure of two variables from independence. In this broad sense there are several coefficients, measuring the degree of correlation, adapted to the nature of data.

The conventional dictum that "correlation does not imply causation" means that correlation cannot be validly used to infer a causal relationship between the variables. This dictum should not be taken to mean that correlations cannot indicate causal relations. However, the causes underlying the correlation, if any, may be indirect and unknown. Consequently, establishing a correlation between two variables is not a sufficient condition to establish a causal relationship (in either direction)."

To put things simply, there is zero, and I mean, zero, evidence for establishing any kind of causal relationship between the direction of one variable (Kostitsyn not playing) and another variable (the Canadiens winning games). You are taking two variables and postulating a causal relationship: that Kostitsyn's absence makes us a better team and means we win games. Unfortunately for you, merely establishing a connection between two variables does not automatically establish a causal relationship between them. Consider the following example:

Saku Koivu suffers a minor injury and misses two games. Despite his absence, we win both those games. Applying your earlier logic, we are now conclusively a better team without Saku Koivu in the lineup.

This is why I believe your claim about Kostitsyn is unfounded. As an opinion, obviously, it's untouchable. But please don't try to pass off opinion as objective fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From wikipedia's entry on correlation:

"In probability theory and statistics, correlation, also called correlation coefficient, indicates the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two random variables. In general statistical usage, correlation or co-relation refers to the departure of two variables from independence. In this broad sense there are several coefficients, measuring the degree of correlation, adapted to the nature of data.

The conventional dictum that "correlation does not imply causation" means that correlation cannot be validly used to infer a causal relationship between the variables. This dictum should not be taken to mean that correlations cannot indicate causal relations. However, the causes underlying the correlation, if any, may be indirect and unknown. Consequently, establishing a correlation between two variables is not a sufficient condition to establish a causal relationship (in either direction)."

To put things simply, there is zero, and I mean, zero, evidence for establishing any kind of causal relationship between the direction of one variable (Kostitsyn not playing) and another variable (the Canadiens winning games). You are taking two variables and postulating a causal relationship: that Kostitsyn's absence makes us a better team and means we win games. Unfortunately for you, merely establishing a connection between two variables does not automatically establish a causal relationship between them. Consider the following example:

Saku Koivu suffers a minor injury and misses two games. Despite his absence, we win both those games. Applying your earlier logic, we are now conclusively a better team without Saku Koivu in the lineup.

This is why I believe your claim about Kostitsyn is unfounded. As an opinion, obviously, it's untouchable. But please don't try to pass off opinion as objective fact.

Weep, if you would like to get into a real debate about this, I would love to. I specifically said what I said because you used the word "correlation". You didn't use the word causation. I am a molecular neurobiologist. I think I know the difference between correlation and causation. I am by NO means taking two variables and postulating a causal relationship. I never, EVER, used that word. In fact, I deliberately did the exact opposite. I purposely said that there IS a correlation between his absence and our winning.

So applying my earlier logic; yes, there is a correlation between the two. And yes, there would be a correlation between Saku Koivu's absence and us winning. Weep, you dont go through 12 years of post-graduate education in biomedicine without learning a thing or two about statistical analysis.

The two are correlated. If you want to look into causality, there is a ton more to do. Please dont try to make me sound like someone who has no idea what they're talking about. Unfortunately for you, you couldn't be further from the truth.

Also - if you want to debate, use your own knowledge. Or at least a credible source. Using wikipedia only makes you look silly. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weep, if you would like to get into a real debate about this, I would love to. I specifically said what I said because you used the word "correlation". You didn't use the word causation. I am a molecular neurobiologist. I think I know the difference between correlation and causation. I am by NO means taking two variables and postulating a causal relationship. I never, EVER, used that word. In fact, I deliberately did the exact opposite. I purposely said that there IS a correlation between his absence and our winning.

So applying my earlier logic; yes, there is a correlation between the two. And yes, there would be a correlation between Saku Koivu's absence and us winning. Weep, you dont go through 12 years of post-graduate education in biomedicine without learning a thing or two about statistical analysis.

The two are correlated. If you want to look into causality, there is a ton more to do. Please dont try to make me sound like someone who has no idea what they're talking about. Unfortunately for you, you couldn't be further from the truth.

Also - if you want to debate, use your own knowledge. Or at least a credible source. Using wikipedia only makes you look silly. ;)

So Kostitsyn uses wikipedia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jesus Price
Weep, if you would like to get into a real debate about this, I would love to. I specifically said what I said because you used the word "correlation". You didn't use the word causation. I am a molecular neurobiologist. I think I know the difference between correlation and causation. I am by NO means taking two variables and postulating a causal relationship. I never, EVER, used that word. In fact, I deliberately did the exact opposite. I purposely said that there IS a correlation between his absence and our winning.

So applying my earlier logic; yes, there is a correlation between the two. And yes, there would be a correlation between Saku Koivu's absence and us winning. Weep, you dont go through 12 years of post-graduate education in biomedicine without learning a thing or two about statistical analysis.

The two are correlated. If you want to look into causality, there is a ton more to do. Please dont try to make me sound like someone who has no idea what they're talking about. Unfortunately for you, you couldn't be further from the truth.

Also - if you want to debate, use your own knowledge. Or at least a credible source. Using wikipedia only makes you look silly. ;)

I thought the debate was about Andrei Kostitsyn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weep, if you would like to get into a real debate about this, I would love to. I specifically said what I said because you used the word "correlation". You didn't use the word causation. I am a molecular neurobiologist. I think I know the difference between correlation and causation. I am by NO means taking two variables and postulating a causal relationship. I never, EVER, used that word. In fact, I deliberately did the exact opposite. I purposely said that there IS a correlation between his absence and our winning.

So applying my earlier logic; yes, there is a correlation between the two. And yes, there would be a correlation between Saku Koivu's absence and us winning. Weep, you dont go through 12 years of post-graduate education in biomedicine without learning a thing or two about statistical analysis.

The two are correlated. If you want to look into causality, there is a ton more to do. Please dont try to make me sound like someone who has no idea what they're talking about. Unfortunately for you, you couldn't be further from the truth.

Also - if you want to debate, use your own knowledge. Or at least a credible source. Using wikipedia only makes you look silly. ;)

Actually, I just pasted the wiki quote because I was in a hurry, and because I thought you were meaning something very specific with your choice of words. My apologies for misunderstanding you. I really thought that you were arguing for a causal relationship between Kostitsyn not playing and the Habs winning, and that's what I found to be suspect. My bad. :o

For what it's worth, wikipedia is good for certain things, despite the problems inherent in the format. Again, I was in a hurry, so I went to wikipedia instead of hunting around for my OED. :)

Sorry if I offended you, but you know, I had no way of knowing that you are a molecular neurobiologist. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont want to really get into this.

But my main point is that Andrei Kostitsyn's absence, as it stands (and as us being merely observers) is one of possibly a thousand different variables that correlates with us winning.

That's all I'm saying. But, who knows if it plays a bigger role than we might presently understand. e.g., say kostitsyn's presence on the ice influences his teammates play as well (and it almost certainly does). Then we have say the shot total of kovalev (or whomever) to consider. So let's say kovalev's shot total correlates with us winning as well. Kovy gets lots of shots, we win. Kosti plays, kovy gets no shots. Kosti doesnt play, kovy gets a ton of shots. Now all of a sudden we've got another relationship (no mutually exclusive) that correlates: kostitsyn's ice time and kovalev's shot total. Both of these, inextricably related to our goal total, have to be considered. If you take out kostitsyn and all of a sudden 2 or 3 variables that correlate with our winning start to linearly regress with wins (or goals) then we can start to say, okay, maybe kostitsyn has a big influence on a NUMBER of things that determine how well we play. Only then would you start to say something like he causes us to lose (which im not saying!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Miltie01
Yah and Latendresse played 13 games without impressing anyone, infact he played even worse then what Kostitsyn had played and you know what he did, WE PROMOTED HIM TO THE FIRST LINE!! I didnt anyone complain when that happened you know why...Its because Latendresse is Quebecois, and thats what it comes down to, theres no denying the issue here. Even as we speak Latendresse isnt playing that good and has got better treatment then Perezhogin, Kostitsyn and Grabovski as of right now!

I'm calling you on this one, Lapierre is in the AHL and is French.......if what you say was true he would not be in the A.

Lats sat before Kostitsyn this year, would not have happened if your little scenario was true.

The powers that be decided he wasn't givng them what they wanted and sat him..it is as simple as that.

The language thing is more of an issue in fans and media's minds , and has very little basis in fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JIMVINNY

allright, this thread has officially floated over my head. I can't believe some of the points being made and pursued... seems like it's not about andrei anymore...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But my main point is that Andrei Kostitsyn's absence, as it stands (and as us being merely observers) is one of possibly a thousand different variables that correlates with us winning.

That is much clearer than your original post, and now I agree with you absolutely. Kostitsyn's absence is one of many, many variables that correlate with us winning. And this is why I don't understand the logic of some people saying that because we won two games without Kosts in the lineup, we should continue to keep him on the bench, because that, to me, does indicate that those people believe there to be a causal relationship between Kostitsyn sitting and us winning.

That's all I'm saying. But, who knows if it plays a bigger role than we might presently understand. e.g., say kostitsyn's presence on the ice influences his teammates play as well (and it almost certainly does). Then we have say the shot total of kovalev (or whomever) to consider. So let's say kovalev's shot total correlates with us winning as well. Kovy gets lots of shots, we win. Kosti plays, kovy gets no shots. Kosti doesnt play, kovy gets a ton of shots. Now all of a sudden we've got another relationship (no mutually exclusive) that correlates: kostitsyn's ice time and kovalev's shot total. Both of these, inextricably related to our goal total, have to be considered. If you take out kostitsyn and all of a sudden 2 or 3 variables that correlate with our winning start to linearly regress with wins (or goals) then we can start to say, okay, maybe kostitsyn has a big influence on a NUMBER of things that determine how well we play. Only then would you start to say something like he causes us to lose (which im not saying!)

Can't disagree with a word of that. If we were to get more correlations such as the one you described (Kovalev's shot totals increasing in Kostitsyn's absence, etc.), the theory that Kostitsyn causes us to lose would start to gain more credence. Currently, though, we don't have those correlations, so those who insist that Kostitsyn playing is going to make us lose our next game are not really arguing from a position of strength. :)

Edit: JB, I apologize for blithely using the word 'correlation' in my initial reply to you without bothering to explain that I thought you were implying 'causality' in the correlation. That's slipshod. Sorry about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jesus Price

This thread is starting to sound like my highschool science class.. I didnt realize that the use of words that nobody uses on a regular basis signified the intelligence of an individual, but I guess it does

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JIMVINNY
That is much clearer than your original post, and now I agree with you absolutely. Kostitsyn's absence is one of many, many variables that correlate with us winning. And this is why I don't understand the logic of some people saying that because we won two games without Kosts in the lineup, we should continue to keep him on the bench, because that, to me, does indicate that those people believe there to be a causal relationship between kostitsyn sitting and us winning.

I just want to make clear that this wasn't what i was saying. I don't believe that keeping him on the bench is a good idea, i just had an issue with the statement that dandy should be benched, just so kostitsyn can play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is much clearer than your original post, and now I agree with you absolutely. Kostitsyn's absence is one of many, many variables that correlate with us winning. And this is why I don't understand the logic of some people saying that because we won two games without Kosts in the lineup, we should continue to keep him on the bench, because that, to me, does indicate that those people believe there to be a causal relationship between Kostitsyn sitting and us winning.

Can't disagree with a word of that. If we were to get more correlations such as the one you described (Kovalev's shot totals increasing in Kostitsyn's absence, etc.), the theory that Kostitsyn causes us to lose would start to gain more credence. Currently, though, we don't have those correlations, so those who insist that Kostitsyn playing is going to make us lose our next game are not really arguing from a position of strength. :)

Edit: JB, I apologize for blithely using the word 'correlation' in my initial reply to you without bothering to explain that I thought you were implying 'causality' in the correlation. That's slipshod. Sorry about that.

i appreciate that, thanks, though I dont know what slipshod means.

Thing is, I am just so hesitant to be a proponent of changing the lineup again to get this guy back in there when we have scored 10 goals in the last two games and only given up 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is starting to sound like my highschool science class.. I didnt realize that the use of words that nobody uses on a regular basis signified the intelligence of an individual, but I guess it does

No one is saying that, you dont need to be facetious. i made a point that kostitsyn ought not to be inserted on account of the fact that we have played very well without him. Weep and I had a discussion about it, largely based on semantics, yes, but all for the purpose of understanding the logic behind the original comments. What is wrong with that? I dont believe either one of us insulted the other's intelligence or was overly pedantic (my apologies if it came off as such).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JIMVINNY
No one is saying that, you dont need to be facetious. i made a point that kostitsyn ought not to be inserted on account of the fact that we have played very well without him. Weep and I had a discussion about it, largely based on semantics, yes, but all for the purpose of understanding the logic behind the original comments. What is wrong with that? I dont believe either one of us insulted the other's intelligence or was overly pedantic (my apologies if it came off as such).

this might be just my perception of the matter, but the use of the word "pedantic," (the definition of which I am unfamiliar with) comes across as a tad facetious in itself. Again, just the way I assess it. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jesus Price
No one is saying that, you dont need to be facetious. i made a point that kostitsyn ought not to be inserted on account of the fact that we have played very well without him. Weep and I had a discussion about it, largely based on semantics, yes, but all for the purpose of understanding the logic behind the original comments. What is wrong with that? I dont believe either one of us insulted the other's intelligence or was overly pedantic (my apologies if it came off as such).

uhmm... ok? I really dont understand any of this, but luckily for me it had NOTHING to do with Andrei

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JIMVINNY
Haha i suggest you look up the meaning of the words pedantic and facetious.

side joke - "embiggens? I've never heard of that." "I dont know why, it's a perfectly cromulent word"

JB, Don't worry, i'm not a total fool, i have some small size of learnedness... ;)

I do know what facetious means, and after having looked up pedantic, it appears my assesment was correct.

side note - Using pedantic as an adjective is a thouroughly pedantic motif, is it not?

GO KOSTITSYN!! (back on topic....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh so now Kosts should go above the team winning. :rolleyes: I get it!

So instead of rotating the lineup to accommodate for our young guys, we let them sit in the press box hindering their development?

What happens if we lose guys during the season due to injury and some of our guys aren't developed as much as they should be when they take the spot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not in favour of keeping a young player benched for too many consecutive games. It's not good for their development. On top of that, he wasn't playing that bad either. We must find a way to rotate certain players in and out of the line-up to keep everyone sharp. It's not a punishment, it's a necessity and Carbo has done a great job at rotating the players so far. We must find a place in the line-up to give him a chance to prove himself, just like we've done for Latendresse and Grabovski. It's only fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rosalie52
I am not supporting the way the team has handled latendresse. That is an entirely different issue (and frankly irrelevant in this thread). If you are going to respond in this thread, try to keep focused.

May I suggest you post in the Latendresse thread if you are so displeased with his performance.

Getting back to kostitsyn, there is no way that he ought to replace someone like dandenault. Dandenault is exactly what this team needs. He is unequivocally the hardest skater on the ice when he's out there. He has earned every single minute of his time. Kostitsyn takes shots but they are not good shots. Isn't that what people have been complaining about on here? An inability to finish? I see Kostitsyn as a Sergei Berezin caliber of a player. Flashy at times, but overrated by his supporters. I think people need to recognize that he is more consistently ineffective than he is an offensive threat.

Please do't remind us of Sergei Berezin! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...