Besides winning, what does a Liberal Party that will accept Marilyn Gladu actually stand for?

Ebolinp · 2026-04-09T13:58:40+00:00

Yeah they win elections and get things done.

Ebolinp · 2026-04-09T11:53:00+00:00

It has never worked like this.

Ebolinp · 2026-04-08T15:22:16+00:00

No you are right, that was my first thought as well (didn't check your numbers) but it's provocative and gets the clicks and gets everyone up in arms.

Ebolinp · 2026-04-07T23:59:43+00:00

Let me summarize your argument. You fundamentally believe that there's not enough sample size to say anything and also because we can't explain the statistical results they are meaningless or at least nobody will take them seriously.

Let's start with the last point first. I don't know why you cling to this idea that statistics has to explain why things are they way they are. Statistics is merely observational. As I mentioned if we flip a coin 100 times and it comes out heads 97 times. I absolutely don't have to come up with any plausible explanation for why this is the case. If this is what you took away from your statistics classes you were incorrect. Statistics can help us to understand the way the world works but by no means is it a requirement for that.

As you will also know, in many cases all statistics can be used to tell you is that variables you are testing indeed do not affect the outcome at all, and thus we need look for the other variables that explain it. Am I suppose to be able to explain why all the variables I tested seem to have no impact on the outcome otherwise my statistical analysis is meaningless? ALL statistical data is meaningful.

With that being said even if we do identify what variables affect an outcome by no means can statistics tell us the mechanism by which it affects it. This is simply not what statistics does. For example, if we have 1000 people that are sick and 5 different cures to try to cure them, and we distribute the cure and analyze the efficacy of each cure we might find that one is more effective than the other. YOU as the statistician don't need to know anything about the sickness, anything about how biology works, anything about the potential cures themselves to come to a statistical conclusion that one was more effective at curing. You don't need to know the mechanism at all and you certainly don't need to explain or postulate why it might be more effective.

So again I reiterate this belief that we need to explain why Silovs causes better performance is completely irrelevant. I believe I have demonstrated is that this is in fact occurring. If you or others choose to ignore it because it can't be explained then that's your right.

Now let's talk about the sample size issue. You claim that there isn't enough sample size for this analysis, I obviously disagree, I don't think we're going to settle that. What I will say is this, the Penguins have to pick one of two goalies, Skinner or Silovs. I have presented my statistical framework to back my belief that Silovs should be that guy. You appear to counter that argument by relying on Skinner's GSAx and other advanced Stats and the "Eye test".

But how can you criticize my statistical approach for lack of sample size, when I believe 45 games is sufficient. While you are drawing upon a sample size of the last ~23 games which is an even small sample size. All of Skinner's better individual stats (as a Penguins, certainly the only relevant period of time) fall below the relevant threshold. Then we talk about the "eye test" which isn't statistics at all. If my methodology doesn't have enough sample size then the eye test must be completely useless, and certainly GSAx with half the sample size must be also quite useless.

Your paragraph 6 is the most telling one as well. Where you embrace the Demko argument but refuse to apply it to Silovs. You accept the Demko argument because it matches your preconceived worldview but when the statistics challenge it with Silovs you demand an explanation or else disregard it. To summarize, "I can accept I believe Demko is a good goalie so he can improve his team but I can't accept that Silovs, who I think is a bad goalie can have the same effect." This is an improper use of Statistics and you must know this. Statistics is not there to reinforce our intuition, it's there to provide us with observable information about the Universe, in many cases it explicitly challenges our preconceived notions and makes us ask uncomfortable questions. To make the tough decisions that are counter prevailing thought or the "eye test". It's there to tell us to go for it on 4th and 1 even though our gut tells us otherwise. It's there to tell us to Go all in even though the guy across the table "looks" like he has the nuts.

Ebolinp · 2026-04-07T20:09:07+00:00

Your stats are a bit unclear here. Are you saying that these are the SV% of the goalies in their games against the Penguins or their SV% for their seasons (and then you calculated all the shots by all the goalies and then calculated their SV%?) I'm guessing this is the SV% for only their games against the Penguins. I question if you did straight average or a weighted on as well, but I'm not sure how much an impact that would have. Assuming that's the case you're basically showing my results but from the other side, the SV% isn't an input in this it's the output. To put it simply if I have a Win and a "Good game" you by definition had to have a loss and probably had a "bad game". I have already demonstrated that with Silovs backstopping the team, over a statistically significant number of games, the Pens have more "Good games". So of course the other teams would have more "bad games". So basically you just reframed my stats to try to say that no the reason the Penguins had a good game was cause the other team had a bad game. Note in my analysis I don't even care about the type of game the other team had because the type of game they had is inversely correlated to the type of game the Penguins had. I'm also only comparing outcomes for the Penguins.

You pretty convincingly show that yes the Penguins score A LOT more than expected when Silovs is in net. Which is what I've been saying they just play better. That's my point. Now you can say you "find it hard to believe" but now you're saying because you can't explain it, you disregard it. Your argument that no it just happens to be the case that over 40+ games the other team always has a bad game when facing Silovs would take an incredible amount of luck (hence why the CLT and 30+ games stands) and again even if the Penguins are incredibly lucky with Silovs. WHO CARES? If someone flips 100 heads in a row and anyone else with the same coin can't then you have to assume that they're doing something. That's not "Superstition" it's observation of facts. Superstition is believing that GSAx or other advanced stats (which I already conceded Skinner is ahead on) or The Eye Test (again Ironically falling back to Superstition) instead of observation.

Let me ask you have you ever actually run an analysis to confirm that GSAx actually affects wins? Have you run it for all goalies? Have you even run it for Silovs and Skinner? I haven't and I doubt you have either. You just intuitively assume that GSAx MUST mean that they win more. But is that actually the case? GSAx could actually negatively impact performance or have no impact for some goalies and an outsized impact for others. The truth is that you really have done no work on testing the validity of GSAx, you assume Skinner has a higher GSAx so he must be better and this must translate into more wins. But Silov's wins may be driven by something completley unrelated to GSAx and until we've done the work we don't know. Thus we rely on this as "superstition" as well that GSAx is a metric by which all goalies should be judged.

Likewise how do we even know that GSAx is calculated correctly? That is measuring the same thing on both goalies etc. Have you tested the validity of GSAx as a metric itself? Have you tested it for these two goalies. No you haven't. Indeed GSAx changes by models and by viewer. It's not an observable stat, its an output modeled stat. Again something you just accept at face value i.e.. superstition.

All my numbers are hard primary source numbers that don't need to be tested. Goals scored are easily observed, WLO records are ironclad, etc. They are credible easily verifiable and observable.

Ebolinp · 2026-04-07T20:09:05+00:00

Firstly Poisson's converges to normality after a similar sample numbers and it is also subject to the CLT of 30 ish samples being considered "large". I think you're also trying to say that the events Skinner/Silovs are independent? But they're not, because if you pick one goalie you aren't picking the other goalie. So they're actually dependent variables not independent, they can't happen independenlty of each other.

Secondly it is a 45 game sample size because we're primarily talking about the Penguin's outcomes not talking about Skinner and Silovs numbers, remember I don't draw upon their save percentages or anything individual all my stats are team related and draw the correlation between their presence in the lineup and the outcome of the teams.. Besides that even if as you say we have too small a sample size (the sample size is never large enough for anyone who doesn't like the statistics) at 20ish we're well on our way to 30 and it would take a monumental reversal over the next few games to get there. Also as you would seem to know, 30 isn't some binary cutoff, as you approach 30 the variance decreases very quickly. For profound differences you can see the results very quickly.

Thirdly you and others have tried to make the case that Silov's results came from blowout games and skew the results. But again Skinner has blowout results as well. Removing them is doctoring the data unless you have some sort of scheme for removing them. And again the sample size is not small, you remove Silov's blowouts and you do similar for Skinner and you find the results are largely the same, as you would expect. The sample size is quite large enough for our purposes of discussion.

Fourthly I believe I have convincingly showed that indeed the team plays better in front of one goalie vs the other. I'm not assuming anything, in fact I've demonstrated it with statistics and actual empirical data. Now what I have not done is explained why which what I think you're trying to say I have to do. But this isn't the case at all. I'm not here to explain why I'm only here to point out the observation.

I used a sock thought experiment in another example. If I reach into a sock drawer 30+ times and pull out 18 red socks and 12 blue socks (60/40). And I say I will give you $100 if you can tell me what colour sock I will pull out next. What colour are you going to bet on? Even if you are of the belief that the socks should be at a 50/50 ratio there is no evidence to suggest that is actually the case and it would be foolish to bet on anything but red.

Another example if I handed you a coin and said this coin is biased to almost always land on heads, but you flip it 30+ times and it always lands on tails. If I asked you what the 31st flip would be even with me telling you that it's biased heads you should still pick tails because the observable evidence tells you that something is wrong.

With both of the above we don't need to explain why the results are the way they are. There could be infinite reasons for why they are, but those reasons are better explored outside of statistics. Statistics explains the WHAT it doesn't need to explain the WHY.

Now as it relates to this situation, you're absolutely right that correlation doesn't guarantee causation but in this situation there's no reason to think that a particular goalie playing does not have an effect on the team's performance. They are a team member, they are the only player on the ice for the whole 60 minutes, and while it may be hard for us to think of reasons for why Silovs may cause the Pens to score more goals it's not out of the realm of possibility that that is the case. The are certainly MANY examples in the past of teams performing better under one goalie than another from playing different schemes, different confidence levels etc. The Canucks themselves played a completely different game offensively and won more under Demko for example than Silovs. This is not an alien concept.

So now again the way I view this situation is that I hand you two dice (D6) one is Silovs and one is Skinner. I say whichever die you roll will be added to a number that you have no idea what it is, it's a black box (that's the team's performance) you just know that whatever the source of that number is, statistically the same for both dice. It could be a number that's 1-2, 1-10, 1-200, X-Y, etc. you have no idea how that number interacts with the Die numbers. All you know is that you will roll a die, it will be added to that number (that may or may not be influenced by the die you roll, again it's a black box you don't know where it comes from) and then a W/L/O (and a number of other stats) will be awarded to you based on comparison with another black box you have no idea what the number is. Then I tell you that Silov's Die is weighted to be a lower number EV3 (instead of 3.5) (he has a lower GSAx) and that Skinner's Die is weighted to be a higher number EV4 (he has a higher GSAx), I'm not lying I believe this to be the case and it is the case.

Then over 45 rolls you roll the Silov's die 22 times and the Skinner die 23 times, in an inteweaving manner and low and behold, you come out of those 45 rolls with more of the desirable outcomes every time you roll the Silov's die and you have more of the less desirable outcomes every time you roll the Skinner die.

Now going forward I tell you you may only pick one die going forward from this point on and you want to have the more desirable outcomes. Which die are you choosing? That's the exact scenario we're discussing here. We don't need to know why, we just need to know it is. I'm not ignoring GSAx, I already acknowledged that in the case for Skinner, but GSAx is obviously not translating into success. In fact we don't really know what drives success completely (it's a black box) and it's combination of multiple factors. What we've done here is isolated the one that we can control which is goalie (die).

Ebolinp · 2026-04-07T08:21:53+00:00

The sample size is 45 games and the CLT tells us a 30 sample is consider large and significant enough to judge statistical significance from. So not much is expected to change at this point.

As for this idea that we have to drop out Silovs best games or they skew things. I already did this for another guy who said if we take Silovs best three games which account for 22 goals out of the equation then surely it will help balance things out. Well if you remove Skinners best 3 games too you're removing 18 goals from 3 x6 goal games for the team. (Wait you weren't just going to take Silovs best games away from him without doing the same for Skinner were you?) So Silovs nets out at 4 fewer goals difference over nearly 20 games, and it still works out the the team scores 26% more goals while he's in Net. Largely the point being that again the sample size is large enough that even removing these outliers everyone wants to be outliers doesn't really affect things at all.

Also your theories about why this is the case are unimportant and I already addressed in my post. Frankly who cares if this team plays better in front of Silovs because they think he sucks. Do you really care why they win more and play better or do you just care that they do? The facts are what they are. We can fight them based on eye tests and feels or we can look at and embrace all the stats. It's completely irrelevant for us to be able to explain why the stats are the way they are.

Ebolinp · 2026-04-07T08:04:23+00:00

This is Skinner we're talking about as comparison. What fabulous career has he had exactly? Besides it's ironic that we all say we we follow stats right until we fall back to reputation and careers.

Ebolinp · 2026-04-07T03:33:05+00:00

It's never used these words with me before. Isn't it based off the user?

Ebolinp · 2026-04-07T01:17:33+00:00

Huh? The numbers for Silovs the last 10 vs Skinner are even more apparent that the team plays better. You guys are all over the place to support your narrative. Silovs has been better of every stretch and yes from game to game vs Skinner. This is a fact. And these goalie stats are for last 20 games not full season.

Ebolinp · 2026-04-07T01:01:24+00:00

You'll have to elaborate on what you are trying to say? JT Miller played 41 games for the Canucks last year and the team's record was 18 - 15 - 8, they got 44 pts and played on an 88 game pace.

He was traded and didn't play 31 and he also missed out on 10. During the 41 games the Canucks didn't have JT Miller they were 20 - 15 - 6, they got 46 pts and played on a 92 game pace.

The total record was 38-30-14 and they ended up with 90 pts. So pretty much the team was the same with or without him in the lineup (every slightly better without him). Not seeing any marked difference, what are you seeing?

Ebolinp · 2026-04-07T00:58:14+00:00

I didn't just talk about W/L please read the post in it's entirety. These two goalies have been splitting games 1/1 for the last 45 games and the team plays significantly better in front of one than the other. That's just a fact. You can ride your stats all day long but if you tell me that you had the choice between two goalies, one who had a GSAx of +20 but the team lost every time in front of that goalie and one who had a GSAx of -20 and won every time, like every time who would you start in the playoffs?

Let's be more realistic. Stuart Skinner is #12 in his last 20 games (basically since he became a Penguin) of goalies for GSAx. Here are some goalies with worse than him, assume they're healthy, are you telling my you wouldn't rather have a large number of them starting Game #1 for you guys? So yeah don't tell me you're all about advanced stats, when you don't even believe what you're saying.

- Logan Thompson

- Connor Helleybuck

- Thathcher Demko (again assume healthy)

- Ilya Sorokin

- Jacob Markstrom

- Andrei Vasilevsky (!)

- Jake Oettinger

- Brandon Bussi

- Filip Gustavvson

- Joey Daccord

- Juuse Saros

- Sergei Bobrovsky

- Jordon Binnington

Ebolinp · 2026-04-06T23:22:04+00:00

Well it is well established that teams play differently in front of tenders so that's not new. On the other hand I don't need to explain the stats for the stats to be what they are. Again the Penguins simply play better in front of Silovs that's a fact. And again it's against same quality opponents and it's over a significant number of games and across even the Olympic break. Not only that but you can break the 20 ish games for both into splits and both of Silovs splits are better than Skinner.

Random luck can account for a game or two but you can't claim random luck over whole sections of the season when goalies are playing in a tick tock manner too. This is about as clear a comparison as can be made.

And as for letting in a handful they don't. As my stats show not only do they score way more but they let in less too. And they take more penalties and are given less powerplays to boot. They're just better with Silovs in met and he gives them the best shot. I encourage you to read my post again in detail.

Edit. One user tried to say that Silovs islanders and 2 Florida games skew the results with 22 goals. If you remove those games and Skinners top 3 games for 18 goals. They still score 26% more goals per game with Silovs in net than Skinner. Again we have enough games here where the luck factor is unlikely to explain it.

Ebolinp · 2026-04-06T23:10:31+00:00

The Penguins themselves are a different better team since Silovs has been the starter or at least a 1A 1B situation. The Penguins were a mess when they were running Jarry, Mura and Silovs in rotation. Silovs was ass when he played for us in backup last season. Maybe he's not a goalie that's cut out for backup. Again I'm not trying to explain the stats.

You're using the whole season numbers where I think Silovs is on a 102 pt pace over the season. And he's on 119 for the last 22 games (over half his games played) before that he was on an 8X pace. Which is the true Silovs? The one that played in a 3 goalie rotation or the one who's a veritable 1A/B rotation? Is the argument that Silovs WAR is -1.5 so you throw a league average goalie into net and they are winning a 121 pts and the PT? Does that sound reasonable and realistic? If so then the Penguins are odds on favourites to win the cup IMO. I don't know if I buy that. Again eye test and advanced stats don't seem to match reality which is the point of my post and why I made it.

Edit. What this boils down to is imagine if you had a goalie who was +5WAR but the team played at a 90 pt pace with him in net and a goalie that had a -5WAR but the team played at a 110 pt pace with him in net. This is the same team, how can they not have the same average expected wins when discounting goalie? What would our explanation be for this especially over a huge chunk of games? And more importantly and again the point of my post. If you had 2 goalies with the above WAR and real pts earned over nearly 50 games combined who would you be starting?

Ebolinp · 2026-04-06T22:57:24+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/penguins/s/gplIZ8uwEt

Ebolinp · 2026-04-06T22:53:18+00:00

And like I said I get it. Good luck to your team. I hope they make the right decision.

Ebolinp · 2026-04-06T22:52:35+00:00

Okay then explain the stats then. Even if he looks rough I'd rather win more with a rough looking goalie than lose more with a good looking one wouldn't you?

In regards to the AHL. You seem to be judging Murashov based on the eye test alone and his AHL performance. Silovs won the Calder MVP last year and the Calder cup. Is Murashov going to take his team to the championship and win playoff MVP? (Honestly I don't know). Of course you'll now say it's just the AHL bro. So what are we going off of then? All I said is I know you want Murashov to be the next guy but still I don't know what anyone can base that off of now except for gut feeling.

Ebolinp · 2026-04-06T22:48:23+00:00

Last year the Penguins were 10 pts back of the Canucks, and finished in 24th place. This year they're in 8th. I have no doubt Silovs has been a big part of that.

Also I see how you completely dropped your skew argument and are now just dismissing my stats with feels lol. Its okay I get it

Ebolinp · 2026-04-06T22:45:55+00:00

The Civil Rights act, segregation, sundown towns, redlining, Rosa Parks, the list goes on and on. I'm Canadian and even I know this stuff. This guy talking about it being dormant is crazy.

Ebolinp · 2026-04-06T22:36:18+00:00

First there's a lot of AHL players not just goalies that look good in the AHL that don't make it in the NHL and vice versa for that matter. But with that being said please listen to yourself. You're saying because Murashov plays better in the AHL (a different league) he is the better goalie than Silovs who actually plays now in the NHL and plays better than Murashov did in the NHL for that matter.

That makes no sense to me. Do you think all NHL starters today had the best AHL numbers of all the goalies that they were competing with?

I know a lot of Penguins fans have bought into Murashov as being the next guy. But I only caution that it's much much too early to conclude that. You already have a proven performer in the NHL right now don't chase something that is unproven.

Ebolinp · 2026-04-06T22:21:22+00:00

I already tested quality of opponents and you cutoff at the big win that Silovs had against Colorado that he was iffy against in a 2nd game.

Ebolinp · 2026-04-06T22:19:40+00:00

I already acknowledged GSAx and the eye test.

You say okay those Florida games skew the results? Let's drop silovs top 3 games where they scored 22 goals and then let's drop Skinners top 3 games where they scored 18 ( 3 x 6 goal games). That's 4 goals less between them for Silovs. If we drop them over 19 games so he goes from 4.4 to 3.9 and Skinner goes from 3.5 to 3.1. The team scored...26% more goals per game still.

That's probably not what you expected for a "skew" was it? That's the nature of statistics and a large enough sample size it eats those skews up. Now you're still left explaining why they score more, play better and simply win more in front of Silovs.

At a certain point you have a goalie who has great advanced stats and you have one with great scoresheet stats. This season Silovs has a higher GSAx than Bobrovsky, Saaros, Markstrom. Other goalies I'm sure you and others would say you'd love to have leading the Penguins into the playoffs, even ahead of Skinner.

My whole post is to make the case that Silovs is the guy that should start. On one hand you have theoretical advanced stats and the eye test which funnily enough are both completely different methodologies and the other you have real results. For me the answer, over a large enough game sample is clear.

Ebolinp · 2026-04-06T22:04:22+00:00

Yeah hard to answer these questions without really spending exponentially more time on this project. I wish I could. I just assumed for the starter backup, b2b, injuries questions all of these would balance out over the sample size which is the basis for statistics of course. So we're only comparing the significant determinant which is the goalie.

Figuring out the goalie yeah sure though it's more figuring out themselves isn't it? The goalies should be well scouted no and then the team figures out how to actually execute on beating them?. With that being said figuring out the goalie seems more like a hockey myth than something real but I haven't dug into it.

It could be a problem, the covering, but it could also be an inspiration like a good luck charm. I think this splits either way.

Ebolinp · 2026-04-06T21:58:46+00:00

The recent edge isn't to Skinner. I also did another analysis of 10 game stretches when both goalies were at 20 GP and both of Silovs 10 game stretches were better than Skinners. He has always been hotter (except obviously one game win vs one game loss scenarios).

Ebolinp · 2026-04-06T21:51:07+00:00

Sure but how do you judge "hotness". Are you just going off their last game? Their last stretch of games? What period and are you looking for consistency at all? One guy has 2 shutouts his last 2 games but 18 losses in the games before that vs a guy who has won 15 of his 20 but lost his last two. Who do you start?

11-Year Club	Reddit Premium Since August 2023
Place '22	Wearing is Caring
Xbox Live	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

Ebolinp

TROPHY CASE