Tuesday, April 01, 2008
An Economist's View of The Oilers Recent Success
*click on picture to read the font
The Economist's Argument
-The picks traded to Penner are a "sunk costs." Costs that have been incurred and which cannot be recovered to any significant degree.
-The Oilers, draft wise, are doing themselves harm by winning hockey games because they still own their 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th round draft picks.
-So winning the draft lottery would have been the best case scenario for the Oilers, speaking from a draft standpoint, regardless of the fact Burke would pick at slots 1, 31, 61. Why? Because the Oilers would pick 91, 121, 151, 181 as opposed to the present slots of 102, 132, 162, 192.
The Typical Hockey Fan's Counter-Argument
-Emotionally speaking, it would be very difficult to face the fact the Oilers "sunk cost" would be lottery territory
-Winning now > higher draft picks, emotionally speaking
-Winning today is giving fans the reason for optimism next season.
This argument fits into the broader display of everyday hockey arguments consisting of Statistics/Objectivity/Economics/Science/ vs Emotion/Subjectivity/Human Element.
Arena debate, Whether to trade the likes of Smyth, Hemsky, Gagner (fan favourites), debate on the quality of Horcoff's play (Numbers vs Not very aesthetically pleasing to watch which influences perception).
So think. Think hard next time when you're debating. From what grounds are you arguing from? And do those grounds lead you to the best answer?
Is there a hybrid form of line of reasoning?
Posted by PunjabiOil at 12:45 AM