more truer!

Which famous quotes can you make more true. <- That sounded bad grammer.

"You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take." -Gretzky

I argue this quote is more true when:

"You miss 100 percent of the shots you never make."

actually, the quote is obviously saying. if you don't take the risk, you never succeed, you always "miss".

so saying "you miss 100% of the shots you never take", makes more sense then "make" because, take obviously means try in that situation, while saying "make" can easily be confused for saying that when you don't make a shot, you miss 100% of those shots you don't make.

which is not what the quote is intended to mean. it just creates an almost paradox, too hard to think it through right now. but saying "make" is easily confused for saying you miss 100% of the shots you miss. which actually seems like it'd make sense, but then the quote loses its meaning, and it actually doesn't.

thats my 2 pennys.

take makes sense here because the phrase is "take a shot at something". Make a shot doesn't really sound right in this context.

I see y'all be burning some philosophical torches, but don't sharpen those pitchforks yet, I'll stand by my improved Gretzky quote.

How will I support this claim? I'm glad I asked myself this rhetorical question.

Let us watch as Wayne Gretzky skates over the rink towards the opposing goalie, twirling the puck deftly through poor defenders along the way. Suddenly he slows and raises his deadly-accurate weapon into the air. The crowd holds its breath. The goalie tenses like a coiled spring. After a prolonged second, the puck screams through the air and — PAUSE THE TIVO!

Brace yourselves for a Statistics skull-fucking

In mid-flight, the puck now observes four possible paths:
1. The puck flies into the GOALLLLLLLLLL
2. The puck flies into the GOALLLLLLLLLLie's mitt.
3. The puck flies into the empty nook behind the goal.
4. The puck flies into the stick/body of an extremely dexterous/courageous defender.

"You miss 100% of the shots you never make."

If we assume that a puck that does not fulfill condition 1 may never score, and that any puck that does fulfill condition 1 can be referred to as a "made goal," then a puck that does not fulfill condition 1 may also be referred to as a goal that is never "made." Therefore, we know that a goal that is never "made" can never score and will always "miss."

On the other hand:

"You miss 100% of the shots you never take."

A shot that is never taken will never achieve mid-flight. At first glance, we might say that because this shot that is "never taken" will never reach the goal and never fulfill condition 1, it will also miss 100% of the time. However, if we run some simple simulations, we can discern otherwise:

I shoot 100 times. All of them fulfill the condition "never made shots." Since "never made shots" never find the goal, they will miss 100 out of 100 times. 100/100: 100% of the shots we do not make, miss.

If I never take a shot, I shoot 0 times. Any number out of 0 will be undefined. In fact, An undefined, not 100, percent of the shots we never take, miss.

Proof that Wayne Gretzky's quote — "You miss 100% of the shots you never take." — while poetic, is not as true as "You miss 100% of the shots you never make."


Thus concludes my AP Statistics practice.
Whew. That was a doozy.
If you actually read through all that, I applaud you.

I need to go nurse my head now.

btw Wayne Gretzky is my hero if you couldn't tell.

Edit: Sorry I got caught up in a Stat-driven stupor. What I was going for when I made this fun little thread, were famous quotes from you guys that you could change a bit to make more true. I'm sure there are bajillions out there.

i guess.
but, by changing that quote to the way you suggest. the quote loses its intended meaning. think of it this way. if you never take a shot, you have a 0% chance to succeed/win/score (or 100% chance to fail/lose/miss).

while the way its worded is incorrect statistic-wise, i believe the more true quote would be "You always miss if you never take the shot." as the quote then does not lose its intended meaning, and becomes correct statistically-wise.

anyways, join the chat.

I see the logic behind your faux-statistic analysis but it really doesn't apply to all the contexts that the quote can be used for. The point of your argument lingers around the difference between "Make a shot" and "take a shot", but these two phrases have different meanings and thus we must look at the application of the quote in a holistic manner. The quote is meant to be applied to all situations where people do or do not try to do certain things, this is best described as taking a shot. On the other hand, make a shot has a narrower meaning and it means to try AND to get a positive result in the end. The quote cannot use "make" because it would change the meaning and thus send a completely different message. There is a difference between (1) encouraging trying, and (2) encouraging success.

Your argument only stands within extremely contextualized circumstances where Take/Make shots refer to Trying/Scoring. This only makes sense in sports and similar situations where "make a shot" does not sound awkward.

LadyMisa wrote:

Your argument only stands within extremely contextualized circumstances where Take/Make shots refer to Trying/Scoring. This only makes sense in sports and similar situations where "make a shot" does not sound awkward.

-shoopboomcrash- And doughnut is shot down.

I still persist that the altered quote is more true — in the literal sense of the word — but I can't argue against the points you two are making.

The quote is actually one of my favorites so don't think I'm misinterpreting it; I just wanted to start a thread for the forums.

p.s. I'm not an insomniac Rhoku. Get on earlier. Till then archive chat.

you should be! D:<
anyways, should we move on to a different quote then?

oh btw, i hate when people sound smart when its very unnecessary. i could easily pull off sounding smart as well, but its just stupid to act like an intellectual instead of being yourself and talking normally. ;P

Agreed, but Stat is all about detailing seemingly unnecessary stuff that should be common sense. It's been a writing class more so than a math class and it's a doozie.

Winners of the debate; the choice is yours to make.
That almost rhymed; something that's a crime.

wait until you take statistics in college (if you need it for major/minor or whatever).. it will make you never wanna use it again XD
I figured that when calculus is no longer sufficient for stat, it is time to stop. D: