Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
for such arbitrary and secondary stats they certainly gave what appear to be valid results.
Is there any argument that Cammalleri, Hudler, Cervenka and Tanguay, Eberle, Hall, Gagner, Hemsky, Horcoff and Justin Schultz are not non-physical players?
There are a few things that it might be pointing out.... Butler hitting more guys than Glencross for instance... Now that I see that stat I might watch the game differently and see how Butler at least bumps into guys on a regular basis and blocks shots.
The same can be said for keeping track of points..... Who would guess from watching that Glencross is one of the top scoring LW's in the league?
As for the correlation and causation my hypothesis is simple. You don't win enough hockey games with 4+ soft hockey players.
Is that too simple to comprehend?
Show me a team with 4+ soft players and I will show you a team that is not in the playoffs.
|
Are you trying to suggest that points are awarded somewhat arbitrarily?
Sure, some second assists are borderline, but not enough to cast any kind of significant shadow on the stats. And they are reviewed by the league so I am pretty comfortable with them as a consistent and reliable stat.
However, if you look at the number of hits awarded in a game (for example), there is little doubt that more are awarded in some rinks than in others.
Any attempt to argue that hits or giveaways/takeaways are even remotely close to points for consistency and accuracy of implementation would be foolish.