Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
So in your mind:
1) hitting and blocking shots and winning or losing puck battles is a waste of effort?
|
No. However, the accumulation of statistics that are assigned to these events are highly suspect, and based on the collection of available data it appears that it is likely impossible to quantify the actual value of a well-timed hit or a blocked shot. Furthermore, it remains to be demonstrated that the takeaway / giveaway statistic has any correlation at all to winning or losing "puck battles". I think what V's analysis demonstrates is that 1) these categories will not work as a means to determine "grittiness (if such a thing can even be isolated in this manner), and 2) your attempted RGI is utterly useless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
...All hockey players should be striving to increase their shots on net and scoring stats?
|
No. All hockey players should be focused on WINNING and not padding their own statistics in any single category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
...aside: only 19 of the top 30 scorers last year were on teams in the playoffs.
|
So what? I'm still waiting for you to apply your index to all 30 teams, and to demonstrate its value. The fact that 2/3 of the League's top scorers (which I do not deem to be an insignificant ratio) doesn't have any bearing one way or the other on the value of your attempt to quantify grit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
2) There is no statistical way to show that a player is soft relative to his peers and some players contribute to a team's effort in playing more physical?
|
At this point, no, there is not. And the reason for this has a great deal to do with the problematic definitions of "gritty" and "soft", as well as the futility in attempting to assign values to these labels through ANY events that are measured within the games played.