Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
I don't really see an issue with the concept. These stats are arguably somewhat reflective of the overall attributes of a player's game. Perhaps it could be called something other than grit. Commitment, attention to detail? There are certainly elements to these stats that generally correspond to being either conducive or interruptive to the attempts of the opposition
With respect to the notion that takeaways mean you don't have the puck, and are negative, consider a couple of ideas. Firstly, faceoff percentages for teams are generally 50 percent +/- 3 percent (except Boston at 56 pct). Then factor in that guys like Gary Roberts look at their center who tries to pass to them, and instructs them to dump it in, so they can retrieve it. Some D's can find their way out of that, some have excessive takeaways.
The proposed methodology has gaps, indeed, and the counters also oversimplify. Give the guy due respect for creating an interesting conversation in the doldrums of the off season.
It is not finished or definitive, but I still like the concept.
|
Yes. The stat he has created gives, on average, the highest scores to the worst hockey players on the selective teams. It's a stupid stat. Created to simply proves that what Ricardo values most in a player, provides the least advantage to a team winning.
It's incredibly useful in its uselessness. Not only is it not finished, nor definitive, it's a cherry picked stat that proves nothing because statistically, it's fluff, it means nothing, it's a joke.