Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Actually advanced stats would start revealing which players had higher hockey IQs by demonstrating which players are controlling possession and creating scoring chances.
Again because goals are so rare and so dependent on luck you could easily overlook "unlucky" players and conclude that they had low hockey IQs because they weren't getting "results." Where there would be much more probably explanations such as the coach relying on that player with high hockey IQ to start in his own zone more, to cover for a linemate that was especially bad at possession, to play against the best forwards or simply because his linemates or his goalie weren't cutting the mustard.
This is why I'm continually bewildered by the almost unanimous dismal of basically a whole new set of tools removed of bias to evaluate the game. This helps fans, it doesn't hurt them only insofar as they're so mentally rigid or mindless followers of their own personal orthodoxies that they see stats as a threat to their preferred story of players and teams.
|
I think the reason is how they are presented. The average fan is being asked to forget what they see and feel but pay attention to the stats instead. And the status gurus, like many pioneers, unintentionally come across as religious converts out to save the masses. I think a better approach would to pick a stat like CORSI and try to ease it into the average fans' vocabulary to up the level of discourse rather than try to explain everything via stats. At the end of the day stats are just another tool