Quote:
Originally Posted by strombad
They are placing value in a system with a questionable value. You don't ever wonder why basement bloggers come up with posts that just "show the numbers" and paid professionals who are actually respected often don't?
It's a tiny part of the equation. You can't just trot out advanced stats and say "this is why the executives are wrong", that's why those guys don't get paid, because they're level of knowledge on the game is low.
People like that look at stats to evaluate the player. Anyone with apt hockey knowledge looks at player first, and then the stats.
The problem with advanced stats, and the problem with people who rely solely on them (and are relegated to the hockey buzz line of work) is that they exist to support an argument, not to make an argument. You can't say Bobby Ryan is a good defensive forward because advanced stats say so, nor can you say Jack Johnson is a bad defenceman. Why? Because according to advanced stats, there are plenty of bottom feeding NHLer's who should be great, and great NHLer's who should be terrible.
The system is inherently flawed, but that will never stop basement bloggers and message board fans not much different from myself from trotting it out like it holds the answer.
In this case, numbers do lie. And people who prop up advanced stats don't seem to understand that.
|
Out of curiosity why is it that you can make a blanket statement like that without backing it up, but anyone who goes the other way around and examines the statistics and then considers circumstances/opinions/what they have seen is wrong? How do you know that the way you describe is correct?