Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFlameDog
So, and I am honestly asking, is it off base to say our sport requires more of a long term look to establish the legitimacy of advance stats?
Is it more advantageous to ignore them until game 70...well maybe not all of them but some of them, such as shot quality?
|
The advanced stats are not useful for determining the outcome of a particular game, but are useful for identifying long-term trends. For example, you'll find that teams who have very high Fenwick close numbers tend to go deep in the playoffs.
Does this mean that a team with a low Fenwick can't, or that a high Fenwick is guaranteed to? Of course not, no more than it guarantees a guy with a .120 batting average will strike out facing Kershaw.
When a team is experiencing success
and has good fancy-stat numbers, we can say that it is likely their success will continue, when a team is having success but poor fancy-stat numbers, the likelihood is that their success will end, but it is only a probability, not a guarantee. The worse the fancy-stats, the higher the probability.
There was a site - I think it was extraskater.com, which is gone now - that was doing rolling 10-game Fenwick and Corsi. That is the stat I would look at if I were going to make an argument about what a team's short-term prospects for success would be, as it's slightly more indicative of current performance.