Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
The same argument was made about the 2003-04 Flames (who had a deliberate strategy, after Kiprusoff arrived, of letting teams shoot from the outside and clearing the path so Kiprusoff could see them to make the save). In that case, it turned out that the save percentage and GAA were sustainable – all the way to game 7 of the finals. So there are examples on both sides. Which side this year's Flames will fall on is precisely what is in question, and you can only deny the doubt by denying that the other side exists.
To start by making an argument from statistics, and then suddenly do a 180 and finish your argument with pure anecdotes about the Leafs one season and the Wild another season, is too acrobatic for my taste. My head hurts. There are many ways to make an argument from statistics, but this is not one of them.
|
If the stat guys said that the 2003-04 Flames success was unsustainable based on stats, then point taken, but I don't recall any discussion of that 10 years ago. My recollection is that they were saying that based on the eye test, but if you have a link I would certainly like to see it.
There is no 180 in my post. What I said was the arguments against advanced stats in the Leafs and Wild case are very similar to what I am reading here (purely anecdotal, not stat based). Those arguments were
not supported by the advanced stats and proved wrong. My point is that the advanced stats crowd provided a hypothesis, the reaction was similar to what we see here, and the advanced stats proved correct.