Quote:
Originally Posted by Caged Great
Actually contrarily I'm a huge proponent of the advanced stats in baseball, because they are actually beneficial and more indicative of the true talent of the player.
These stats, while helpful to a limited extent are flawed each in their own ways and don't account for the talent of players like the ones in baseball do. That's why the good teams always seem to outperform their underlying stats. It also doesn't help to pick out which areas that the player is skilled in. There is no creativity index in order to generate offensive chances, just that chances are being created. How is it being accomplished. I liken it to batting average in baseball. It's helpful to tell how good of a hitter the batter is, but it isn't OPS or anything that might tell you if they are getting hits are they doubles or all squeaker base hits. A player like Backlund gets highlighted as being a great corsi player, yet he doesn't generate enough points to account for his excellent #'s. He's basically a singles hitter. It's useful as he's great in that regard, but it's also limited as he can't drive the runs in (score 25+ goals 50+ points). Any stat should be able to provide context as well as a simple guideline. Unfortunately Corsi/Fenwick only provide the guideline without the context.
Also in baseball, it's virtually impossible to rig the stats in your favour. In hockey though, if you just start shooting from everywhere regardless of positioning or context, then you'll be better in those stats. Basically this is what Edmonton has done.
There are just too many variables unaccounted for with them. They are a step in the right direction though, and hopefully there are new stats that can provide the context of the players' talent in addition to their efficiency. We don't have that now.
|
Baseball stats are based on what the players actually did - they got on base or they didn't, they got zero to 4 bases each at bat - so stats are more meaningful.