Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatle17
Now you can see why people who don't use advanced stats as the be all and end all in a discussion choose not to post. Stats used in context, with visual input and knowledge of the process of the professional game, used by people who work in the game are useful. Somebody inputting information in a spread sheet with information from a boxscore and spouting off that it is "unsustainable" or "advanced stats" are the ones who don't have a leg to stand on. I fully believe that stats in context, which I believe every team uses but don't discuss with the public, are valuable. I don't believe that people like SP and Res14 above telling me I don't know how to use them or "get" them ruin the discussion.
And using stats for a team game from season to season, or month to month with a constant changing of the parts (players) changing at a rate of 20% per season (or event) can not prove anything. They can say that the Flames from last year (last month) played at a rate that is too high of a variable from the norm (center) but in no way can they predict that the variable is going to continue. If the team and players all remained static then maybe they could state what the norm is for the team and try to predict what the numbers will show.
Corsi, Fenwick and other stats tell us that the Oilers are better than 10-12 other teams. They aren't period. Possession can't be measured by shots directed towards the net, as someone else mentioned earlier the Sedins could control the play for 2 minutes in the offensive zone and only get 2 grade A+ scoring chances and only the get the same credit for "possession" as Luke Gadzic taking a shot from outside the blueline and a rebound shot from the corner. Which one is more "possession" to you?
The advanced stats followers can present a good argument for themselves but VERY seldom do, they just bash people who don't agree with their basic statement.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatle17
So the stats don't prove anything, it is just that "they do not believe". This comment is exactly why people like myself do not have much faith in "advanced" stats. Call them stats that report on past instances and leave it at that.
|
?
You strawman an argument about stats "proving" something, then claim they only elucidate the past insinuating that they have little value.
What is the expected response here...