Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
I think advanced statistics are terrific.
I think it would be nice if there were some for hockey. Corsi and Fenwick aren't advanced. PDO isn't even a statistic; it's a fudge.
When one team can have terrible Corsi and Fenwick numbers and be in a playoff position, and another team can have good Corsi and Fenwick and the second-worst record in the league, a rational person would conclude that Corsi and Fenwick don't tell the whole story. Clearly there is some other factor involved in winning hockey games.
Instead, the ‘advanced’ stat hounds try to dismiss those teams and claim that their success or failure is all due to luck. They can't explain the Flames or the Oilers, so they try to explain them away.
|
Oh god, now we're into semantics? This proves my point. Some people are trying to gain more insight into the game but some others have nothing but derision for that effort. It's like unless we developed a unified statistical theory of hockey that explains everything then nothing is of value. Instead lets all go back to the real insight offered by Don Cherry and other savants of hockey genius to give us the important and meaningful sermons.