Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
This is a pretty ridiculous thing to say.
Let's say a team, say the Flames, has played 59 games and have 68 points. Let's say another team, whoever, has played 60 games and has 67 points.
Now let's say the Flames' remaining 23 games are all against a combination of the Blackhawks, Blues, Ducks, Lightning, Penguins and rangers. The other team plays multiple games against the Sabres, Oilers, Coyotes, Blue Jackets... you get the idea.
Who has the higher chance of making the playoffs?
Now assume that some time this afternoon, Brodie, Gio, Wideman, Monahan, Gaudreau and Hudler are all simultaneously struck by lightning and are out for the season. The other team is totally healthy.
Who has the higher chance of making the playoffs?
You know the answer. You know there are myriad factors that go into this. The only argument is how much relative weight to put on those factors to create the best predictive model you can - the one most likely to predict the final result or closest to it (since no model designed to predict the future in hockey is going to be even close to perfect).
|
I believe your argument proves my point. To try and assess and value all those factors, and then account for them with a flawed method like Corsi and Fenwick, and then declare them as a percentage-rated score is what's ridiculous.
There's a reason they play the games, and that's what will determine the outcome.
The team with more points in less games played has a better chance of making the playoffs--end stop.