Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy Egg
Except we ended up being right about the Avalanche, and most of us realize what the definition of an adequate sample size is.
|
No, troll, you were not right about the Avalanche. You guys spent the entire season last year predicting Colorado would fall out of the race. Instead, the Avs won their division. The fact that you moved the goalposts and used the first round exit to try and create a
post facto rationalization of the failure of your position only made you look like fools.
The fact that you weren't calling the Habs lucky and the fact that you weren't predicting their demise despite having very similar advanced stats to the Avs further undermines your position.
The problem with the advanced stat crowd - and in particular the trolls who use them to cause arguments - is that first and foremost, you judge based on what you expect to happen. Then you fit the stats in where they support your position and ignore when they don't. That is why this argument is never "We all knew Toronto, Montreal and Colorado would eventually fall off". Because Montreal completely effs up the narrative you want to create.
The proper argument is to point out that playoff teams generally have good possession numbers, but exceptions do exist. After all, five of the 16 teams currently in playoff spot are outside the top 16 in Corsi. Over the last five full seasons, about two playoff teams each year have qualified despite being near the bottom of the league in Corsi. So you know major exceptions exist. So arguing that in the long run, the Flames are more likely to find success by improving their possession numbers than they are hoping for a high shooting percentage is a good thing. (Sean Monahan is a prime individual example of this.) Simply whining that the Flames are lucky reveals you for what you are.