Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Russell
"Statistics don't bleed" is a saying used to describe the failings of statistics-obsession in the human sciences. You can't model something as complex as human behavior or, in this case, a hockey game. Statistics don't bleed, but the Flames do and that's why they win. Sacrifice, team-work, opportunism, confidence etc. Where do these things fit in the model? And if they don't fit, then you are assuming they have no impact on winning or losing a hockey game. Which is, of course, ridiculous.
|
Agree in general but I think the bolded part is not as complicated as it may seem.
I've seen crazy mathematical models these days to describe the actions of cells, so the power is there. Hockey is, generally speaking, a game of finite options that can be modeled and have probabilities associated with them (eg. pass, shoot, dump the puck, stick-handle, turnover). Therefore, I think it is a great opportunity for some comprehensive statistical modeling. I'm pro-analytics.
The gripe I have with the current analytics movement is that, by and large, they constantly jam the real game outcomes into the Corsi / Fenwick boxes. Rather, they need to work and find ways to modify Corsi / Fenwick so that they better reflect the real world.