Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
I was referring to the condescending nature of your post, which was basically "this is why you suck".
But to answer your question, it is actually baffling that you would take the position that the the standings are wrong as the basis for an argument. On paper, the Kings are more talented, yes. On paper, they should be better. But on the ice, the Flames have been the marginally better team so far this year, and that reflects in the standings.
The only thing the stats tell us is that it is highly unlikely that the Flames should be a better team this year, but that does not invalidate the standings themselves. The 1991-92 Flames should have been a team that went to the third round of the playoffs. Looked great on paper, but were flat out a bad team that year.
And if you want to get into arguments of "Luck", the Kings PDO is 99.9. (100.5 at home, 99.5 on the road). They aren't unlucky, just mediocre.
|
They should likely not even play NHL games anymore. Before the season each team assembles their roster. Then the advanced stats guys use their computers to tell us how the season should play out. The winning team is awarded the Cup in October and everyone is for the better.
I don't hate advanced stats, but I find the people advocating for them are trying so hard to make everyone believe what they feel is right. I think there is a place for advanced stats, but so often when something doesn't fit in the linear mode of thinking for an advanced stats guy, they go off on tirades about how everyone else is wrong/stupid/ignorant/delusional/etc. This isn't a debate over gravity or what shape the Earth is where there are hundreds of years of data to back this up. Corsi and Fenwick are a couple of years old, and whether they want to admit it or not, it's not a perfect system and not every kink has been worked out.
My two biggest complaints over advanced stats are 1) They people who advocate for them seldom want to hear an opposing view and 2) They use unreasonable timelines and "forget" factors to help prove their worth.
1) I think many of us were open to the idea of using advanced stats when they first started coming out. If a system will help me better enjoy or understand hockey, I'm all for it. I'm not sure advanced stats guys even like hockey. They just want to point and say "see I was right". When introducing the actual standings, team chemistry, injuries, etc. if it doesn't fit the advanced stats rhetoric, they won't even listen to you. That's ignorant.
2) The biggest statement they've made that discredits them is that Colorado is a bad team this year so we were right that they were a bad team last year even though they won their division. If Calgary has a bad season next year it proves we were right that they were a bad team this year. No it doesn't. If Calgary is bad next year it proves they are bad next year, especially with roster turnover.