Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
No, that's not his "bald assertion".
What he is saying, is that while shot attempts tell part of the story and do provide some predictive value, the story doesn't even come close to beginning and ending there. That's is where Enoch's, Resolute's and my frustration is.
|
That is not what I gather from this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
When you use Corsi to determine which teams are better, you are NOT getting better than 50% odds on a coin flip. But the analytics crew act like they are. And that pisses people off.
|
What this suggests to me is that he thinks it has no predictive value. This says to me, "you're not improving your odds of being right in predicting future wins by looking at possession data." Unless I misunderstand.
Quote:
|
The assertion consistently is: Corsi wins and loses games, anything that is variable is "luck", or randomness.
|
Like I say I'm tired of having this argument so I don't want to get into your whole post, but this is pretty obviously a straw man if you've been following the discussion as I know you have. Sure, a lot of it is randomness, which should be obvious if you've ever watched hockey. But there's plenty outside of shot attempts that win and lose hockey games - shooting percentage, save percentage, special teams percentages, penalties drawn or taken, CHIP, and so on. I don't think any reasonable read of what I've said in here, or any decent analytics writer's work, would accord with what you're attempting to foist on those writers as their view, consistent or otherwise.