Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
That is not what I gather from this.
|
He's giving an example of misuse, not a comparable predictor.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I understood it as is value it's to the exclusion of other complexities
Quote:
|
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.
|
I think you're lumping my argument with others. You have not said shot attempts the only value. I feel you've been quite neutral and fairly informative.
I'm only trying to provide context to the frustrations with "the analytics community" as it stands right now. I know at least myself and Resolute read a fair bit and see much value in this exercise.
Where I'm trying to draw your attention is to the main writings that get views: Lambert (who you've hinted at first didn't say anything inflammatory), Drance, Mirtle (occasionally), Yost, and a variety of others. In fact, not one have I read that the Flames must be doing something other than getting lucky. Every single article has described their deviance from the prediction as anything other than luck.
This assertion and the fallacy of pointing out Toronto and Colorado every time as some trump card are what gets our panties in a knot