Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Coke
It would be refreshing to hear your views on the weaknesses of the stats, because of course there are many. And the predictive powers of these stats are also far from certain. And yet too often the stats supporters refuse to acknowledge that.
|
First, as stats, they don't have "weaknesses"; rather there are things that they describe and things they don't. Anyone who thinks that the point is "all you need to know in player evaluation is corsi" doesn't get it.
Further, anyone who says the predictive power of the stats is perfect doesn't understand them. This is a game played by human beings on an ice surface with a bouncy rubber disc. There's absolutely no way to perfectly predict anything. However, among stats that correlate to winning, they have the best combination of correlation and reliability - i.e., your ability to generate shot attempts at a higher rate than the opposition contributes significantly to winning, and if you've out-attempted your opposition in the past, you're likely to continue to do so in the future. Other stats fall short in one area or the other - either they don't actually contribute to winning hockey games (i.e. outhitting your opponent or blocking more shots), or they aren't repeatable going forward (i.e. even strength save percentage).