Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
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).
|
Sounds like you just disproved yourself
All jokes aside, statistical analysis does have flaws, in the same way that scientific theories that we hold as "true" remain theories instead of law. Scientific theories (much like advanced statistics) can still be disproven and research into doing so is often encouraged as progress. What I think people are getting at is that they want to hear you offer an insider's perspective on where you think Corsi, Fenwick, etc. have shortcomings, much in the same way you have critiqued more traditional measures. Showing inward critique of the numbers/methods you use will give people confidence that you are aware of the information that you are presenting and can confidently defend the merits of it whilst still acknowledging the shortcomings of the data.