Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Coke
Exactly, the stat is the stat. But obviously to anyone reading these debates, there are often predictions that are based on the stat. That is the issue. Have you honestly missed that? So either you don't feel the stat has any predictive usefulness, or you should be able to discuss the limitations of any predictions based on it.
|
Obviously I think it has some predictive usefulness:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Me, two posts ago, responding to you
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).
|
As for its limitations, it does not have a perfect correlation to win% nor a 100% repeatability. No stat does.