The "predictive power" of any stat is a very bad argument, in my view because of a lack in context and because stats simply don't predict anything by themselves. e.g.: Last year's stats are frequently not predictive for this year or next because of high roster turnover. Even a team like Pittsburgh where their core is still young, stable, and producing, can go from 51 wins 13 points clear of second in the division to the risk of being a wild card team in just one year.
So how far into a season do we need to go before statistics can capably "predict" something? The Hockey News has consistently demonstrated that the dartboard approach is good for 70%. If LA knocks either us or Winnipeg out, they will have hit on 11/16 (69%) in their pre-season guesses. If LA fumbles somehow, it will fall to 63%. They went 11/16 last year too.
Shot attempts/Corsi/Fenwick don't predict anything. All they do is add another point of data to the guessing game, and that is largely why their "predictive power" is - at best - marginally better than spit balling. Because it is still the subjective interpretation of the person using the stats that defines the prediction. And I don't care what statistics or methods you use, the only people who predicted the Flames would be in this battle before the season started did so because they sought attention, not because they actually believed it.
|