Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
They shouldn't continue to be asked because they've been answered!
If you read that article and think, "once again, I persist in requesting that shot quality data be added to the existing statistics because it will make a difference or improve them in some way", you didn't understand the article. Or the many, many others that have reached the same conclusion.
|
There's still questions and scenarios on top of what is looked at in the article. The article is assuming that a shot which is a scoring chance is "quality shot", which is not necessarily true. What is classified as a shot vs a scoring chance is hugely subjective and again does not take into account the quality of the individual player. Some players shoot harder than others. Some players are more accurate than others. Who are they playing against? Is a scoring chance more important or better if it's done while Weber/Josi are defending vs Schultz/Ference?
The stats assume this stuff is equal and it's just not. Every player is different and affects the game in a completely different way. We're not saying that the possession stats aren't meaningful or useful, just that they don't tell the whole story (which you admit they don't). So some are on the hunt for the full story, and are of the opinion that we may never be able to isolate the one or two stats that CONTRIBUTE to winning. Attempting to win by improving these stats will not work, as they don't contribute to winning, they just tell us that the attributes of this team (or player) leads them to posses the puck more. What those attributes are that lead to puck possession are largely variable. Even something like take aways doesn't tell the whole story. Are those take aways in the ozne on the forcheck? Dzone on the backcheck? One player may have a bunch of for checking take aways but none on the back check.
The point is that hockey is likely the most variable sport, making it difficult to track and isolate the affect of individual players. Largely because we (and the sport overall) is still learning what those attributes are and they change with every change of rule or equipment. A couple years ago we'd be talking about how you need an elite 50 goal scorer to be a top team. Now we say you need a collection of two way players, giving up individual offence and scoring by committee. It changes all the time.
And stuff like this:
Quote:
|
That's not much of a trend. With an R^2 of 0.049, the correlation is strong enough to be statistically significant, but weak enough to be insignificant in practice. If a guy is at 0.9 this year (one of the worst in the league), you can't even say that he'll be below average next year -- just that he won't be one of the very best.
|
is annoying to those of us who don't believe it's all figured out. He "WONT" be one of the best? Well he could. This statistcal analysis has no impact or bearing on what may happen next year. Sure you can use it to try and predict, and you may be right in most cases, but to say WONT, is wrong. Just like saying the Flames WILL regress. They may regress, and it's statistically likely that they do. But that doesn't mean they will.