Quote:
Originally Posted by mikephoen
Haha, so funny that you use the word empirically, which means verifiable by observation rather than theory, when we know that you don't actually watch, but just spout arguments based on theory from spreadsheets.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishSpring2013
destroyed.. CorsiHockeyLeague should be forced to change his user name to mike"phowned
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
So, you should know that while modern hockey analytics are proving to be useful, there remains a TONNE of debate about their actual long-term viability as scientific tools.
|
This is hilarious. As for each individual stat's usefulness in any given situation or in relation to any particular player, opinions may vary (though often without particularly good cause for discounting them). But there's absolutely no possible argument that they're not based on empirical data, which is the assertion that all three of these posts highlighted.
Are you suggesting that Stone didn't play 1030:27 at even strength last year? That he didn't put 62 pucks on net in that time? That the players he was on the ice against didn't average 32.66 shots on goal per 60 minutes of Stone's ES ice time? That Stone's own team didn't average 24.8 shots per 60 on the other team's net? That the goalie behind him didn't stop 93.94% of shots with him on the ice? That 7.8% of his team's shots didn't wind up in the net? None of that is "empirical" information to base conclusions on, to you?
I mean, you guys complain that I come off like I'm being a know-it-all and then you triumphantly post stuff like this. It would really help if the objections from the usual anti-stats crowd weren't totally insane.