Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-hole
If nothing else, this kind of article enriches the debate.
|
If you say so. I don't agree. I think it introduces garbage statistics into a debate. This is the problem I see with "advanced stats." They aren't advanced, and they aren't real stats. Just because you can come up with a measure does not mean that measure is fair or accurate. Unless the measure is applied consistently and equitably, then the results are neither consistent nor reliable. Also, the stats have to make sense. Putting together two measures and suggesting they are causal in some way has to be bore out by more than a perceived relationship on a spreadsheet. Confirmation through observation is also important in the validity of statistical representation, and the argument presented does not pass the smell test let alone validation through observation. To me, these flawed stats cloud issues rather than present clarity.
Quote:
|
Otherwise we are simply down to "I think Trochek IS better than Monahan, because my eyes tell me so" vs "that is ridiculous, anyone who takes Trochek over Monahan needs their head examined". I mean, go ahead, but what's the point?
|
Well, it seems to be a better argument than the questionable content posted in this article. Come on. McDavid is a better defensive player than Crosby? Get serious. You can post all the bogus fancy stats you want, but when the rubber hits the ice, that house of cards quickly comes crashing down. And in what universe would anyone even suggest that Trochek is better than Monahan? Is there a hockey person on this planet that would take Vincent Trochek over Sean Monahan given a choice? That's my problem with this reliance on advanced stats. They rarely pass the smell test and they quickly fall apart when the games are actually played.