Quote:
Originally Posted by Caged Great
I for one have been skeptical about advanced stats by in large due to their incompleteness.
It doesn't take into account players who do certain jobs. Take Hamonic. He's a primarily defensive minded defender and his job is to contain and limit the other team's generating offense. His job isn't to create offense. Yet according to the advanced stats, he's mediocre.
|
There's a point where, after you've tried hard enough, that if you can't measure something, then it doesn't exist. In many cases, analytics can discredit the notion of a defenceman who doesn't score being a "defensive defenceman" more than they discredit analytics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug
I interpret the poll question to read, "if you could only pick one way to evaluate a hockey player, do you watch the games or compare advanced stats". It has to be eye test.
|
When you watch the games, your brain is still aggregating data. Advanced stats merely corrects for flaws in how your brain does that and allows you to fill gaps you missed. To me, a more interesting way of framing the question would be if you had to choose between watching a smaller number of games vs. data from a larger number of games. Then the stats would give you access to data that watching the games doesn't give you.