Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch
A few years ago 'Advanced Stats' were derided on this board, but now are widely used - Game Takes being full of them for example. Is it possible the pendulum has swung too far the other way and we are overlooking intangibles - 'heart', 'resiliency', 'emotion', 'killer instinct', 'talent', etc. - as originally argued? This team may have good underlying numbers but inspires no confidence.
|
I think you still have to pair the metrics with the eye test. Both have validity to me - and when they are not in alignment I think it is good to question if the stats are misleading or if the eye test is off the mark.
I think in an individual game the advanced metrics don't tell the whole story often, but over the long-term they paint a picture that is pretty convincing.
But every year we see a team or two buck the trend - the so-called lucky or unlucky teams. And I think that's the nature of the game of hockey which perhaps has a higher degree of randomness than something like baseball.
That's my take on it anyways.