Given the two options below which do you take?
1. A team with stellar fancy stats that finds ways to lose games.
2. A team with average fancy stats that finds ways to win games.
The disconnect, as I see it, in your argument Bingo is that you can't say with any more certainty that there is a correlation (let alone causation) between strong fancy stats and winning hockey games. Yet you're criticizing other posters emphasis on the win-loss record, with a hand wavy claim that fancy stats result in a sustainable winning record long term.
I would argue there's a lot of noise in modern fancy stats and that such a correlation is dubious at best.
|