Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
Well that's fine. Doesnt really have much to do with my argument against shot-based metrics and without information it's impossible to say anything useful about them. Although since Flames are a particularly bad team when it comes to getting shots to go in, this anecdotal data point does not make the stats Flames are using look useful.
|
I’m certainly not making a claim that the Flames have made good use of any particular stats on the ice. That is obvious. Also, fyi, the conversation I had on this topic was in the second half of last season.
My only point was that people who actually do this for a living (meaning on or on behalf of NHL teams) aren’t relying entirely on simple counting stats.
Many people on CP and the Fan keep talking about them but the people who do are far behind. Take a guy like steinberg - he is paid to talk for hours so he will do his best to bring whatever data is available to the table. He works hard, and relies on public domain info. Good on him, but his analysis is often skewed.
I am pretty sure a guy like Chris Snow isn’t plunking down a folder on the desk of Gulutzan and Treliving showing which teams have out scored their opponents and how they rank in the standings.
As for what it has to do with your argument, I am not sure what you are looking for.
We both agree that simple counting stats like Corsi fall short.
You seem to think that goal differential is a better predictor I believe.
I, like many, believe that goals for and against are more of an outcome based statistic.
Maybe another way to say it is this. The use of goal differential as a stat as predictor of team success is about as useful as a coach telling his team that their strategy is to outscore the other team.