Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
See this is what I wonder. Say an average goalie throws up a .915. People generally say .905 is bad and .925 is great. You are looking at what causes that 1 percent deviation from average.
In the example I gave you, the Corsica model can’t, as far as I know, predict whether 8 percent of goals are 5 percent likely to happen or 33 percent.
Many people have thrown up their hands and said there is no such thing as shot quality, but we know that’s not true. Still their best models had enough noise to drive the R2 into meaningless territory.
I acknowledge that they are trying to put some context so it is not simply shot location, note that I didn’t dispute that.
I just don’t know, from that list, that what they are capturing is adequate to capture context, and generate the most meaningful results.
|
Absolutely, but its' deeper than just counting stats with no differentiation. With every step forward in differentiation it has to take on more meaning doesn't it?
Fans can be myoptic as hell, we all see things based on biases and team preferences.
I like having something to pull that doesn't have a rooting interest.