Bingo, I always appreciate your efforts in trying to find new and creative ways in presenting information to inform your reader's understanding of the game. Great job as always.
I think what that this does kind of closes out the book on advanced stats though. Clearly all of those stats mean nothing. The Flames are way behind last year's totals and trends, and are clearly a much better team. If the stats you're presenting are supposed to prove your case that the Flames are better than they were compared to outcomes, and the stats prove it, then this years outcomes and the underlying stats are proving just the opposite. The stats prove the opposite of your thesis.
It is no secret that I have always been highly skeptical of these faux stats, based on their erroneous underlying relationships which are to indicate causality, and the sheer lack of consistency in data collection from building to building across the league. I think that the consistency in the stats, the poor outcomes they support, and the absolute failure to provide consistent results in predictability and outcomes, indicates they are useless measures.
You made a comment in one of the game threads that I found extremely interesting. When discussing hits, you stated you didn't believe the data was reliable in any shape or fashion, and as a result didn't think the measure provided any value. The validity of the stat was questioned because of the inconsistency in the data collection across the league. After witnessing the Nashville game, and the creative accounting used by their off ice officials to calculate SOG, I would say any statistic relying on SOG as a measure is questionable.
My question to you in this. If one collected stat is questionable, then aren't all stats collected questionable? Does this not cause the house of cards to collapse?
|