Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
When have I ever stated any thing is a great metric?
|
Honest question: If it's not a great metric, then why discuss it and bring it up as frequently as you do? You have two threads you started that are on the front page discussing these metrics/analytics. It's in your game takes and a large number of your posts over the last year or so. Why would you spend so much time producing and defending something if you didn't think it was great?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
And what output? I've never stated anything is an output or is relevant? It's a summary of what they've done with no manipulation, hypothesis or projection at all.
|
What output? The graphs are an output. The data comes from the games and you produce graphs, charts, and figures. Those are all outputs. Back to my question above: If it's not relevant, then why spend so much time producing and defending them? You clearly like advanced stats/metrics. That's your thing. I didn't say you manipulated them. You do have a hypothesis. Your hypothesis is somewhere along the lines of if you do more good things than bad things, you'll win more games. We disagree on what is a good thing, because I don't see much value in corsi. I don't think it's a good predictor of what will happen and I don't think you can look back and say that teams won or lost based on their corsi. What we have seen from the charts in this thread is that if you are above the red line with those metrics, you have a little better than 50% chance of winning the game. If that's the case, why not just flip a coin? If the stats can predict the future, and they can't shed light on why a team won or not, then what value is the statistic? I'm not saying the data is flawed, or the collection method is flawed/manipulated. I am saying the stats, in this case CA60Vs16, SCA60Vs16, and HDCA60Vs16 don't have a lot of value because they can't predict anything and don't substantially indicate whether the team won or lost. They have little more value than the GRIT index.
In your game takes you bring in a bunch of these stats. I don't know if they are the identical stats, but you have a fancy stats section in your game takes. Once again, the statistics are the output. In the last two game takes you reference, compare, contrast, and equate fancy stats to what happened on the ice. As a writer, why would you discuss these if they aren't relevant. You may not come out and say, word for word, that they are relevant, but by continuing to post threads, posts, and stories involving them, your actions are saying that they are relevant. By saying that you want the stats to be above the red line, or a certain figure, you are forming a hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
It's pretty simple ... do more good things and do less bad things and you probably win more of those games than you lose.
Are you debating that?
|
I'm not debating that. I'm debating what is a good thing and what is a bad thing. I don't believe the statistic of corsi, or any of the related statistics, are a good measure of things done well. You do. I can't change your mind on that. By you continuing to present these figures, you must believe that they are good statistics, and that you find them relevant, or you wouldn't keep presenting them. I don't bring up my elementary school science fair projects when discussing the Flames because they aren't relevant, even if they might be interesting. They have no bearing on whether the Flames will win or lose.
I would say that the greater your goal differential, the greater chances you'll be higher in the standings. You earn a greater goal differential by scoring more goals than the other team in a majority of games. A major part of the goal differential is from scoring on your powerplay and preventing them from scoring on your penalty kill. If you have a good PP and PK, I'd argue you win more games than you lose.