Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
And I get that.
I guess it comes down to what the gap is, how repeatable it is, and whether you see that as significant.
When it comes to CA/60 this year the top ten average 47.5, the next ten 50.0 so that's not a huge gap and I think it fits into your coin toss example.
But Cody Ceci is at 75 and Mark Giordano is at 48 ... that's a big gap. Last year Ceci was at 68 and Giordano was at 52. The gap is wider this year, but the consistency between the two ois that less bad things happen when Giordano is on the ice when compared to Ceci.
But as you've said ... there are other factors. The Senators suck the Flames don't ... though both teams missed the playoffs last year.
However I'm pretty comfortable in saying Giordano would have better numbers playing for the Senators that Ceci does now.
|
That is pretty much what I am saying, yes.
If there is a big enough discrepancy, like your example, it is clear that Giordano is better at shot suppression than Ceci. And I would argue that we would all be able to see that by watching. And we can all confidently quote the stats, because they would pass any test for significance.
My point is with respect to the vast majority of quoted stats for hockey. People will look at two players' high danger corsi-for, where, for example, one player is at 55% and another player is a 51%, and conclude from that that player A is better at generating said chances. What I am saying is: no, we cannot conclude that, unless we know that the difference is statistically significant.
And no one ever provides that for these data (probably because it would be damning, and most of their work would go out the window)