Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
You don’t need to. I read it and thought that Bingo pretty effectively penetrated the veneer of your discussion for what it really is: a bizarre obsession with David Rittich by which he can seemingly not do anything wrong in your eyes.
The TB game was no exception: Rittich did not play well. He needs to be better. So does Mike Smith, and hopefully he is good tonight.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
Haha. *sigh*
I would think you know that is not true if you actually critically read the text.
I said in that thread that the goals in the SJ game were bad and his fault. (Some veneer, indeed)
I noted that it had nothing to do with the nameplate but the utility of the stat
I explained the flaws in sv%
I explained that danger tiers have a flaw in that they group shots by essentially a few things that happen prior to the shot, but not actually based on the shot itself
I talked about statistical significance
I looked at each goal in some detail
I asked Bingo to help me understand how Rittich could specifically been better on the actual goals
Somehow, people are content to essentially dumb it down, to
- well ... he just should have stopped more, because ... .778! Not good enough
- you love Rittich, you must be obsessed with him
That is really quite disappointing to me.
The analytics community discusses the limitations of stats and tries to improve on them. Their work is good and it is evolving. It is flawed and they acknowledge it. They don’t take affront to it