Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Disagree with me all you want, but don't be a dick about it.
Obfuscate - render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible
James Neal is a terrible five on five hockey player. We saw that all season, it was the eye test. He's repeating that this year.
We can argue all day about eye tests, but luckily some independent people have built models that track contributing factors to hockey players that can actually summarize what we are seeing.
Neal's data supports the eye test. That's not obscure, unclear or unintelligible. The fact that he's been so bad that he's actually considered a net negative player despite scoring 13 goals is hilarious.
If you're look at hockey is as deep as looking up goal totals in the stats page, that's on you.
|
I’m not trying to be a dick, but as someone who has worked in the numbers biz for a long time, I do have to call baloney when I see it. Stats are fine as an explanatory tool for natural observations, but they shouldn’t be used as a way to redirect away from those observations when they don’t suit you, which is a drum I see you beating any time this topic comes up.
What we can agree on is that both players look bad from the eye test... But one is contributing and the other is not. You can argue that Neal may well be a net negative 5 on 5 whereas Lucic is just treading water. I’m fine with that, and then it becomes a question of the degree of badness being in favour of one or the other. But that conclusion has to be stipulated against the fact that he is finding a way to help his team in other ways, whereas Lucic is not. These are basic facts that no amount of statistical wand-waving can change. How is that being a dick?