Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
No, I'm just a poster that has watched you continually point to Bennett's advanced stats over the last few years to indicate that there is more 'there' there. I'm not someone who needs to be convinced of advanced stats, I'm a true believer. But in this discussion someone has to use counting stats because you will leave them out if they conflict or cast doubt on the numbers you're looking to use to prove your point. I'm not disputing Bennett's advanced stats in the way you have couched his numbers by ranking or percentage instead of using the raw counting stats. Instead you'll use things like his 'rank' on the team in goals per game or his 'percentage' improvement in faceoffs.
Sort of like when you say the 'measures that show the book hasn't been written', when all the stats are telling you is information on previous output, that have for 250+ games shown to inaccurately predict the tangible counting stat ouput of the player.
I'm definitely open to conversation about Bennett's offensive decline this season being an outlier and utilizing a previous season to conclude that given an adjusment in his game he could return to his previous ~25 point output instead of ~15 point output, but that's not what you're suggesting when trying to shut down tranny's point that Bennett is what he is at this point.
You're saying "So yeah it may never happen, but there are legitimate measures that suggest more is to come."
Whereas my understanding is that is not at all what the stats suggest. What the stats are saying is that Bennett should rightfully produce a lot more than he does, perhaps a hell of a lot more. This doesn't suggest there is an explosion on the horizon, it suggests Bennett, over a substantial sample size, simply cannot seem to produce the offense you would expect out a levelized player generating those kind of chances. This is where the counting stats also reflect the eye test.
Either the advances stats aren't telling the whole story or they are somehow flawed in relation to this player.
There is a definite possibility Bennett goes on to have a Bouma/Donovan/Colborne style season where he shoots 15% over 70 games and hits 20 goals. Hockey is mostly luck, anything can happen, but to point to tantalizing advanced metrics as a reason to believe he is likely to be an offensive generating player going forward is the opposite of what they are saying.
What the stats say, both counting and advanced, is that this player struggles to produce offense even in situations where by all rights he should be. That's an indication that regardless of opportunity, it's unlikely to transpire, because it's not about opportunity, it's about individual ability.
Maybe I'm wrong and would love to be educated, but I don't see what you see when I look at the advanced stats, and I'm trying to.
and here's where you try to make things personal again, seemingly to provoke a response. As I've said several times previously, I'm not interested in making this personal. As you're the owner of the website, we're obviously not on equal footing here.
|
I guess I'd suggest not talking down to others, responding with one word answers and then basically suggesting above that I spin, ignore, and hide data to make my points.
Pretty sure things like that will get you a response. Honestly ... I think that's what you're looking for anyway.
But no ... I don't ignore counting stats. I've said three or four times in the last few days that counting stats aren't there, and if a person thinks that's that I certainly understand.
But I certainly don't try to spin. I'm very forthright about the data I'm using and how I'm using it. If someone suggests his numbers are replacement level I use all forwards. If someone says he should be a healthy scratch I use rankings on the team. Using per 60s levelizes ice time and is common practice.
His underlying numbers are good. Sorry doesn't take spin to show that.