Quote:
Originally Posted by ComixZone
Mock if you must, but would you say Troy Brouwer was an absolute disaster as a Calgary Flame? Because that's where this is concerning to me - the underlying numbers are comparable.
Of course you don't make your decisions by only using analytics, but they are there (and teams have better models), and they can be helpful.
|
The problem is that there is - must be - a distribution of results, around the average. And there is a random element that, in hockey, is almost impossible to determine. A player is going to fall on one side or the other of average - for simplicity, a 50/50 chance of having 'good' or 'bad' stats.
Then you have events, such as player signings. To evaluate, people look at the players' stats and see 'good' or 'bad', and draw conclusions.
Then they look at past events - in this case, other player signings. Then they look for examples that fit their narrative - in this example. Brouwer = 'bad' and turned out to be bad.
And they conclude that is evidence of their evaluation of the current event.
The truth, however, is that hockey is a team game, and players play with different players over time, and are deployed differently over time. This is especially true for defensemen.
Look at Barrie's stats in COL then the next year in TOR. Same player, different deployment, VERY different stats. Did Barrie drastically change as a player? Or was his circumstance and usage different?
Hockey stats are no where near evolved enough to be a primary basis to judge a player.
Tanev's declining stats have taken place over a period where his role on the team grew considerably. And also where the team got worse defensively.
Why did his role grow considerably? Because he was declining? Or because he was filling those ever more challenging roles?