Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
The only way they aren't factual is if they are recorded in error ... a shot outside the plate is considered in, the person missed a pass so it's classified wrong.
Otherwise it's pretty much the same as the guy counting traffic at an intersection. He probably misses the odd car, once and a while he hits the button twice by mistake but over the course of an hour the data is what it is ... largely factual.
However what do they mean is very much up for debate.
|
Ehh. Respectfully disagree.
Someone drew a box. Do the lines really define a black and white high danger chance or not? Even if they do generally it would be all over the map when applied to a given game or a given player.
Then someone else decides if a shot was from that box and meets other subjective criteria. In a fast moving game from a distance and sketchy angles. To get offside calls mostly right a trained linesman goes to a brightly painted straight line across the ice and watches intently. That’s not what we have. We have loosely defined criteria loosely judged.
Counting cars is pretty clear. Is it a car. Did it go past me.
Fancy stats are more like counting smart people at a food court. You can probably reinforce or challenge your assumptions and that might be interesting. I wouldn’t rely on it for facts though.
Edit: I should clarify I am generalizing about fancy stats but would agree there are some more accurate than others. Counting shots is probably pretty accurate as a number (if often poorly used). Counting shots plus some other criteria gets into pretty muddy territory. it’s downhill from there.