Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
Same thing. You are interpreting the data in a manner that fits your argument as opposed to considering, objectively, other factors.
It isn't crystal clear. Not at all. WAY too many factors in play that impact player performance.
|
Throwing away the forest for the trees?
Year after year, exactly what you see from the coach’s philosophy and style of play lines up with how those players end up performing. Data and observations agree.
And every year, I have had conversations about each of these things.
“No, Kipper hasn’t lost his game, Keenan is allowing too many high danger situations.” Brent comes in, shores up the D game, and Kipper is back to normal - above average.
I was right then and I’m right now. :-)
People pull out analytics to support, people analyze the play, we talk about other teams, there are people that give video breakdowns of systemic shortcomings, people in the industry like Versteeg and Button throw in their 2 cents. Sometimes the thing in front of your face is actually just what it looks like.
We clearly will never see exactly eye to eye and that’s fine.
You can always throw out some statement that places your burden of proof beyond what anybody could practically be bothered to invest time in. Maybe it was the use of the word crystal?
Anyways I stand by my main hypothesis which is that there is a psychological convenience in not placing primary blame on the coaching because it is exceedingly unlikely to be changed, and accepting or resigning yourself to the resultant inevitable hopelessness is not comfortable.