[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I know you hate stats.

I actually love stats, when properly applied. I actually understand how they work (and manipulated) being forced to endure five statistics classes up to the 700 level, and then going through the rigor of a methodological review to prove my studies could be validated. Properly used, stats can be very valuable tools. Unfortunately the "advanced stats" in hockey are only used by tools who don't understand how statistics and variation are modeled.

It takes away your ability to rant and spew hyperbole over every topic because you can be easily replied to with actual facts.

Actually, it's very humorous to watch anyone spin these fallacious stats and claim "they are just counting events," derp derp derp. They are garbage because hockey is way too chaotic to use one-to-one measures to model play. I swear you forget your hockey history and where this crap was dreamed up. You seem to forget that these things were developed to pump the tires of some really bad hockey teams and prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the players on that team were some of the best the game had to offer. The win-loss column couldn't provide that support, so a few dedicated fans invented statistics to measure something that the outcomes are not meant to measure. Take Corsi and Fenwick as the best examples, two stats many times used to model possession, which is mind-numbingly stupid
because you're using an event where a loss of possession is used to determine possession (yes, a shot on goal is a loss of possession event). When you can just put a stopwatch on puck possession to determine actual possession statistics, these brainiacs determined that shots on goal could be used to determine a loosely associated event (shots can be taken without ever having maintained puck control, on a giveaway for example, and some possession time generates zero shots on goal, like on a Flames powerplay when they spend two minutes passing it around the perimeter looking for the perfect shot opportunity). What is worse, quality of shot was not applied to these measures, making the data so grossly flawed that relying on them for anything was/is questionable at best. When you're trained to understand data collection and the importance of maintaining rigor in your measuring behaviors you'll maybe get it. There are so many variables which greatly influence these data points, but those variables are mostly ignored. Again, hockey is too chaotic with way too many variable to try and measure with simple "counting events."

Draft capital isn't a fancy stat, it's a historical look at draft pick value applied to every team equally. The games played is also applied to every team equally.

It's not applied equally. There are too many variables that make it impossible to definitively say that X is superior to Y in this regard. One team may have a philosophy of over-cooking their prospects, while others may be more open to playing them early and seeing what they can do. Others may have a team with lots of holes versus a team that is packed with NHL talent, limiting opportunities for draft picks to step up. Salary cap can also come into play, both in the prospect's favor, or working against them getting a chance. So to definitively say that team X is way better at drafting than team Y because of a game played measure is ridiculous.

Take the Flames versus the Lightning. The Lightning have long been one of the best teams in the league in finding talent in every round of the draft, but of late they have come up empty. Is is because they have hit a dry spell in drafting, or is it because they have one of the best teams in the league and have no room at the inn? It's the later. Organizational maturity is a big variable. It's hard for anyone to crack a lineup that is jam packed with talent, so their numbers look bad in recent years. Conversely, the Flames have a team with many holes so opportunities for players are there for the taking. Because of the cap situation the Flames are kind of forced into fitting in what players they can, which also is beneficial to that measure (Tampa just cheats). In that same vein, Tampa has had the bodies in the lineup where they didn't have to rush anyone. Calgary? Look no further than our highest pick and how we rushed him and inflated his games played count. So the counts are very iffy and that measure extremely flawed because the variables are not included in the measure.

And no ... Fox counts. That's silly. This is a drafting analysis. Scouts found a big league talent in the third round. That's drafting success.

I disagree based on the measure you elected to use. A drafted player only matters if he plays for you, especially when you're using games played as a measure to determine efficacy of the process. If you're making a binary decision on if X or Y happened, then yes, count that event. But when you're using a measure of success where another team and their situation is clearly influencing the outcome, then no, you can't count that toward the measure because the variables change greatly. It is highly likely that team philosophy and depth on the roster would have impacted Fox's number of games played in Calgary, which would then greatly change the measure. It would be like using Travis Moen's, Kurtis Foster's, and Jarrett Stoll's games played as part of the measure for the Flames success. It greatly skews the data and makes it unreliable.

Just give it a rest man. It's getting old.

Christ Bingo, this is a discussion board. Debate the points and stop your whining. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't jump into the mix. Definitely don't use such flawed measures to make such definitive statements. And don't whine when someone pulls the curtain back.