Quote:
Originally Posted by TheScorpion
No. That's entirely a contrived strawman argument on your end. Stats are supportive tools.
What I find funny is when eye test folks enter an argument and attempt to completely invalidate previous points made by citing their own largely baseless individual viewings of players as absolutes.
Pure eye test arguments pale in comparison to player assessments that combine viewings with data. And a lot of the publicly available data takes teammates and game situations into account. In an environment where we can contextualize our eye tests with numbers, it's pointless to ignore the data that's available.
I can look at players like Joel Edmundson, Nikita Zadorov, and Seth Jones and come away very unimpressed with their overall games. Zadorov is a punishing physical player who is a good at defending on the rush. He's also inept in the offensive zone and struggles with positioning in his own end, leading to his poor production and PK results.
I'm not anti-eye test. I used the eye test every time I watched the Heat last season. I also scrounged around for every piece of contextual data available to me to contextualize my arguments.
What I find funny is when people just throw out "eye test" arguments like "he logs a ton of minutes" and "every NHL team would take him" and "he looks like a number one guy." Those are meaningless statements.
|
Okay thanks, misinterpreted your point.
To the bold though, those aren't 'eye test' arguments (except the 3rd one), they are simply weak arguments. Good eye test arguments focus on tools, positioning, usage, etc