Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
It states quality of competition, but that is not the same as accounting for it.
Who you play with matters a lot. Who you play against matters a lot. How you are utilized matters a lot.
|
It does both, though. See the explanation above - WAR factors in QOC and QOT, so those are just broken out on the card for further detail about how the player is deployed.
Quote:
|
That is why we get surprises from players like Tanev when he moved to the Flames. His numbers sucked in VAN, but then they were great in CGY. Why? Is it because he suddenly figured out how to hockey? Or is it because his situation and utilization changed?
|
Well, Tanev also used to be very good at the things he was good at last year in Calgary, but had been trending downward for a few years. So the change was probably partly a matter of systems, partly a matter of random variance in a weird covid year, and partly a matter of being re-energized after joining a new team for the first time since he entered the league. That can't really be measured; look at who ROR became when he left Buffalo. But ultimately I wouldn't be very surprised to see Tanev settle in to a spot somewhere between where he was in his last year in Van and what he did last year (which was right around "best defensive defenceman in the league" territory and shouldn't be expected to happen again).
Quote:
|
I have been arguing this for years - hockey stats are inherently flawed because who you are on the ice with, and against, is everything. It's a team game. And even though they try to account for this, they do not and cannot.
|
Except they can and do account for it. That's been true for years and as a result those adjustments have been refined over that time using thousands of hours of on-ice data to improve accuracy. I guess you're saying they don't account for it convincingly enough to satisfy you, but can you explain your justification for that, beyond "I'm not convinced"?