Building a model, you make assumptions - like has been mentioned here, but if the fundamentals changes, then all of a sudden you get an outlier, and if everyone adopts the new change and it becomes the standard, then the model doesn't predict reality and needs to be changed to try and reflect the new standard. But a model I build, will reflect what I, or those who helped me input the criteria into it thinks a "good player" should be - so my biases are reflected in the model I build. Some players have a few bad habits the would give them a lower score, but they have a few things ("tricks") that erase those bad habits and somehow works for them.... then there are players that do most things perfect, and are predicable, and make one or two bad mistakes that really costs their team... these are the things, the little nuances that make modelling extremely hard.
Patrick Roy is a great example of a player who would break the model at the time. Hasek was a guy a cringed at - but he stopped pucks somehow flailing around on the ice. Obviously Wayne Gretzky and the Oilers back in the 80's changed the game and rules were even changed to compensate for them (4 on 4 play for example).
Models are good as a resource, but you need to watch someone's game if you're going to get those really special (elite) players.... to me, Elite players are somehow better than the sum of their skills (parts).
|