Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Stain
I guess we just disagree on the importance of those particular stats then.
I see XGA/60 as mostly noise as evidenced by the Tanev example.
|
Here's the problem with using Tanev as a counter example.
You're writing off the stat because a Tanev's numbers spiked this year.
Well he had a major change in circumstances, so yeah, there was probably some external factors that affected that stat. We'll see if it's a permanent change.
If a player ends up in a better system, or other things change to affect how he plays, it's not out of the real of possibility that his stats will change.
Nurse on the other hand has been consistently terrible according to that stat.
Sure there have been changes in who he plays with, and how many minutes he plays, but those changes are not on the same level as changing teams/systems.
There hasn't been a fundamental shift in his circumstances or game.
Is it a great stat for predicting how a player will perform after a major change? Probably not.
But if it's pretty stable for a player who has had a pretty stable couple of years, can we infer that it probably carries some weight?
Well yeah, I would say so.
Just about all of the stats say that Nurse has consistently been bad at defense.
The eye test says that Nurse has consistently been bad at defense.
So what exactly has changed that makes you think Nurse will suddenly get good at something that he has consistently been bad at?