Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
This is where I think you're wrong, and is exactly what we're arguing against - the stat takes into account location and situation (to an extent), but it cannot take into account the quality of the situation. Team defense can be weak by being poor positionally (which would get captured somewhat), but they can also be weak by being slow, or simply allowing shooters too much time. Same shooter, same place, same 'circumstance', but if the shooter has more time, they are getting off a better quality shot. The stats do not capture this (and other similar things).
The fundamental question is: does this all average out, or are some teams more prone to it? And I don't think there's any question that some teams are more prone to it.
|
I'm suggesting they play the same sport in the same fashion with a different level of skill.
Not sure the model would fail to capture those affects in a counting exercise.
So I wouldn't say I'm "wrong"
I do admit that a unique situation is always different, but I just don't think one team can find a way to measure higher in a model consistently than their peers to change the outcome.
That seems like a huge stretch to me.
You'd have to be bad in way that shows counts aren't that bad for bad events, while also making the bad events even worse, and you'd have to find a way to do that consistently.