Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
Such a frustrating post because some of the comments are good and worth discussing, and some of them are not.
|
Wow ... thanks for the post grading! Sorry to waste your time with some of my dribble that isn't worth discussing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
Yes, stats can be wrong, and often are.
|
Probably splitting hairs, but I wouldn't phrase it that way.
A stat can't be wrong. It's use can be wrong.
If player x was on the ice in one game for more HD chances against ... he was. It's set as a count based on parameters and he fell into those parameters more often than his teammates.
But if you concluded on 8 minutes of ice time that player X is the worst defensive player in the league you've overstepped a stat that isn't wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
Can you use one game sample sizes? Yes, for some things. But first, you always have to be careful with small sample sizes, and second, many of the stats that are quoted on here with single-game samples, should NOT be used in samples that small.
You use one example as an argument on behalf of all stats, but it isn't - each stat needs to be analyzed and evaluated on its own. Just because one example can survive a single-game data set, does not mean others can.
|
You know I said the same above right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
And rebutting any criticism with the standard: it's better than the "I'll trust my eye test" is not only lazy but is the opposite of what you are trying to claim with "land(ing) on something more constructive".
|
Which I don't do.
I push back on the "stats are crap I'll trust me eye test!" crowd for sure. But my push back is usually how I look to stats to see if they agree with MY eye test. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. But most times they make me look (eye test round two) at the player a different way.
I'm never as simple as the laziness you suggest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
We've been around this a hundred times. You have faith that the stats are good enough. I think stats need to be held to a higher standard, because most people don't know how to interpret them, and put far too much faith in the results. And since they do, 'good enough' and 'they're the best we're got' isn't actually good enough in many cases. It is completely reasonable - and accurate - to criticize them when they warrant it.
|
Not sure I've said the stats are "good enough". I know I've suggested the can/should/will get better many times.
They are the best we've got and help reinforce or refocus eye test.