Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
That is not an accurate statement at all. In fact, it is laughable (the comment, not you - no offense).
There is nothing close to proof here.
Some guy looks at a very non-statistical situation like whether a goaltender's puckhandling helps the defense, and tries to determine, statistically, if it's true.
How does he do this? He considers some stats, like maybe GAA with and without that goalie, number of injuries (man-games lost) to the defense, shots against for the next 30 seconds after an event (or whatever), and who knows what other stats he might consider.
He then digests these stats, looks at the results of his assumptions, draws a conclusion, and spits out an article presenting that conclusion.
That is NOT proof. That is one person's completely non-scientific attempt to analyse something that is extremely fluid and extremely difficult to quantify.
When it comes to something like this, I put more stock in comments from professional defensemen and GMs, and from the opinions of people that have been a part of the game at the highest level their entire adult lives, than I do the opinion of one journalist who made one (hopelessly flawed) attempt to quantify the impact.
It always amazes me how quickly people will accept - and declare as proof - the opinions and conjecture of these types of articles.
|
When people look at Smith's puckhandling, they always focus on his long passes. I think his best trait is stopping a ring around, even high up on the boards.
His mistakes are overemphasized here. I can't recall a single goal he's cost because of it.