View Single Post
Old
08-07-2011, 03:15 PM
  #162
E = CH²
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 15,980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
"I don't care what anyone says! Every piece of evidence that disagrees with me is inherently invalid!"
More on this..

You assume that because it hasn't been proven that shot quality has a definitive influence on the % of shots that go in then it must mean that shot quality has no influence. Once upon a time, it hadn't been proven that the earth was round either. It's not because something doesn't have a proof that it doesn't exist. It is possible that all it means is that no one brilliant enough to figure it out has wanted to take the time to convince you guys that it does exist and has an impact. The problem with proving it is that there are so many factors at play here and in the end it only represents a few % of difference. It's a heck of a lot more complicated to prove it then to just make an ultra simplistic assumption based on a huge amount of numbers.

It's like saying :

I've looked at thousands and thousands of planets through my telescope and found no other signs of life forms in the universe thus based on this huge data sample I must conclude other life forms do not exist.

Common sense, if you use it, would tell you hockey Sabremetrics are at their very first few steps. Hockey is a very small sport that does not have that many followers and thus few quality statistician minds behind it. It's also more difficult to model with stats than baseball because it's not as static. Thus common sense would certainly make you very very cautious when using hockey Sabremetrics because it's entirely possible that a lot of really really wrong assumptions are being made due to the "discipline" being so new. I'm sure that the assumption that you should expect a certain % of shots to go in is right most of the time. I'd use it in my polls to predict who had fluke seasons and who's bound to bounce back because I don't know enough of other players on other teams to have an educated opinion and I'm sure that this assumption would hold true in most cases. Heck, it certainly would be better than the little I can remember and have seen from these players.

I think that in Gomez case you guys are missing something though. I think you guys blindly trust into the assumption that has been proven to be right most of the time in the past, and it's understandable, but that's precisely when alarm bells should be going off in your head and when you should realize well maybe the idea that all shots average out to be of the same quality is possibly not a perfect representation of reality.

E = CH² is offline   Reply With Quote