View Single Post
02-07-2012, 08:24 AM
Registered User
oyster's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 347
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Vaasa View Post
... broad sample size helps moderate out factors like player improvement or declines in skills; injuries; differences in teams skills, etc. But the statistics simply do not support drawing those same conclusions on a causal basis when looked for an individual player over a particular (especially a small) period of time.
THIS! It drives me crazy when people cherry-pick statistics to try and prove a point. It seems especially common in sports. When Kent Huskins gets 7 points in a very specific 6 game streak, it doesn't mean he's a PPG defenseman (although he could be if he wanted to, but scoring is too easy and real men PK). Or arguing that X goalie is an elite top-5 goaltender because they have/had the best stats for a month.

I think you maybe went a wee bit overboard with what you'd accept for statistical validity, at least for something as dynamic and volitile as professional hockey, but your point is right on. You can't draw good conclusions from limited data.

oyster is offline