View Single Post
Old
04-03-2012, 03:52 PM
  #99
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
Show me one person here who gives a fig about hit counts and you might have an argument here.

Also show me someone here that cares about giveaway/takeaways. I think you're building strawmen to knock down.

Your being awfully specious here.
I'm pointing out the weakness in the 'counting' methodology using a stark example of stats that are actually counted by the NHL itself. That's not the same thing as building a straw man argument. It's illustrative to showing you that the very foundation of SABR in hockey (counting) can be problematic in itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
You've gone on record previously for caring a lot whether Montreal has things like top 10 in the league point scorers and 30 goal men. The epistomoligical basis for these things mattering is probably weaker then the newer measurements. Point totals suffer from the same problems a corsi rating have and add a number of other ones when making evaluations. People starting caring about these things after a somewhat scientific process of observation, hypothesis and testing.
I do care if Montreal has those kinds of players. I think that they give you a big advantage in trying to win cups. It can be done without them as we've seen but it's awfully tough to win cups without at least some kind of superstar on it. Maybe it's a goalie or maybe a blueliner but I do absoluletly believe that having a top scorer on your team makes things a lot easier.

Go count the cup winners and how many HOFers are on them. Every cup winning team up until 2000 has at least one on it. Most have several. And most have top scorers too. Why wouldn't we want this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
You claim that goals and points are the equivalent of runs in baseball. Claiming this ironically misses the point of hockey being a more complex game. Hockey is played on both offense and defense simultaneously and that is something that must be accounted for. Its a game of differentials not absolute numbers which is the big flaw of looking at points in a vacuum.
I was going to post this in my above response to Mathman... I had written an additional paragraph in my post that got deleted where I talked about outscoring the opponent. Doesn't matter anyway... you're right the RUNs to Points relation isn't a good analogy. I was just trying to point out that in James' philosophy he's focusing on RUNs and production vs hits. You're right hockey is a fluid game and it was a bad point on that.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote