View Single Post
Old
04-03-2012, 05:51 PM
  #116
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,588
vCash: 500
Stats are great for water-cooler discussions among fans and allow GM's to make generalizations about players based upon past performance.

Stats (especially micro-stats) are not the true predictors of a team's performance though. Never have been and never will. There is a reason why the St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series. And a reason that the New York Giants won the Super Bowl. Neither of those teams had the best stats (nor players with the best stats either).

And in hockey, the Vancouver Canucks were winners of the Stanley Cup last year.........right? They had the most points. They scored the most goals and had the fewest goals against.

What happened? Boston had the 7th most goals for and the 3rd fewest goals given up.

Micro stats should have pointed the way to the Bruins winning it all. But did it? Hell no.

Statistics reveal tangible results that serve as a guide to a player's or a team's past performance. That's it.

Come up with a stat that shows chemistry, heart, "coming together as a team", streaking, peaking as a team or as a player or any other intangible and you will have something that is worthy of a thread with this many pages.

Until then, intangibles will forever trump tangible statistics. In players and in coaches. That is the reality and the beauty of sports from kids starting to play all the way to professionals.

"Its why they play the game on the ice/field/court instead of on paper."

Now back to your analysis of minutia that ends up being pretty much irrelevant in the entire scheme of team sports.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote