View Single Post
04-03-2012, 05:55 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 467
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
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.
Right here, you actually just made a really effective argument in favour of microstats. It was traditional stats that would have predicted the Canucks victory (and the Giants) loss, not microstats. What you did here was lump all types of stats together and say that because traditional stats didn't predict the outcome, microstats wouldn't either.

SaskRinkRat is offline   Reply With Quote