Sabremetrics/Microstats in Hockey
View Single Post
06-06-2012, 01:42 PM
Join Date: Apr 2010
Originally Posted by
I tend to be on the side that Oaklnad's experiment has been completely over exaggerated. A couple good years followed by mostly sucking.
Whatever they have been doing by in large hasn't worked. I realize others caught on yada yada yada and started employing some of the same analysis, but I just don't see the ground breaking change of events that they created.
Billy Beane has been mostly garbage. Just my opinion.
I think this depends how you define "hasn't worked". If you define it strictly by World Series wins and losses then sure, it hasn't worked. But if you factor in other important things (like how much of a payroll deficit the team continues to operate under) then it's hard to argue that their approach "hasn't worked".
The other thing this goes to show is just how much randomness there is in any sort of system. If you only define success as championships, and you shift your strategy every time you don't win one, you'll probably never win one. You could be employing the absolute perfect strategy and still lose on account of the randomness in the process.
It's why the best team in the NHL almost never wins the Stanley Cup.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by SaskRinkRat