View Single Post
Old
01-23-2013, 06:26 AM
  #419
JTG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Sierra Leone
Posts: 43,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkin4Top6Wingerz View Post
I'll take that as a yes, and then respond to your previous post with that in mind.



What is your position on QB rating in the NFL? It's an individual statistic but is also largely team influenced. A reciever can drop a wide open pass, or tip it directly to the opposing team and cost his QB an interception. Offensive lineman can blow their assignments and force their QB to make poor decisions. Yet, by and large, QB rating is an excellent indicator of a QB's effectiveness and ability level. Only the best QBs can maintain QB high ratings from season to season. The underlying point being that an individual stat that is directly affected by the players around them can still hold a lot of value.

Back to baseball, ERA is a stat that is largely driven by individuals but is still subject to a team's fielding ability. A team with a couple of gold glovers will be able to get to balls that other fielders wouldn't. That makes ERA an imperfect measure of ability. However imperfect != not valuable. If you were to have a bunch of pitchers with low career ERAs you would undoubtedly have an elite pitching staff.

James Neal taking a shot with Paul Martin on the ice isn't a random event. Paul Martin likely influenced this with his ability to defend and get the puck up the ice. If he's only maintaining a strong Corsi on account of his talented teammates, there are other advanced numbers which measure quality of linemates that we can use. We can also look at his Corsi relative to his own teammates, and WOWY (with you without you) numbers tell us what a player's Corsi is with and without specific players on the ice. All of these statistics can be used to get a solid idea of how valuable a player is. Is it perfect? No, but nothing is, and it's more valuable than the eyetest of 99% of HFers. Corsi is also not subject to noise the way plus minus is because of how many statistical events it measures. If James Neal gets off a shot that had nothing at all to do with anything Paul Martin did, it doesn't matter because it's only one of thousands of shot attempts during a season. It's not going to make an impact when all is said and done.



Corsi isn't a perfect measure of ability or how well a player is playing. But a consistently strong Corsi is the sign of a player who can influence goal differential at even strength. Paul Martin is very good at that and always has been, even during a down year. If you look at it through that lens instead of a tell all statistic you'll see that it has plenty of uses.
A QB rating is contextual as any stat, but at least the QB is directly involved in a play that has a bearing on his stat, unlike +/- or this Corsi rating. A wideout may drop a ball, but a QB throws more incomplete passes on his own accord than receivers drop balls. But to answer your question, I don't put a ton of stock in a QB rating.

I don't really care to respond to anything else, because it's futile and after years of battles on this stuff, we'll never agree, aside from the bolded part.

That's one of the reasons I cannot take the stat seriously, and it's hilarious to even read that. James Neal taking a **** ton of shots was influenced by Paul Martin's defensive play. If Martin was given credit for a shot that James Neal took when Martin broke the puck out to him, I could maybe buy that a little more. But say Geno and Neal do one of their patented keep aways in the zone, take 4 shots in that time and score a goal, and all Paul Martin did was stand at the blueline, but he gets credited with 4 shots and a +...yeah, I'm never going to put stock in that.

JTG is offline   Reply With Quote