View Single Post
Old
04-02-2013, 03:10 PM
  #32
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by burf View Post
This anecdote is clearly damning to the proven correlation between fenwick and winning.

Oh wait, maybe it's just random chance, which is accounted for in any statistical regression model anyway.
This right here is a textbook example of why the opinions of people who worship at the church of advanced stats (as opposed to people who think there's -some- use for them, myself included) need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

When something fits their model (say, Minnesota last year having a brutal second half...or Colorado doing the same a few years prior) they declare it proof of concept. When something does not, such as Anaheim this year or the Rangers last year and this year, they throw it out and declare it "random chance" or "luck."

The simple fact of the matter is the Rangers' strategy is not predicated upon taking a bunch of shots or having the puck the majority of the time. Their strategy is to manipulate shooting percentages by forcing many low-percentage shots through packing the house, then beating the other team on the (less frequent, but higher percentage) counterattack or in special teams. If they're attempting a lot of shots, which will drive fenwick UP, it's in response to a failure in execution, which means they're probably either losing the game, or capable of reading the tea leaves that they're going to.

Fenwick works fine in a game between Pittsburgh and Detroit, since they're trying to do the exact same thing. Between Detroit and the Rangers, it tells you next to nothing, since their objectives are different (one is messing with shooting percentages, the other is possessing the puck). Using Fenwick or Corsi as a be-all, end-all in this latter case is like ignoring that card counting can flip the house's advantage on its head.

billybudd is offline   Reply With Quote