slappybrown wrote:Which is why they only used away rather than home data. To cut out the statistical noise in favor of the home team. Garbage in, garbage out, but it seems your argument for the existence of shot quality is:
"Long term repeatable observable Shot quality exists because I say it exists."
Ill address your other points later this weekend.
But scoring chances don't inspire a lot of confidence in me as a stat, much less processed and prodded and poked and pushed into other stats.
Stat community: "We don't want human subjectivity to get in the way of player evaluation...so, we'll use these statistics based on human subjectivity from humans that may or may not know even less about the game than we do to eliminate this subjectivity..."
I mean, how does shot quality not exist? Because it can't be quantified, therefore it's attacked? That seems too convenient.
"Well, we cured all of the diseases known to man, except the common cold...so, uh, from now on, the common cold doesn't exist...it's made up...that's just allergies..."
Why does every goalie that plays for Boston have awesome statistics...? Why do good goalie numbers seem to follow Dave Tippett around? Why did Ottawa have three of the top 8 goaltenders in save pct. this year (just before they shipped off Bishop...)? Why did the goaltenders on Al Arbour's Islanders in the 1980's have stat trends like they did? Why has the save pct. record* been broken three consecutive years by goalies that have been recently rejected on multiple occasions in their NHL careers?
Why do teams bother with defensive systems if shot quality doesn't exist in any significant way?