Well stop being annoyed
, If anything I should be annoyed; after 30 years of playing and watching, I'm told I must be ignorant to what poor defense is because I don't agree with an opinion because it's based on some statistics that only tell part of the story, statistics which are meant to be a suggestion in the best of cases, statistics a good amount of people in this fan base has taken as gospel.
I'm not an "advanced stats" guy, but I accept that they are the "it" thing right now. But I cant ****ing stand this new age **** that attempts to marginalize opinions that aren't backed by analytics. I good conversation could of been had without them.
Anyway, for the second time, I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just tossing the same truths right back at you, you tell me I'm coming off as ignorant? I tell you your coming off as a sheep. But you don't need to give me an answer, I didn't ask a question... that I can recall. I just shared what I learned.
And your getting the wrong idea; I respect your opinion and outlook, that's why I apologized in a previous post because you felt insulted. I lack tact at times, a bad habit, but I don't want you thinking I'm attacking you.
Then we're all fine, Cotton.
I just want to clarify one thing. The ignorant comment was about cognitive science, not actual hockey knowledge. And I use the word 'ignorant' as "lacking knowledge" which I don't think is an insult, nobody can know everything.
I think the thing with Gardiner and his stat that sometimes confuses matters is that we need to separate defensive ability and defensive effect. I don't think Gardiner is terrific defensively myself, although he has certainly improved. What I think is that he can use his skating to enter more defensive situations than most D-men, and that he is terrific at moving the puck up the ice, which helps him post great defensive numbers. Adequate ability, but great effect.
Quite frankly, I'm happy to discuss with someone who doesn't just go blank when I try to evolve the discussion of defensive ability beyond "tough in the corners".
I'll continue below, as my answer to RLF is probably of interest to you as well.
And you know I respect your views and knowledge, so it is not about that. You know how I feel about stats being used as the "trump card" so to speak in a "who is better" discussion. I give it consideration, but not the final say. ADV stats contradict each other on so many occasions it is not anymore a valid argument alone than an eye test. If you believe that via eye test and stats combined, Gardiner is the better defenceman right now, that is fine and I can respect that evaluation. I don't like the "ADV stats" say so defence.
And I respect that. There is a certain poster on this site that rubs me the wrong way for the same reason, using different stats as gospel with a severely lacking knowledge of their uses and limitations.
I think that advanced stats have changed the discussion because it introduces something tangible. Without it, our discussion is so often about subjective opinions, so it's hard to actually convince anybody. I think that's why some people seem to rely on it so much, since it allows you to offer something tangible in support of your opinion, or in contradiction to someone else's statement.
Personally, I feel the discussion can grow rather stale sometime. It's always a question of "how good is player X?". That's where it's easy to turn to stats. But rarely the question turns to "in what way is player X good?" and "what does this mean for his situational usefulness?". These are questions that is qualitative in nature, where we can explore abilities and skill sets in a tactical context.
I know I sometimes come across as staring blindly at stats, but that's not really true. In fact, a part of my process is to learn the stats and what they say about a player, and then see if you can poke holes in them for that specific example. You have to ask the right questions though. People mention zone starts, and I think back to what I've learned of its impacts on numbers and is doubtful. People say "I don't like having Gardiner out there against lines with physicality and speed, as they play to his weakness and neuter his strengths", then I listen.
I think that's where the quality discussion can go wrong sometimes. It's always about how good the player is in a general sense, which is all the metrics we normally use tell us.
Example: If you take a sample size of the last 3 years and look at a holistic statistical analysis view, Crosby is quite easily the best forward in the league. However, he has struggled when facing the best centers in the league. On the other hand, Bergeron is not close to him in a general sense, but he just continues being as effective no matter if it's Bozak or Crosby on the other side. In a general sense, Crosby is the better player. But does that really matter in a playoff matchup?