And again, your premise is that I am a member of the Stan fan club.No idiots are the enemy of the truth.
Both of you are conveniently twisting any arguments in an extreme manner - like oh 'you ONLY trust a random internet dude' - and acting as if you guys aren't LESS informed than said random internet dude
There's a lot of shots at Garret on here, JFresh, etc... anyone knows that you take a holistic approach to data - look at various models, look at the basic statistics and then make an informed decision. Models already do that and the guys who make them are always careful to point out their potential flaws.
When someone uses ANY example that doesn't agree with you - both you and @Buffdog portray it like we are worshipping this one and ONLY ONE form of data.
I hate to break it to you guys - but we all watch the same games and see the same players, their actions form our bias - models and statistics exist to either confirm or reject this bias based on an array of data.
Neither of you - nor I - spend significant time analyzing data. When someone quotes a model or statistics, your only answer is to take things to an extreme example in order to refute that data... like @Buffdog arguing that I said 'statistics' instead model - when they serve the same purpose.
The level of banality that this board has reached makes me think its time for a break...
Here's your facts to end this ridiculousness
The Jets are stuck in a sunk-cost fallacy with Stanley - the odds of him emerging are almost zero
We are paying him twice what a 7th Dman should be making - in that sense he's using $$ that could go towards another asset
Nothing shows that he's an effective PKer - eye test or stats
He has only played extremely sheltered minutes - leaving our top 4 with a heavier workload
His stats this year were elevated by the Samberg effect
He was fatally exposed in the playoffs
He is slow and does not read lanes well
He has a long reach
Good luck with the Stan fan club... you're going to need it.
I've stated over and over again that I don't really care about Stanley one way or another, I see him for what he is, a depth defenseman.
Anyone who doesn't align with your feelings about Stanley is somehow in love with him, that's super objective.
As for the people behind advanced stats, I never mention them by name because I don't know enough about them. As a matter of fact even though I don't necessarily agree with garet I have a lot of respect for him.
My objections are purely with the science behind how the data is compiled, defined and aggregated. I've clearly stated my arguments here many times, yet you continue to rebut with non sequitirs.
I work with data every day in my job. I am not a data scientist, but I know enough about statistics and metrics to know the fundamentals of good data and model building to see the problems with advanced stats for hockey as they are today
Factual data in hockey is mostly fine, unless that data requires interpretation that can introduce bias or lack of expertise into it.
When you start trying to build models that attempt to display things like shot, competition, or chance quality, that opens the model up to a lot of environmental pollution and bias that can degrade the accuracy and consistency of the model.
It's funny that the same people that hate plus minus don't realize that some of these other advanced stats are just as flawed for many of the same reasons.
You go ahead and project what others have said on me, though. Keep that torch burnin!
Last edited: