The advance stats discussion carries on. Pursuit of new insight to understand, enhance decision making, and search out hidden value is awesome.
I like this article
How the right kind of sports analytics can transform business thinking. which uses an example of posing a question and then following through with an increasingly deeper dive to test and refine conclusions: "Let’s examine LeBron James’ shooting patterns while highlighting the importance of analyzing data from multiple perspectives. In 2017, the
Crumpled Jumper blog examined LeBron’s shooting during the 2016–17 regular season, noting that after making one shot and missing the next, he moved an average of 5 feet closer to the basket on his following attempt."
Now this deep dive process is also supported through highly reliable, direct data source via the NBA tracking
"Modern NBA games can be analyzed with unprecedented precision using NBA tracking data. For over a decade, the league has employed cameras mounted in stadium rafters to record the ball’s location and every player’s position on the court 25 times per second. Additionally, three-dimensional coordinate data is provided for the ball. This level of detail allows analysts to address questions that were once nearly impossible to answer."
Now hockey is an even more complex system with high speed, collisions and a ton of randomness within virtually every activity. The NHL Edge model is still in early adoption so the data source still falls into subjectivity by public and private users. There's variances within models with regard to interpretations of actions and results on ice. There was an article posted months back that suggested the variance was as high as 20% on public models used to parse out advance stats.
There's great value to looking at enhanced data and patterns that it reveals within this complex high chaos game. However like the LeBron example of this article hypothesis need to be more deeply explored into to uncover 'truth'.
I find too often high level advance stats get wielded as 'truth' by some without the thoroughness, rigor and deeper dive analysis required to stump definitive conclusions.