And your argument for stats has a whole lot of holes...
1. Expected stats, are highly unreliable. Not only is hockey a game with close to infinite possible results on any given play, there is no consensus method to calculate these stats.
2. Stats are only as reliable as the person sharing them as they are very easily manipulated, and frankly I have generally thought your opinions are utter garbage on a good day, so I don't trust the stats you would present.
3. Sample size. It f***ing matters.
As opposed to letting him walk for free?
Bitching about the return on an expiring asset makes no sense since we'd take the best offer.
This is just pedantic now, because it doesn’t perfectly encompass the sport it’s useless now? Once again I find the people who struggle with it the most are the ones who aren’t very fluent with numbers, they do still need to be contextualized and compared against actual results. Disregarding them though is asinine.
They can’t be manipulated unless you’re accusing me of making numbers up. They can be cherry picked, using only data that supports an argument while leaving out data that flies in the face of it however. So yes if you see someone relying on one single stat to prove a point I’d be weary. Something tells me you’ll come up with a reason why a lot more data showing the same thing doesn’t change anything though.
Data trends are also important not just sample size. If a machine is producing materials with a .1% fail rate for months, and all of a sudden has 5 defects in a stretch of 10 products, you don’t assume random variance you assume something just broke. We don’t have much to go off of yet this year, but what we do have would be fool hardy to ignore. The ironic part is you’re arguing against advanced stats because of sample size but it’s actually the best sample we have. Our actual results have been dictated by about 25 goals that have those chaotic elements you’ve mentioned. So far there have been 372 chances across those 3 games.
