GAR is evaluating who had the better year in terms of absolute totals (not rates) so what exactly are you even trying to argue here?There is absolutely no chance that Klingberg or Barrie is a better defenseman than Duncan Keith. They might have had a better year if you look at specific metrics,
Campbell played more min, the defensive boost he provided his team mates was narrowly behind Vlasic and the offensive boost he gave them was greater.Vlasic outscored Campbell last year and played more minutes in tougher situations. If your statistic says Campbell is better than Vlasic, I question the validity of your statistic.
I think the stats are more important for fans that are uncomfortable with their ability to assess talent.
GAR is evaluating who had the better year in terms of absolute totals (not rates) so what exactly are you even trying to argue here?
Campbell played more min, the defensive boost he provided his team mates was narrowly behind Vlasic and the offensive boost he gave them was greater.
Bringing this back to Trouba, last year he had the lowest QoT on the Jets by far, with a 47.8% expected on ice goals. Trouba himself, however had the best expected GF% of 52.8. IOW he played with the weakest set of players and elevated them to the best overall performance. (Byfuglien wins best overall performance if you just base it on volume but expected goals also factors in shot quality, which tilts it in Trouba’s favor)
Trouba is probably better off sticking with Winnipeg for these next 4 years. And then leave as a UFA free to sign with any team of his choice.
What in the **** is going on in this thread. Can a mod please start a Redmond thread and clean this up?
Perhaps. What I have found is that how comfortable and self-assured people are in their ability to assess talent doesn't really correlate to actually having a good eye for the game. Just judging by my time discussing with people on these boards and other places, the ones with the highest opinion of themselves often post the least convincing reports.
I'd say that stats are more important for fans that know that their eye test is invariably flawed and limited by our cognitive processes. There's an inherent bias in how we perceive situations, and we constantly filter the flood of information in a good depending on those biases. That's just how humans work, and while you can train yourself to do better, you can't eliminate the problem.
So we basically see what we want to see, both in what catches our attention and how we handle that information. Furthermore, we are unable to do anything other than educated guesses in many situations. For example, you have two players. Player A has better stick positioning than player B, but he also makes more mistakes. How much better stick positioning would Player A need to have to make up for every extra mistake? We'd take a guess in the dark on that one, but statistical analysis can help us by giving us data on the end result.
It's all information in the end. Best thing you can do for your eye test is realize it's not infallible. Best thing you can do with statistical analysis is to not stretch the conclusions you draw. That's the biggest problem around here on that issue.
Why does every thread turn into a hockey fan's nightmare AND a nerd's wet dream? Pretty soon the players won't even need to play, we'll just simulate the games using "advanced stats".
The Jets would be fools to offer him a contract longer than two years but shorter than six.