Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.
posted at 7/30/2012 3:56 PM EDT
In Response to PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.
[QUOTE]Much has been said lately about the use (or over-use) of statistics in today's game. I came across this "Moneypuck" article from May in which PC and Burke shared some thoughts on the subject. Guess which one of them considers it a valuable tool when evaluating players and which one considers it "horseshit"? I also added an article from a Habs writer that some of you might find interesting. http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2012/03/05/brian-burke-peter-chiarelli-and-moneypuck-part-deux/ http://www.habsworld.net/article.php?id=2865
Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]
this may be a stretch here, but I feel on some level, the doubt of the potency of advanced statistics correlates to doubt of evolution and the proponents of intelligent design. People look around and see such an extraordinary amount of complexity, that they feel overwhelmed and determine it's impossible to understand anything systematic that could produce these changes. The feeling is, because we haven't developed the tools to understand everything about evolution, that we can't--in principle--ever do so.
While Evolution now enjoys 99% of support within the national academy of sciences, it didn't start off that way, the doubters were slowly weaned out until the evidence was so overhwhelming that it became a career-ender for a scientist to doubt evolution in public. The obvious difference here is, the evidence isn't yet overwhelming and there aren't enough established authorities within hockey analytics in order to convince the masses (who, on average, are scientifically illiterate) that they should trust it.
In that sense, I just look at hockey statistics as an undeveloped science. while much less complicated than evolution, hockey may still have enough variables to require computer modeling to make predictions of each player. If I were to guess, these systems will eventually be installed in every team. I suspect, like the stock market, mathematicians are going to move into professional sports and take over player development/evaluation.
When that happens, the laymen still won't know any more about statistics than they used to, but at least they'll have reliable authorities to trust.
I would also point to vegas' ability to use computer models to make accurate predictions (in general) about the outcomes of hockey games. People that imagine statistics cannot be used to appropriately estimate future performance probably believe Las Vegas is simply rolling the dice when setting lines and the over-under. While I don't know enough about Las Vegas' systems to explain what's going on (and will never understand given it's complexity) I'm assured by almost every authority that I've read that Vegas constently gets it right. This is another loose analogy, but i think it fits in some sense.