Whileee
Registered User
- May 29, 2010
- 46,075
- 33,132
The good analytics minds seem to be comfortable in their assessments since they know outliers exists and it's an opportunity to bask in the magic that is the Leafs (sic) ineptitude.
But the analytics-adjacent pundits and the dumbasses are getting real defensive about this one:
Imagine thinking two teams that added Zach Bogosian are even examples of analytics teams. Which specifically points to the real reason that analytics don't work--nobody's who's ever in a position to double down on them ever does. None of them have the stomach to see it through to its logical conclusion. Dubas won the civil war then just did the same things Mark Hunter would have done anyhow. @garret9 summed it up nicely:
The Leafs weren't an analytics team. They were following the Jim Rutherford Penguins model: have your elite, tanked-for core and add shitty dinosaur-beloved players to them until something clicks.
My goodness, there are some sensitive nerves out there in the hockey commentariat. Too many lauded Dubas and the Leafs for investing in "analytics", but if you follow their actual moves, they certainly don't seem very aligned with smart analyses.
Meanwhile, immediately after the Jets sweep of the Oilers, there was a chorus of excuse-making from some sensitive members of the analytics social media domain, like the ridiculous claim that it was all about refs letting the Jets clutch and grab McDavid for 4 games. Instead, maybe they should stop being so defensive and just explain that hockey has a lot of randomness and unpredictability, and goaltending performance is underrated by some models as a factor in games and series.
Garret is a notable exception...