Is there a 'Bill James' of hockey?

[Bear of Bad News]

What would make a sabremetician's eyes light up is Womack's huge number of runs scored in a contract year. I agree with you though, it doesn't make a ton of sense.

"Runs scored" is a function of position in the lineup more than a function of a player's ability. A leadoff hitter will almost always have plenty of runs scored, especially if the lineup behind him is potent. That's why I think you're confusing "traditional baseball numbers" with sabremetrics.

Sabremetricians don't look at "runs scored" any more serious than they do RBI.

And as for Kenny Lofton and John Olerud? Batting average and (in Lofton's case) stolen bases. Two more statistics that sabremetricians generally ignore.

In other words, you're attacking strawmen here, because sabremetricians would not identify Lofton or Olerud as players that are particularly able to help a team.

 

[Injektilo]

True, Jagr gets -1 and Marshall gets +1 on this play. But say Jagr is making a fast break, and makes a beautiful pass to Marcel Hossa, who in turn causes a quick turnover to Brian Gionta (while Grant Marshall is twiddling his thumbs on the other side of the ice) , who skates down the ice and scores. Jagr still gets -1, even though he didn't have anything to do with the goal scoring, and Marshall still gets +1, although he didn't contribute much.

That's why you shouldn't be judging these things based on one game. Sample size people.... it's very important. One game means nothing. 5 games mean nothing. 82 games... they mean something.

 

[Vomiting Kermit*]

It's fine to look at the stats and break them down and create new ones and all that.

But in the end, they aren't the be all and end all.

Billy Beane would argue otherwise.