Captain Mountain
Formerly Captain Wolverine
- Jun 6, 2010
- 20,449
- 14,032
Sorry, but there's some slight of hand going on here.
The first point you make about replicating a cup winner is looking for players who fulfilled similar roles. This is apparently something you shouldn't do. There is no reason why you must specify ''big and heavy'' in this analysis, only, though. The phrase which set you off was ''look at previous cup winners.'' Well, indeed, since ''[you're] not saying don't look at previous cup winners'' one can look at previous cup winners in many ways: specifically by analyzing what, if any, statistical trends are more prevalent in cup winners and their players than in non-cup winners. Or in other words:
Go back and look at the post I replied. Was that post doing an in depth analysis? Or was it saying that you don't need X type of player but need Y type of player, look at past cup winners?
Well, in order to do that, you will have to look at the players who actually won. It's not ''playing catch up.'' It's just how you do the thing. About league environments, you do have to assume some stationarity, but there's a pretty strong argument that league conditions are relatively stationary, with a few abrupt changes every decade or so, and it's based entirely on looking at cup winners: cup winners tend to repeat.
Where the slight of hand comes in is the second point: it's not at all about evaluating which players contribute to your winning (beyond ''investing in analytics''), or what team type of team composition would best accomplish the goal of winning - which was the point that old mate was trying to make originally - but how to optimize team operations. But in order to do that, you need to have a goal, and those goals are what players do we need to fill what roles. In so far as your second point concerns ''proper evaluation of what different players contribute to winning'' any analytics team who knew what they were doing would be doing the exact same process that I described, because that's how analytics work.
It seems like you think that inference and prediction are disjoint tasks. Like, we should be proactive, and attempt to predict how to win. But to predict what will be successful in the future, we need to infer with what sensitivity different players and roles affected a team's success. The prediction will be based on this inference. There's never been a prediction algorithm that didn't do basically this.
P.S. I don't know how you can suggest that we can't tank effectively with the new rules, but we can look at how teams like Chicago used back diving contracts to a competitive advantage with a straight face.
Holy shit, are you inferring a ton of my meaning. You're arguing, generally speaking, the same thing I am but assuming that I mean something else.
Also, I in no way said that Montreal should use back diving contracts. I said that they should look at what made a team like LA successful. They used back diving contracts. Clearly Montreal can't use that right now.
there's no "slight of hand" here. You're just shadowboxing.