PepsiCenterMagic
Food is Great
- Jul 17, 2013
- 651
- 44
I see them finishing around 15th overall. They were overacheiving this year.
I don't think there is a such a thing as overachieving.
I mean, how can there be? The Avalanche had more wins than some teams who possessed the puck more (which possession is assessed by shot attempts?), and by that basis, we are discrediting them for not performing consistent with a relative and evolving theory?
That is only an example. A team is what a team is. The U.S men's hockey team can be as low as supposed underdogs as they want, but once they beat the "better" Russia team (which is based off track record), then all suppositions and analysis don't matter anymore. They are the better team, didn't overachieve. If they overachieved, they went farther than we predicted, or performed better than we thought possible. Well that one is on us, for guessing wrong. Our projections on a team are just a probability, a chance. If a team differs from that, labeling them a certain way using our method as a control in the experiment is against and besides the point. We are proving a system to match the results, not the opposite. The results are in the history books, and our methods only partially right.