Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Change is good.
Yeah I guess the last 6/9 cup winners being top 5 in CF% just isn't enough predictive for you. They have to be right 100% of the time or they're super flawed right?
Not to mention the fact that Pittsburgh's possession drastically improved after Michel Therrien got fired, and Boston was just a weird case.
And no, LA's paltry 2-8 record in the shootout deciding their record for the most part does nothing at all to discredit stats.
I also love hearing the "Rangers are great and their stats aren't" argument to discredit the stats. Colorado won the hardest division in hockey last year, and they suck. Their stats were horrible, and lo and behold it bit them hard in the ass this year; like almost everyone knew they would.
Wow I've never seen this strawman before so original!!!!!!
Again, correct. If the Kings had fallen to, say, 12th or 13th, and were the Rangers 7th or 8th overall, then I'd be more inclined to agree with you. And I wouldn't be that fussed about the variance.
But the fact that the #1 overall team after 82 games in this stat failed to even make the 16-team playoff field, while the team that finished tops in the league over the same period - setting franchise records in the process - barely squeaked out of the bottom 3rd of the rankings in that same stat is pretty damning evidence, IMO.
You know what I think CF% is predictive of? I think it is predictive of playing like the LA Kings. That style happened to work well for a period of time and so it led to a false correlation (or, if you prefer, you could say it led to a correlation that was correct for a period of time). Teams have adjusted, come up with new strategies and that style is no longer as effective and the fallacy of the correlation has been exposed (or, if you prefer, it is no longer correct).
Hence, my earlier stated position that I don't dislike advanced stats, I just don't think these are particularly advanced. Like in baseball, I expect them to evolve over the next 5-10 years and you'll start to see correlations that survive changes in style (or at least survive them better - to your point, I don't ever expect to see exact 1-to-1 correlation).
What confuses me is why you and others are so steadfast in defending this particular early iteration of advanced stats as the be-all, end-all...
Last edited: