This is such a mischaracterization of my position and a misunderstanding of data as an evaluation tool. You believe these things, therefore your confirmation bias is saying they have an effect. When you ascribe value to that confirmation bias is when people like me think you believe the sun rotates around the earth.
When you say "you cant quantify everything" its a means of invalidating what you can qualify despite millions of data points creating statistical significance. You're replacing that objective measurement with magic underwear.
High Danger chances/60 on the kill
20-21 (no Forbort) - 16.32
21-22 (Forbort) - 18.25
22-23 (Forbort) - 18.22
22-23 (w/o Forbort) - 18.32
Before you go nuts, that 1/10 of a chance adds up to less than 1/100th of a high danger chance per kill lol.
Their PK is elite because it's elite. Forbort is a part of that and gets credit for that. What he doesn't get is the magic underwear credit you're hoping to assign to him here. Neither does Carlo or Lindholm or anyone, btw. There isn't a player on this team (even Bergeron) who is having a marked impact on PK performance. It's a good system with disciplined players playing it.
So you're right, can I quantify the emotional impact that Forbort has laying that guy out yesterday? I can't. But what I can quantify is the teams performance as a result and that is 1 millions times more significant than someone's feeling about what happened. The numbers are objective, magic underwear is not.
And to the bolded, AGAIN, stop saying I'm crapping on him. I was responding to someone who said something statistically incorrect when this discussion began and I've consistently said his play is better than league average and his PK performance is elite. You guys just want me to say OHMYGOD I LOVE HIM SO MUCH instead of having an actual conversation about what's happening on the ice.
And the first bolded is a gross mischaracterization of my stance as well. I have no intention of invalidating the available data points at all. They are there, they have meaning and use. The difference is I don’t think they are perfection and I don't think they truly can tell you the full story without watching the game itself. My post only means to open you up to different logical thinking (ie the effect the things you cannot quantify may have on the game and how they may affect numbers that YOU say is explained as 'chance' but I say can be explained in other ways), rather than to completely illigetimize your argument.
As for the 2nd bolded that's actually outright false. Sure, the peripheral analytics are saying the team is just as good with and without him on the PK and therefore he isn't making an impact above and beyond. I get that logically his PK numbers should come down and quantifiably he isn't making a larger impact given the numbers you provided....except for the fact that every single PK goal scored this goal EXCEPT FOR 1 was with him not on the ice. How is that not making an impact above other people? Because analytics are saying that it shouldn't be happening?
Let's look at another stat....Bruins PK% up until November 1st (the game that Forbort gets hurt) is 94.6%. Care to venture a guess what their PK looks like the next month that Forbort is out? 78%. Is that just fluke as well? Is there something outside of analytics that could be an answer for this? Dare I say, is Forbort just damn good at his role? And guess what happens to the PK when Forbort is back? Stop me if you heard this before....it improves once again, to the tune of 91.8%.
BTW, the person you replied to said that Forbort is an example of defensmens primary job, which is making it harder to score and not transition and puck moving (paraphrasing the poster). YOU came in and said "he gives up the most ga/60 minutes."
Where did he say anything statistically incorrect? Harder to score against is a pretty broad term, it's not like he was claiming "Forbort is the best defensive dman in the league" or "Forbort is an elite shutdown dman." He simply offered his opinion on the style of defense he plays vs. a transition dman, and you saw it as an opportunity to downplay Forbort, IMO at least.
I don't think our difference in philosiphy is vast, by trade I am an numbers guy both in my schooling and in my job, I just continue to disagree with how you view Forbort, while I generally agree with how you view the other Bruins. Guys like Forbort...I just think analytics never will do them justice.
LASTLY, I have zero clue what magic underwear means nor does google apparently.
