No, they're good for improving your understanding of the game/teams/players/what's actually happening, and improving the accuracy of your positions, while limiting the insane biases that infect many of the positions around here.
Because if they're human, they can't, especially as a casual fan with emotional investment, watching limited games. I assume people are human.
how can you prove this, not all fans are casual, lots of posters here on this site are proving you and your mickey mouse stats wrong.... so again do not lump posters as casual fans, arrogance again.
Go do some research on how eyes can deceive. There's plenty, even specifically regarding sports.
Nobody here has proven anything wrong. They have just claimed things with no evidence while insulting me.
Nope. Everybody.
They can watch it well enough to enjoy it and get general ideas from the portions they watch, as long as they don't willfully feed their bias. They cannot gain accurate evaluations of all teams and players in the league, based on their limited and biased viewing.
I don't cherry pick anything. I use a wide range of the most accurate, relevant, and representative stats, and I support them, explain them, and use them consistently, regardless of what they say about the Leafs.
I have no clue who you’re responding to as I have them on ignore. So I’m giving you a like every time time you respond to them. Hahaha.
), there's still only so much stats can tell you and they're nowhere as informative as you seem to think. I refer you (again) to this quote about stats from an NHL GM:They know how to watch hockey. They don't know how to accurately evaluate and assess all things they see and don't see and all teams and players and everything about them all on their own based solely on limiting and biased viewings.
There's a lot that stats can tell you, and they can help you get a lot more information and more accurate information than relying solely on the eye test.
And I will refer you to some of the rest of what he said, from the article you cherry-picked that partial quote from:
There's also a valuable quote that has existed for centuries.
Somebody who utilizes all of the tools available to him to get the most complete and accurate evaluation scouted Matthews in the desert once upon a time.
so you can prove that they scouted matthews with only stats and computers, and not an "eye test" prove it?
Yes, and he used them, in combination with and aided by the use of statistics and information gained through means others than simply watching.
Nobody said they were only using stats and computers, and nobody here is only using stats and computers.
They tell way more than you think they do.
There's a lot in there that contradicts your suggestion you tied to that quote you cherry picked from the article.
but you said the eye test is no good, so which is it?
The eye test is flawed, and cannot be used exclusively to accurately evaluate all teams and players. That doesn't mean watching games is entirely useless. Not sure why some need to speak in such extremes.
And all other tools available to him, including statistics and information he gained through the use of statistics.
Stop misrepresenting what I said. They don't know how to accurately evaluate and assess all things they see and don't see and all teams and players and everything about them all on their own based solely on limiting and biased viewings.
