Feisty, I totally agree they need to be used in conjunction. Then I think, on top of that, we need to look at the roll the player is filling and consider (since even the coach who is with them day in day out can't be certain) the chemistry he is contributing to.
Clearly CBGB is filling a need. Clearly that need just can't be the big time minutes and line match-ups etc. I mean it's all been said here. It's not sustainable. it is in fact not actually working now -- but it makes fans and probably the team feel a little more confident so... so it's been working more than anything else lately. I dont see it as being as effective now... and sure, you kind of want to hold out for Carter's return and sure Bernier is really the go-to guy. BUT maybe Bernier doesn't need that pressure? Maybe Gionta takes that off of him even if he's not physically contributing the the performance of his lines-mates.
I do think we create our own luck. Out of what? Well -- I think the microstats ( why can't we just call them teeny datasets which is what they are we gotta make 'em sexy to sports writers I guess) are trying to get to that place - that predictor. There are pretty decent algorithms out there which can really help predict outcomes with teeny amounts of data - I mean with science you NEED that. I think i still have issues with the quality even if you can justify the sparse data. I think the variables in hockey are too great for the stats, ehem - microstats, we have now. But I do think they're valuable.
You just HAVE TO look at the intangibles though when it comes to CBGB-like situations.
I'm a big fan of blowing things apart to get to the raw exposed wound that needs fixing. and in all truth I'm kind of almost there -- BUT then I think the problem isn't that CBGB is kind of sort of producing - the problem is that the other guys are not. and now no one is resting on our 4th lines production as they may have been when this thread was started.
So I dont think that the stats are responsible for the earth shattering prediction "CBGB can't sustain the teams winning record". All responses agreed that it's a no brainer but just because you can drum up some hard numbers doesn't mean it should be tampered with. No, in fact, we just need to be thankful and even without the stats - we were bracing for the crash.
but because it may be fun what do you think the stats old and new forewarned us about or are forwarning us about - that isn't self-evident now?
and what combined stats are going to get a closer to the algorithm for chemistry. Math is the language of God - we MUST have a way to mathematically predict chemistry or not? This is my internal debate for ALL OF LIFE - not just hockey. Richard Feynman would tell me shut the fvck up and relax or some combination thereof...
(I think the reaction in this thread wasn't so much "microstats are bullsh!t and CBGB is fabulous" as it was "NO sh!t SHERLOCK! So what's the brilliant plan - destroy the one thing that may not be WORKING but puts some bacon on the table?" Corsis and Fenwicks weren't necessary at all to make the threads obvious point. Reaction is so huge because microstats offer no solution except finger pointing -- NOT pin pointing as it hides behind in this infant stage microstats are in.
I write too much at one time. Oh well. Too much going on and not enough time to be patient.