What I took from Chevy's quote is that the actual information that stats like Corsi or Fenwick will tell you isn't really that valuable most of the time. Or at least it doesn't tell you anything more valuable than what you already know from watching a game play out and studying tape after. I thought it was more that he was suggesting that shots-based stats really oversimplify the game from his standpoint so that data is of limited use.
Using Stewart as an example, he isn't the fastest player on the ice so if a team's matching lines up against the Jets, there's a good chance that if possible they want to put some speed on that wing and maybe even stretch things out a bit more on their breakouts to try and take advantage of this. For an extreme case, in response Winnipeg could decide to bias Stewart's starts to be more heavily weighted to being on their own side of centre so there's less chance of guys being able to gain much speed and beat him. Depending on the score and if the other team adjusts their matchups, this may change. The stats can help paint a picture of what happened during the game but you lose all context as to why things went the way they did, you just get the net results. They definitely have some value but I suspect Chevy believes they provide too limited information to be of huge value. So they may look at them but they aren't going to be making any major decisions based on them. I personally find them somewhat interesting for games I didn't get to watch because they can tell you more about what happened than just checking game summaries.
- clematrix
One of the things I've learned from reading the work of stats people is the questions they ask are as important as the answer. I think the Stuart scenario is a great example. If coaches are keying in on Stuart- why? Why is Stu's coach letting him get keyed on?
What happens when Stuart is on the ice that leads to so many more blocked shots? Is it him who only goes to block them or is something else happening? We have Shiftchart to see who is being shifted with who and such as well so we can see how things appears as players play.
What I think is being overlooked by many with stats is we do not know how teams weight them in value towards a player's total value. If a guy like Burmistrov is such a possession monster and possession is good why is every effort to retain him not made? I would answer that stats don't tell the whole story with him and are only one part of the variables in his overall value.
The other thing with information is what part of it from a macro level do you set your attention threshold at for any particular stat? For a contract like Stu's is he being paid to stay here or being paid to perform. I'm thinking it's more the latter as he got a raise, got term yet is entering the decline period of his game. That's fine but with the volume of info out there teams may have to be a little more transparent on things. Not much but a bit more.
