We here at Hockey Wilderness do not believe the numbers referred to "advanced stats" have as much value as is given to them. We feel they have a certain level of value in describing what has happened in the past, but do not carry the predictive power that many claim they have in specific situations. While they may lead, in the long term and with a great deal of refining and revision, to some predictive ability, their short term value is nil.

We do not feel we are wronging the world by not buying in. Healthy skepticism helps to refine any theory, and that's all this is, a theory. The numbers are as imperfect as the people who developed them, and have failings that cannot be ignored.

We here at Hockey Wilderness hold a great deal of respect for those writers leading the charge of statistical analysis of the game of hockey. Starting from scratch and building new statistical models is a massive undertaking, and we hope that some day, those analyses pan out with a proportionate amount of value as the work that has gone into creating them. Right now, we do not feel this is the case.

The crux of the argument we have made here at Hockey Wilderness is that hockey cannot be measured in ways similar to baseball, football, or other sports in which there are set beginnings and ending to each "play." The ebb and flow of the game we all love creates an inherent weakness in measuring the game in stats based on instances and singular moments in time.

This argument does not change depending on the type of statistical analysis being debated. Corsi, Relative Corsi, QUALCOMP and the like all have failings that we feel limit their value to the point that we do not see value in using them at this time. We do not begrudge those that see the value, nor do we begrudge those who wish to continue their attempts to make the analysis worthwhile.

Right now, at this moment in time, the statistical analysis of the game of hockey is incomplete and cannot be used in the way "Moneyball" is used in the game of baseball. This could very well change down the road, but right now, the predictive abilities of these analyses do not hold enough value to convince us to change our opinion.

If this opinion does not meet with your approval, we kindly invite you to take your readership to one of the other fine SBNation hockey sites that have embraced "advanced" stats and their debates on the topic. We here at Hockey Wilderness will not engage in the analysis, nor do we care about your opinion on the matter. Arguing with the staff and readership of Hockey Wilderness is a complete waste of your time and ours.

We simply do not care about the stats, we see no value in them, and no matter how many numbers you throw at us, you are not going to convince us otherwise. The debate has taken on a religious fervor, with those arguing in favor of statistics feeling personally insulted by those of us who do not agree with them, and those opposed to the value of statistical analysis being subjected to insults and treated as though we are simply too stupid to understand.

We do understand, we just don't care. Let's just agree to disagree, and move on with loving the game of hockey in our own unique ways.