In the previous post we mentioned the Goodhart's Law and how it threatens any evaluation of an object. We said that it traps the Corsi/Fenwick approach because it substitutes the complex function of evaluation of a hockey player by a remarkably simple stat - shots.
Goodhart's law is not alone. In any research it is preceded by the two pillars: Popper's law of falsifiability and the Occam's razor. A theory willing to bear any scientific value must comply with both, i.e. to produce hypotheses that can be overthrown by experiment or observation (and then relegated to the trashcan), and to avoid introduction of new parameters beyond the already existing ones. Add Granger causality into the mix and we see that the four Brits presented the hockey analytics society with pretty tough questions that the society - at least the public one - seems to be trying to avoid.
The avoidance will not help. Any evaluation system will not be able to claim credibility unless it complies with the four postulates above, and within that compliance issues measurable projections.
To be continued...