All Purpose Analytics and Extended Stats Discussion

[ChibiPooky]

Re: negotiations

I believe that the NHL stopped reporting sv% for a while in the 60s or 70s because teams didn't want it to be used in contract negotiations. I think only the NHL published stats are used in arbitration.

I found it interesting that Holtby said he's always been taught not to rely on save percentage as a stat. There's really nothing else out there to use to measure individual goaltender performance.

 

[g00n]

As far as I know it's just the boxcar stats. G, A, P, TOI, +/-, etc.

A goal will always be a goal. Teams trying to score more goals doesn't change anything about that stat or about the game. Do we really have to go through this?

Never mind that Corsi/Fenwick, being predictive stats, already aren't really useful for telling you how well someone played in the past - only how likely it is that they'll continue that performance in the future.

So is +/- valid? Every secondary assist is equally valid...why not a tertiary assist? Who controls TOI...the player or the coach?

My point is that fancy stats are trending up, not down, and won't be dumped due to "validity" reasons based on player awareness any time soon, especially if these other stats aren't.

 

[g00n]

Yes. And would you argue that they're losing because of the play of the skaters?

The question was about high stats and winning, not who is to blame. You can produce a lot of good skater stats and still lose, either by goalie death or other "puck luck" reasons.

Why are we fighting the idea that players on losing teams can pad stats?? It happens all the time in sports. I think the opposition comes because there's a sacred core belief that "good fancy stats means wins". Even if that were demonstrably true with no shadow of a doubt in the past the entire point of this debate today is that THAT MAY CHANGE as players and coaches become more aware of them. And simply saying "then they won't be valid" isn't really supported by past and present practices around the league regarding other stats.

 

[ChibiPooky]

So is +/- valid? Every secondary assist is equally valid...why not a tertiary assist? Who controls TOI...the player or the coach?

My point is that fancy stats are trending up, not down, and won't be dumped due to "validity" reasons based on player awareness any time soon, especially if these other stats aren't.

+/-'s validity won't change if people try to play for a better +/- (in fact, they likely do).

The only reason fancy stats are trending up is because they correlate with winning. If players/teams start playing for fancy stats, they won't correlate with winning anymore, and they won't be useful. But again, you'd be talking about some weird NHL in which the team with the most shot attempts wins. It's still goals that win, so yes, I expect the upward trend of analytics to continue.

 

[g00n]

+/-'s validity won't change if people try to play for a better +/- (in fact, they likely do).

The only reason fancy stats are trending up is because they correlate with winning. If players/teams start playing for fancy stats, they won't correlate with winning anymore, and they won't be useful. But again, you'd be talking about some weird NHL in which the team with the most shot attempts wins. It's still goals that win, so yes, I expect the upward trend of analytics to continue.

The exact reason the stat is invalid doesn't change the fact that a laughably bad stat is still being used in arbitration. If that's the case, there's no reason to believe players shooting more to boost fancy stats will be thrown out due to "validity".

You are imagining a scenario where individual and team stats all agree. They don't. And they probably won't even after many players attempt to boost their stats. We are already seeing amazing "teasing" of the data to "normalize" for this and that until a somewhat positive correlation is seen. That will likely never stop and only get more complex and fine-tuned. X and Y axis scale tweaking uber alles.

 

[Hivemind]

I found it interesting that Holtby said he's always been taught not to rely on save percentage as a stat. There's really nothing else out there to use to measure individual goaltender performance.

I think that's more of a point that players should focus on the process, not the results. The rest of the article really highlights that (specifically the bit about "hockey gods" and Giordano's goal).

 

[ChibiPooky]

The question was about high stats and winning, not who is to blame. You can produce a lot of good skater stats and still lose, either by goalie death or other "puck luck" reasons.

No, the discussion was about shooting a lot on purpose to disguise a losing team as a better team. And in the case of the high scoring team giving up a lot of goals and losing, you have to examine the underlying causes to see why they're losing. I think you'll find that it's not because they're scoring/shooting a lot.

Why are we fighting the idea that players on losing teams can pad stats?? It happens all the time in sports. I think the opposition comes because there's a sacred core belief that "good fancy stats means wins". Even if that were demonstrably true with no shadow of a doubt in the past the entire point of this debate today is that THAT MAY CHANGE as players and coaches become more aware of them. And simply saying "then they won't be valid" isn't really supported by past and present practices around the league regarding other stats.

Who's fighting the idea that players can pad fancy stats? It's certainly possible for them to do so. It doesn't do them any good to do so, but they can.

And it's not a "belief" that "good fancy stats means wins." It's a mathematically proven correlation (not causation) that gives a measurable expectation of certainty based on the number of games you examine. If your good fancy stats persist over a large number of games, you expect to win more of those games (how many more is based on how good your fancy stats are). This is demonstrably true beyond a shadow of a doubt. At 12 games, the expectation of certainty is very low (but not as low as at 5 games).

There's no debate about whether it could change or not. If players and coaches start to play to boost their Corsi/Fenwick ratings, then it will absolutely change, and depending on how significant the change is, it may well invalidate the very statistics they're trying to pad. Whether the league tracks the statistic or not isn't really relevant.

 

[ChibiPooky]

The exact reason the stat is invalid doesn't change the fact that a laughably bad stat is still being used in arbitration. If that's the case, there's no reason to believe players shooting more to boost fancy stats will be thrown out due to "validity".

You are imagining a scenario where individual and team stats all agree. They don't. And they probably won't even after many players attempt to boost their stats. We are already seeing amazing "teasing" of the data to "normalize" for this and that until a somewhat positive correlation is seen. That will likely never stop and only get more complex and fine-tuned. X and Y axis scale tweaking uber alles.

Don't get me wrong. I hate +/-. It's bad, but it is completely statistically valid. And playing to boost your +/- doesn't change the game in a way that makes it statistically invalid. I think you may be using a different definition of "valid" than I am. I don't mean useful or meaningful or any type of subjective thing. I mean that the critical assumptions that it is founded upon are true. In the case of Corsi, the critical assumption that teams shoot in order to score goals would fail and thus the stat would have no basis. That doesn't apply to +/- or any of the other boxcar stats and it's one reason a lot of people are skeptical of the shot-attempt-based metrics.

I do think you misinterpret the "teasing" of the data here. These are analysts trying to generate a more useful statistic, and looking to correlation as an indicator of how useful what they have is. IMO.

 

[g00n]

Don't get me wrong. I hate +/-. It's bad, but it is completely statistically valid. And playing to boost your +/- doesn't change the game in a way that makes it statistically invalid. I think you may be using a different definition of "valid" than I am. I don't mean useful or meaningful or any type of subjective thing. I mean that the critical assumptions that it is founded upon are true. In the case of Corsi, the critical assumption that teams shoot in order to score goals would fail and thus the stat would have no basis. That doesn't apply to +/- or any of the other boxcar stats and it's one reason a lot of people are skeptical of the shot-attempt-based metrics.

I do think you misinterpret the "teasing" of the data here. These are analysts trying to generate a more useful statistic, and looking to correlation as an indicator of how useful what they have is. IMO.

I know what you meant. It doesn't change my argument.

 

[ChibiPooky]

I know what you meant. It doesn't change my argument.

Then I have no idea what you're going on about.

 

[g00n]

Then I have no idea what you're going on about.

Fair enough.

 

[Ajax1995]

So there was something fairly interesting said in Trotz's interview today where he mentioned that ice time stats have been way off recently. He mentioned the Chicago game in particular and also said often when lines are shaken up mid game or someone gets injured that is often the case.

That obviously has implications on the accuracy of many fancy stats I would think. I'm not talking about what they mean just how they are tracked.

 

[BobRouse]

There's no debate about whether it could change or not. If players and coaches start to play to boost their Corsi/Fenwick ratings, then it will absolutely change, and depending on how significant the change is, it may well invalidate the very statistics they're trying to pad. Whether the league tracks the statistic or not isn't really relevant.

I don't think this will happen. I mean if players and coaches do that then it means they are shooting more. You can't score if you don't shoot. Coaches pound it into players heads and always tell them to shoot more.

I remember that awful series vs Tampa. Guy Boucher's strategy was to fling pucks at the net from any angle and they scored a suprising amount of goals that way.

These stats should tell the players something...SHOOT! Marcus Johansson is doing that and looking alot better this year for example. Bad angle shots and banks go in too.

 

[g00n]

I don't think this will happen. I mean if players and coaches do that then it means they are shooting more. You can't score if you don't shoot. Coaches pound it into players heads and always tell them to shoot more.

I remember that awful series vs Tampa. Guy Boucher's strategy was to fling pucks at the net from any angle and they scored a suprising amount of goals that way.

These stats should tell the players something...SHOOT! Marcus Johansson is doing that and looking alot better this year for example. Bad angle shots and banks go in too.

Did you read the last few pages of this thread about how shooting alone isn't what's producing winning (it's a byproduct of what good teams do) and how the stat can get corrupted by emphasizing shooting alone?

It was noted by Joe B and Locker during last game that Trotz has been emphasizing taking shots since camp. As I said, it could be one example of how coaching guys to shoot more will boost "possession" BUT absent some other things it may not result in wins.

Mojo, Backstrom and many Swedes need to shoot more. It's a thing.

btw, didn't you argue with me when I talked about TB's strategy of flinging the puck at the net from all angles and how BB never adjusted to that? Wasn't that you?

 

[BobRouse]

Did you read the last few pages of this thread about how shooting alone isn't what's producing winning (it's a byproduct of what good teams do) and how the stat can get corrupted by emphasizing shooting alone?

It was noted by Joe B and Locker during last game that Trotz has been emphasizing taking shots since camp. As I said, it could be one example of how coaching guys to shoot more will boost "possession" BUT absent some other things it may not result in wins.

Mojo, Backstrom and many Swedes need to shoot more. It's a thing.

btw, didn't you argue with me when I talked about TB's strategy of flinging the puck at the net from all angles and how BB never adjusted to that? Wasn't that you?

The Caps outshot Tampa heavily in that series but Tampa's shots went in. They don't go in if they don't shoot.

Thats the point I'm making. Coaches preach shooting more all the time. Gretzky himself made a famous slogan in favor of shooting.

Get pucks to the net. You can't score if you don't shoot. We hear this time and time again.

Also shooting more opens up passing lanes since opposing players don't automatically assume you are going to pass.

You can tell how good Ovechkin is playing generally by the number of shots he's getting off.

Its true that you have to work hard and do the right things just to get in position for the shot. Its part of finding a way to get shots on net.

So if these stats change the way coaches and players play I'd be suprised b/c they are ALREADY trying to play that way for the most part. The coach can see who is actually executing or not by looking at these metrics.

 

[tycoonheart]

Are there fancy stats available for the Montreal series? I'd like to see what those show. 'Coz we did fling a crap load of pucks at the net.

 

[BobRouse]

Are there fancy stats available for the Montreal series? I'd like to see what those show. 'Coz we did fling a crap load of pucks at the net.

I believe so and it was disgustingly in our favor.

The problem is, as was explained to me, that 7 game series are a small sample size and weird things can happen (i.e. getting Halaked)

Here's an interesting article:

http://puckprediction.com/2014/05/21/what-we-can-predict-and-what-we-cant/

The reason playoff series are so difficult to predict is that fluctuations in luck can happen at any moment, and the team that experiences the fewest dry spells in April, May and June is the one that ends up hoisting the big trophy. Sometimes, luck comes in the form of match-ups. The Red Wings won the Cup in 2008 with a PDO under 1.000; while that’s incredibly impressive, it didn’t hurt that they avoided teams like San Jose and the Rangers that year. Similarly, while the Blackhawks were very deserving winners in 2010, they had to be thanking the Montreal Canadiens for preventing a Finals match-up with either Pittsburgh or Washington.

As a counterpoint, consider the famous upset of the Washington Capitals by the Canadiens in 2010. In the course of going up 3-1 in that series, the Caps had a PDO of 1.045; in the final three games, Jaroslav Halak’s resurgence gave Washington a PDO of just 0.936. Whether because of match-ups or low PDO, many, many teams playing strong possession hockey don’t end up winning in the playoffs. For better or worse, what separates the winners from the also-rans is simple puck luck, not possession.

The idea is that during a short 7 game playoff series its alot easier to get lucky/unlucky or for a goalie to get hot just at the right time.

Pretty much outside of 1998 we have gotten out goaltended most every time we've been in the playoffs. Perhaps 1990 too.

Caps really have had some horrible luck in the postseason and its not b/c they had terrible possession numbers.

They out possessioned a strong possession team in the Rangers both the last 2 times they met them in the post season. But they lost as Lundqvuist was simply better than Holtby. We got out-possessioned by the Bs but Holtby outdueled Thomas.

 

[ChibiPooky]

The Caps outshot Tampa heavily in that series but Tampa's shots went in. They don't go in if they don't shoot.

Thats the point I'm making. Coaches preach shooting more all the time. Gretzky himself made a famous slogan in favor of shooting.

Get pucks to the net. You can't score if you don't shoot. We hear this time and time again.

Also shooting more opens up passing lanes since opposing players don't automatically assume you are going to pass.

You can tell how good Ovechkin is playing generally by the number of shots he's getting off.

Its true that you have to work hard and do the right things just to get in position for the shot. Its part of finding a way to get shots on net.

So if these stats change the way coaches and players play I'd be suprised b/c they are ALREADY trying to play that way for the most part. The coach can see who is actually executing or not by looking at these metrics.

BR, he's talking about taking bad shots just to be taking a shot, as opposed to working for a shot of at least a certain quality.

 

[BobRouse]

BR, he's talking about taking bad shots just to be taking a shot, as opposed to working for a shot of at least a certain quality.

I guess we have to define what a bad shot is. NHL is different than the NBA in that shooting begets more shooting easier with rebounds.

I don't think I've ever heard a coach actually say "oh he took a bad shot"

Usually players are praised for shooting.

 

[g00n]

I guess we have to define what a bad shot is. NHL is different than the NBA in that shooting begets more shooting easier with rebounds.

I don't think I've ever heard a coach actually say "oh he took a bad shot"

Usually players are praised for shooting.

If all shots were equally good players would never pass and teams would never have to work very hard to generate scoring chances. Every shot possible from over the center line would be considered good. None of that is true. Quality and context of shots matter.

When coaches tell players to shoot more they're not saying shoot as much as you can no matter what. They're saying they want more offense and more focus on taking shots instead of endlessly cycling or passing. It's a mentality of looking to create a "shot" in the way reasonable attempts at scoring are understood. They're saying get to a position to take one of those shots and take it. They're saying don't be timid, don't get stuck in ruts, don't wait for the "perfect shot" all the time. Look for rebounds, put them back on net.

If you work a long cycle and only come away with a shot from no angle on the goal line in the corner because a player decided to shoot instead of pass one more time, that's a bad shot.

If you have guys pinned low and your d-man shoots into several defenders, increasing the likelihood of an odd-man rush the other way, instead of swinging the puck or holding it and getting the offense reset, that's also a bad shot.

If you have an overload situation where the goaltender has a clear view to the puckhandler who is at a wide angle, and there's little space to shoot at, a low shot off the pads that's easily directed to the other side of the ice for a change of possession and possibly a rush the other way is a bad shot.

Those are just examples off the top of my head. You can watch any NHL game and see a few instances where a shot has little chance or is ill-advised. You don't see teams gaining the zone and just shooting. There's a reason for that.

 

[ChibiPooky]

New research shows that score-close metrics suck.

http://hockey-graphs.com/2014/11/13/adjusted-possession-measures/

Finally, and least obviously, we see that score-close possession metrics are utterly indefensible for any purpose at any time. Raw measures are preferable for conceptual clarity and for predictivity at almost all sample sizes, and adjusted measures are superior for predictivity at all sample sizes. It is difficult to overstate how important it is that they be purged from the lexicon of all right-thinking people. They purport to distill the essence of possession when in fact they do great violence to data by censoring large tracts of meaningful information and magnifying a smallish portion. Adjusted measures, by contrast, apply small nudges to the raw data—their seeming complexity masks how much closer to raw data they are than ‘close’ measures.

 

[Hivemind]

New research shows that score-close metrics suck.

http://hockey-graphs.com/2014/11/13/adjusted-possession-measures/

I'd be curious to see how that compares with player utilization. Certain players play a lot more or less in specific score siutations, which can bias their overall Corsi/Fenwick numbers.

 

[maybam]

It seems like hockey is the only major sport where a team can carry the play, "outplay" their opponent significantly, and still consistently lose. In football, basketball and soccer this really isn't the case. There is a lot of bearing on what just plain seem like luck.

IMO it has got to be a goaltending issue.

 

[Hivemind]

It seems like hockey is the only major sport where a team can carry the play, "outplay" their opponent significantly, and still consistently lose. In football, basketball and soccer this really isn't the case. There is a lot of bearing on what just plain seem like luck.

IMO it has got to be a goaltending issue.

It can absoultely be the case in other sports. There are soccer formations based around limiting your opponent's scoring chances and surviving rather than attacking or possession. I've watched plenty of football teams play well for a majority of a game but lose because they had a key turnover or couldn't convert in the red zone.

 

[maybam]

It can absoultely be the case in other sports. There are soccer formations based around limiting your opponent's scoring chances and surviving rather than attacking or possession. I've watched plenty of football teams play well for a majority of a game but lose because they had a key turnover or couldn't convert in the red zone.

Honestly, I probably don't watch enough soccer to have a strong opinion on that. Football, I chalk up forcing turnovers and stopping redzone conversions more into the skill category.