Around the NHL XXXVI: Ladd AND Weise/Fleischmann to Chicago.

[Igor Shestyorkin]

the Ottawa Senators are not an NHL team when he's off the ice

He practically is their team.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Is anyone else shocked that the Rangers aren't at Sloan Sports Conference? Cause I'm not. Good to know the team is giving advanced stats and analytics the finger publicly now

 

[aufheben]

He practically is their team.

Practically is not necessary here.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

seriously?

your average "defensive defenseman" puts up 25-30 points...

You're willing to sacrifice another 35-40 points because he's "Bad defensively"? I mean, all of those points mean he is on the ice for a goal for. I can't possibly see how poor defense outweights his benefits.

Yeah with him it certainly doesn't. Karlsson is in his own league when it comes to being an offensive D, no one is particularly close.

He isn't good when hes forced to defend, but he doesn't spend a whole lot of time doing it. I think comparing him defensively to Doughty as someone did by citing shot rates is just really using the stat incorrectly, but I'm surprised that there are people who would argue against having him on the team because he isn't "good" defensively.

Then again, there are people who think Staal is more worthy of top 4 minutes than Yandle, so I really should have expected it.

 

[Igor Shestyorkin]

Practically is not necessary here.

Poor Karlsson.

 

[Igor Shestyorkin]

Is anyone else shocked that the Rangers aren't at Sloan Sports Conference? Cause I'm not. Good to know the team is giving advanced stats and analytics the finger publicly now

Who needs advanced stats when you have the wonder twins and Tanny?

 

[Irishguy42]

Is anyone else shocked that the Rangers aren't at Sloan Sports Conference? Cause I'm not. Good to know the team is giving advanced stats and analytics the finger publicly now

LAK and CHI aren't there either. Guess they're giving advanced stats the finger too

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

LAK and CHI aren't there either. Guess they're giving advanced stats the finger too

There's a difference. Those teams are known to gather and actually use analytics to their advantage. It's no shock that LA is a top possession team considering they look at those things. It's clear the Rangers don't give a **** about analytics considering they're trotting out Girardi, Staal and Glass every night. The only things we know publicly about the Rangers using advanced data is the chips in their jerseys. But God knows what they do with that data.

This just comes off as lazy and not putting the resources made available to good use by the Rangers.

 

[Raspewtin]

Yeah with him it certainly doesn't. Karlsson is in his own league when it comes to being an offensive D, no one is particularly close.

He isn't good when hes forced to defend, but he doesn't spend a whole lot of time doing it. I think comparing him defensively to Doughty as someone did by citing shot rates is just really using the stat incorrectly, but I'm surprised that there are people who would argue against having him on the team because he isn't "good" defensively.

Then again, there are people who think Staal is more worthy of top 4 minutes than Yandle, so I really should have expected it.

Not having to defend has proven to be a lot more important than being good defensively. Karlsson doesn't defend much and he's on a team chock full of awful hockey players.

 

[Irishguy42]

There's a difference. Those teams are known to gather and actually use analytics to their advantage. It's no shock that LA is a top possession team considering they look at those things. It's clear the Rangers don't give a **** about analytics considering they're trotting out Girardi, Staal and Glass every night. The only things we know publicly about the Rangers using advanced data is the chips in their jerseys. But God knows what they do with that data.

This just comes off as lazy and not putting the resources made available to good use by the Rangers.

That's not on the analytics department, that's on the coaching staff. You can have the best people looking at all the statistics. But if the coach is cherry-picking the stats that the dept. churns out and putting out players that are his favorites...then all that work is for naught. But that's on the coaching staff being dicks. Not on the team as a whole.

You cannot say that the Rangers absence from the conference 100% reflects on their attitude towards advanced stats and using them. Like, holy **** that's such a reach.

Yes, I agree that the Rangers should have a representation there. However, them not being there is not a complete representation of how much the Rangers care about/use advanced stats.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Is anyone else shocked that the Rangers aren't at Sloan Sports Conference? Cause I'm not. Good to know the team is giving advanced stats and analytics the finger publicly now

The Rangers do care about analytics. Go look at their front office:

Jim Sullivan: Director, Player Care & Development/ Analytics & Hockey Technology

 

[Raspewtin]

The Rangers are still noted analytics skeptics.

 

[Mac n Gs]

The Rangers are still noted analytics skeptics.

I think it's more that they're skeptics regarding corsi (which I don't agree with)

AV mentions "chances," "grade-A chances" and other stuff too much, while also talking about breaking it down video wise to make me believe that they're not doing something related to puck tracking and creating scoring chances.

Hell, look at what Valiquette is doing with his shot quality project. I'd have to imagine that the Rangers are definitely using at least some of his information.

 

[Irishguy42]

I think it's more that they're skeptics regarding corsi (which I don't agree with)

AV mentions "chances," "grade-A chances" and other stuff too much, while also talking about breaking it down video wise to make me believe that they're not doing something related to puck tracking and creating scoring chances.

Hell, look at what Valiquette is doing with his shot quality project. I'd have to imagine that the Rangers are definitely using at least some of his information.

Considering how often Valiquette is on the MSG broadcast, I can see him/his firm being hired as contractors instead of the Rangers hiring individuals when they broaden their analytics team.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Apparently the front office is skeptical on the idea of analytics, but they're open to it. They just have to make the jump. Gonna be a long process to change the ideals of the organization.

That's not on the analytics department, that's on the coaching staff. You can have the best people looking at all the statistics. But if the coach is cherry-picking the stats that the dept. churns out and putting out players that are his favorites...then all that work is for naught. But that's on the coaching staff being dicks. Not on the team as a whole.

You cannot say that the Rangers absence from the conference 100% reflects on their attitude towards advanced stats and using them. Like, holy **** that's such a reach.

Yes, I agree that the Rangers should have a representation there. However, them not being there is not a complete representation of how much the Rangers care about/use advanced stats.

You're 100% correct on the whole connection between coach and analytic staff so I'll give you that. The team could hire the best advanced hockey stat minds right now and it wouldn't mean jack if AV doesn't listen. It's frustrating I guess. All this information that could be used for the teams better.

 

[Irishguy42]

Apparently the front office is skeptical on the idea of analytics, but they're open to it. They just have to make the jump. Gonna be a long process to change the ideals of the organization.



You're 100% correct on the whole connection between coach and analytic staff so I'll give you that. The team could hire the best advanced hockey stat minds right now and it wouldn't mean jack if AV doesn't listen. It's frustrating I guess. All this information that could be used for the teams better.

It is frustrating, and I can't imagine the Rangers aren't going stay fully on the bubble in terms of analytics. They've been testing the water for a while now, which is good. If they're going to make a jump and fully engross themselves in analytics (which means full communication and working together between coaching and the stats team), I'd rather they do it in the offseason, rather then make a sudden shift during the season. Especially with as late as it is right now.

 

[Tawnos]

seriously?

your average "defensive defenseman" puts up 25-30 points...

You're willing to sacrifice another 35-40 points because he's "Bad defensively"? I mean, all of those points mean he is on the ice for a goal for. I can't possibly see how poor defense outweights his benefits.

I didn't say he was bad defensively. I said he was average defensively. And nothing I said implies that he's not a great defenseman. To me, though, a Norris Trophy winner shouldn't simply be average defensively. Plenty of great D aren't Norris caliber.

 

[Edge]

It is frustrating, and I can't imagine the Rangers aren't going stay fully on the bubble in terms of analytics. They've been testing the water for a while now, which is good. If they're going to make a jump and fully engross themselves in analytics (which means full communication and working together between coaching and the stats team), I'd rather they do it in the offseason, rather then make a sudden shift during the season. Especially with as late as it is right now.

I personally wouldn't use the term skeptical.

I think it's been reported several times that the Rangers see value in it. What they don't see is valueing it disproportionately.

That's probably my biggest problem with the analytics crowd. It's not that there isn't value in the data, it's the obnoxiousness that some of its disciples employ to try and get their point across.

I'm reminded of something a a scout friend said to me not too long ago.

"The hard-core analytics people, especially those of the amateur variety, probably do considerably more harm to their cause than they realize."

Frankly, I think there's quite a bit of truth to that. Whenever I hear someone talk about analyics, they almost always see the value. But they also almost always follow it up with something unflattering about some of the people presenting the data.

 

[Off Sides]

Analytics to me at least is odd, I like the way Steve Valiquette goes about it, he is subjective classifying things like Lundqvist makes that save whatever % of time in that situation, and I trust his subjectivity

Yet when all I see is corsi, shot/attempt quality, this or that, one of the points is to attempt to remove subjectivity, I actually think it adds more into it the more it tries to eliminate it because inherently it has to treat what may be different situations the same way and then it counts on everything equaling out over time yet no time table for it to equal out is ever given.

 

[Igor Shestyorkin]

The Rangers are still noted analytics skeptics.

Yep.

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/12331388/the-great-analytics-rankings

The Rangers are very much aware of the analytics available and are keeping up with trends, but there's a healthy skepticism internally as to whether there's a real correlation between current analytics and winning hockey games.

That approach is reflected in their personnel choices. This past offseason, they let analytics darling Benoit Pouliot walk in free agency, while they elected to extend the contract of defenseman Dan Girardi rather than possession-producer Anton Stralman.

During his final season in New York, Stralman had a Corsi for percentage of 56.4 percent compared to Girardi's 50.1 percent that same season.

 

[Off Sides]

Yep.

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/12331388/the-great-analytics-rankings

It's just my opinion without any sort of proof, I think they also partially run the team by trying to have character on it, whatever that means, whatever their definition is.

I think they feel that guys like Glass, Girardi Boyle, MSL, Richards have/had some sort of character personality traits they wanted. Or maybe Sather just liked them, or whomever the coach was or is liked them, but I don't think they run the team with the overall philosophy being just to get the most talented, or best stats players.

I don't really understand it myself but they seem to be putting emphasis on things that on ice do not seem to make a ton of sense to me. They "do the right thing" in their eyes

They may have felt like they resurrected Stralman's career, so he should cut them a break, when he rejected their first offer, they were like forget that guy.

If the reports are true Boyle took less to come here, they see some sort of value in that.

They overpay for MSL, well he wanted to come here so to them it was worth overpaying.

I really don't know, just my overall feelings, that they place value on stuff, rightly or wrongly, that we do not.

Not trying to justify it, it was a poor move to let Stralman go, more so just trying to figure it out just like everyone else.

 

[NYR Viper]

And then they go out and sign Stalberg and trade for Eric Staal both of whom have very good fancy stats.

I think, like most teams and professionals, they are using them and weighing them in to their decisions. Just not using them as the end all be all

 

[silverfish]

What does reducing Wideman's suspension to 10 games after he's sat out 19 accomplish?

Does he get 9 games of pay back? Is his record for future incidents not as bad?

 

[Irishguy42]

What does reducing Wideman's suspension to 10 games after he's sat out 19 accomplish?

Does he get 9 games of pay back? Is his record for future incidents not as bad?

Yeah, at this point he just gets the money reduced in his fine.

 

[Raspewtin]

And then they go out and sign Stalberg and trade for Eric Staal both of whom have very good fancy stats.

There's about 47 more decisions that would imply they don't care about them than Stalberg and E. Staal. E. Staal doesn't count because at face value he's still a great player. Players like Stalberg and Pouliot have a lot less assumed value.

I think, like most teams and professionals, they are using them and weighing them in to their decisions. Just not using them as the end all be all

As much as I want to say there needs to be a middle ground to them being these cute little things that it's nice a player excels at, and the "be all end all" whatever that is; the reality is that that middle ground would lean more towards the latter more than the former.

It's no doubt in my mind the Rangers place value on them, but more of that "oh and they're a good possession player, okay that's nice" kind of thing where it's cool to have, rather any kind of deal breaker. Kind of like getting a skilled player that can also PK, it's nice to have but not a primary concern nor the deciding factor in that player. I think this is how the Rangers view analytics and it really shows in who they give long term contracts and a lot of playing time to. "Fancy stats" shouldn't be treated as some quality that's just nice to have, they should be viewed as a very integral part of player analysis.

It is frustrating, and I can't imagine the Rangers aren't going stay fully on the bubble in terms of analytics. They've been testing the water for a while now, which is good. If they're going to make a jump and fully engross themselves in analytics (which means full communication and working together between coaching and the stats team), I'd rather they do it in the offseason, rather then make a sudden shift during the season. Especially with as late as it is right now.

The problem here is that most of the league have bought into them, in just such a way that any advantage trusting them would have given has dissipated. The cat is out of the bag. Good possession teams win championships, not PDO darlings, and the Rangers don't seem to have gotten the memo.