Colorado Avalanche's success - will it last?

[Gigantor The Goalie]

Part of the problem is that people too often emphasize the predictive role of advanced stats without considering their explanatory role. They look at outliers and say 'the stats predict they will fall back to earth,' and then stop debating or thinking. Should be more critical; look at the outlier and ask, 'why are they exceeding expectations?'

Exactly. Is it possible that Roy has come up with a successful system/style of play that advanced stats can't explain?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Exactly. Is it possible that Roy has come up with a successful system/style of play that advanced stats can't explain?

Certainly possible (although I'll add the word "yet" to the end of your second sentence). No one's suggesting that "advanced stats" are done advancing (or even that the "advanced stats" quoted in the article represent the pinnacle of "advanced stats").

Exploring model flaws is a great way to learn about the game (and to improve models).

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I don't post in this forum so I don't know what the standard etiquette for topics like this is, but the main reason I don't really care about advanced stats (aside from one time I looked up how valuable Jay McClement was to the Avs on behindthenet and got a headache) is because of the smugness of some people who treat them as the only thing that can truly tell you how good a team is, and mock anyone who doesn't immediately agree with them.

Why do so many articles about advanced stats have to sound so utterly condescending?



Of course, there's no chance in the future of any of the players changing, or improving. The Avalanche will just keep going with their assortment of #6 defensemen.



Wow! This article seems to come from a well-informed source! The team is exactly the same as it was four years ago even though there's only five players still remaining from then (two of whom have improved dramatically in O'Reilly in Duchene, one of whom is an irrelevance in Wilson). They play exactly the same way and have all the same strengths, weaknesses and styles of play.

It gets worse when you see an article as bad as this making a bunch of utterly redundant comparisons and assumptions. "They're only winning because of how good the goalie is!" Okay. isn't the goalie part of the team? Does this mean all the teams that have won a Cup with their goalie getting the Conn Smythe relied on him too much? "They're going to regress eventually, they can't play the way they are and keep winning!" Roy has said as much as this many times this year, and I'm sure he knows better than anyone the deficiencies of his team (as I would expect of any coach).

I also think it's patronising to dismiss coming from behind in games or games with a great defensive effort to win as lucky. Look at game 1 for the Avs in the playoffs, they're down by two quick goals the previous period to start the third, a team with very little collective playoff experience, and they don't give up. They keep pushing at it, playing their game, and then tie and then win it. To dismiss that and the results all year as "luck" in the face of some of the adversity the team faced just makes my blood boil, because it completely ignores why the team is successful while contradicting the stats that some people cling to as the only thing that can tell them what teams will and what teams won't succeed.

I'm coming around with advanced stats but I started a thread before on the main board that got moved here that was slightly rude and I would have phrased nicely if I knew of the move. A lot of people treat these stats like dogma and treat anyone that disagrees as an idiot and simpleton. That said this forum seems more open minded (specifically this one) and more open to debate.

 

[doulos]

Exactly. Is it possible that Roy has come up with a successful system/style of play that advanced stats can't explain?

Certainly possible, but that exact phrase (swap out Roy for Carlyle) was being used in support of the Leafs earlier in the year as well.

 

[Gigantor The Goalie]

Certainly possible, but that exact phrase (swap out Roy for Carlyle) was being used in support of the Leafs earlier in the year as well.

Except Roy is the better coach or else the Avs would have faced the same fate as the Leafs no? Not to mention as the season went on, the Avs got better. There's a human factor that advanced stats has yet to touch on in hockey and it's obvious that the Avs have that x-factor that overrides what the advanced stats are saying.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Sometimes simpler stats tell the story as well or better than advanced stats.

Look at their GF/GA differential/ratio, and their record in games decided by one goal. In contrast to Anaheim & St. Louis, which had similar records in one goal games, Colorado's record in blowouts was decidedly mediocre. This data would suggest they will regress substantially next season.

 

[CanadianHockey]

Except Roy is the better coach or else the Avs would have faced the same fate as the Leafs no? Not to mention as the season went on, the Avs got better. There's a human factor that advanced stats has yet to touch on in hockey and it's obvious that the Avs have that x-factor that overrides what the advanced stats are saying.

Roy being a better coach is one possible explanation. However, the way you're arguing it presupposes that, because the Avs didn't drop off a cliff, Roy must be a better coach than Carlyle. The causal logic isn't very strong without deeper analysis.

 

[Romang67]

Except Roy is the better coach or else the Avs would have faced the same fate as the Leafs no? Not to mention as the season went on, the Avs got better. There's a human factor that advanced stats has yet to touch on in hockey and it's obvious that the Avs have that x-factor that overrides what the advanced stats are saying.

Carlyle had a fairly successful first season as well, losing to the Bruins in game 7 OT. Who's to say that the same thing won't happen to the Avs next season?

 

[tucker3434]

Of course it isn't going to last. Does anybody have the Avs pegged as this year's Cup winners? Whenever they do happen to bow out of the playoffs, I'm sure there will be a lot of I-told-you-so's from the advanced stats gurus, but it is what it is, a team too thin, young, and inexperienced to make any real noise in the playoffs.

They overachieved, and it's highly doubtful they finish 3rd in the NHL next year. But I don't think they'll crash and burn either. An extra year of experience and some likely new faces on the blue line could go a long way in making them more of a complete team.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Of course it isn't going to last. Does anybody have the Avs pegged as this year's Cup winners? Whenever they do happen to bow out of the playoffs, I'm sure there will be a lot of I-told-you-so's from the advanced stats gurus, but it is what it is, a team too thin, young, and inexperienced to make any real noise in the playoffs.

They overachieved, and it's highly doubtful they finish 3rd in the NHL next year. But I don't think they'll crash and burn either. An extra year of experience and some likely new faces on the blue line could go a long way in making them more of a complete team.

I see this rationale used all the time by fans. They assume that every player who was good starts off with that level as the baseline that can only improve the next year in some sort of perfectly linear progression. Young players don't always get better in an ever increasing year after year way. EVERY player has ups and downs in performance.

COULD some of the Avs players improve. Of course. Just like the players on all the other teams COULD improve. There is certainly no reason to think that the Avs will see more improvement than average

As to your other point about different faces... that will be a bigger thing. If Colorado returns the same defense group I would expect a regression in their record. If they add 2 quality dmen, then I think they'd be less likely to regress (but that's because their possession numbers would be better, which would be reinforcing the author's opinion).

 

[Ishdul]

COULD some of the Avs players improve. Of course. Just like the players on all the other teams COULD improve. There is certainly no reason to think that the Avs will see more improvement than average

I think there's a reasonable expectation that they're going to improve much more than average. Most of their best players are pretty young and some of the holes on their defense are very fixable. A guy like MacKinnon could be one of the league's best players sooner rather than later, the kind who can do a lot to carry a team.

 

[Badger Mayhew*]

The Avalanche "regressing" next year assumes they'll have roughly the same possession numbers. Kind of a faulty assumption considering how dramatically corsi/fenwick can change from season-to-season (even with minimal roster changes).

 

[Czech Your Math]

I think it is highly likely they regress next year, but that doesn't mean they won't be Cup contenders in 2-3 years (who knows?).

I would think of it this way:

There's their baseline ability, which is more difficult to gauge with younger players, new coach, etc.

Then there's translating that baseline into goals for & against. This is a product of many things. This is where puck possession would apply.

Then there's translating GF/GA into W/L. This is where it seems to me that they were definitely fortunate, no matter how inherently "clutch" they may be.

So this article is suggesting that they were fortunate in the first function (translating baseline ability into GF/GA). However, a glance at their record in close games vs. blowouts, or similarly at their GF/GA data vs. W/L, would suggest they were fortunate in the second function.

Next year, they may be swimming upstream to repeat this season's performance, because both functions may be regressing to the mean. To counteract that would require a large positive change in their baseline ability, which seems unlikely in one season, although certainly not impossible.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Except Roy is the better coach or else the Avs would have faced the same fate as the Leafs no? Not to mention as the season went on, the Avs got better. There's a human factor that advanced stats has yet to touch on in hockey and it's obvious that the Avs have that x-factor that overrides what the advanced stats are saying.

That isn't obvious at all. They could easily regress next season if Varlamov returns to his career norm.

 

[tucker3434]

I see this rationale used all the time by fans. They assume that every player who was good starts off with that level as the baseline that can only improve the next year in some sort of perfectly linear progression. Young players don't always get better in an ever increasing year after year way. EVERY player has ups and downs in performance.

COULD some of the Avs players improve. Of course. Just like the players on all the other teams COULD improve. There is certainly no reason to think that the Avs will see more improvement than average

As to your other point about different faces... that will be a bigger thing. If Colorado returns the same defense group I would expect a regression in their record. If they add 2 quality dmen, then I think they'd be less likely to regress (but that's because their possession numbers would be better, which would be reinforcing the author's opinion).

Some guys will have off years. Others will improve. A team as young as the avs, it's probably a safe bet to think the improvements will outweigh the decliners.

MacKinnon is the wild card. He's the reason the Avs could improve more than everyone else. When he turns the corner it'll be seismic.

We also should be returning a healthy pap and Tanguay.

I think it's very likely the Avs have a more compete time playoff team next year but don't finish as high in the standings.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Some guys will have off years. Others will improve. A team as young as the avs, it's probably a safe bet to think the improvements will outweigh the decliners.

MacKinnon is the wild card. He's the reason the Avs could improve more than everyone else. When he turns the corner it'll be seismic.

We also should be returning a healthy pap and Tanguay.

I think it's very likely the Avs have a more compete time playoff team next year but don't finish as high in the standings.

Why is it safe to assume that? Do you have any evidence other than the somewhat logical presumption that young players always improve every year (or even that young players are more likely to improve every year)?

It's nice to say that, but it's a trite expression that fans of every team use to predict their team's success.

Show me some data.

 

[tucker3434]

Why is it safe to assume that? Do you have any evidence other than the somewhat logical presumption that young players always improve every year (or even that young players are more likely to improve every year)?

It's nice to say that, but it's a trite expression that fans of every team use to predict their team's success.

Show me some data.

It's safe to assume that because none of the big contributors are on the tail end of their careers. None should see big regression because the game has passed them by.

Could some guys have an off year? Sure. But these guys aren't flash in the pan players that surprised everyone with one great year. Other than MacKinnon, they've been pretty consistently solid NHL players.

 

[CanadianHockey]

Some guys will have off years. Others will improve. A team as young as the avs, it's probably a safe bet to think the improvements will outweigh the decliners.

MacKinnon is the wild card. He's the reason the Avs could improve more than everyone else. When he turns the corner it'll be seismic.

We also should be returning a healthy pap and Tanguay.

I think it's very likely the Avs have a more compete time playoff team next year but don't finish as high in the standings.

I don't think it's that safe of a bet.

Edmonton has a young roster, but they went backwards this season, despite adding Perron. A big part of that was youth not developing in a linear fashion (Yakupov, RNH took steps back).

Ottawa had a very young team last year, added good pieces to that young team, but took a step back. Some of the young guys took a step forward (Turris, Zibanejad, Ceci), others took a step back or stagnated (Cowen, Wiercioch).

I agree that the Avs are probably still in the playoff hunt next season. I just don't expect a 100 point campaign. Think they could be closer to playoff bubble. I think their forwards look great, but the blueline will be weaker as coaches learn to pick apart Roy's system. Varlamov is the wild card; if he takes a step back, the team will, too.

 

[Dr Quincy]

I don't think it's that safe of a bet.

Edmonton has a young roster, but they went backwards this season, despite adding Perron. A big part of that was youth not developing in a linear fashion (Yakupov, RNH took steps back).

Ottawa had a very young team last year, added good pieces to that young team, but took a step back. Some of the young guys took a step forward (Turris, Zibanejad, Ceci), others took a step back or stagnated (Cowen, Wiercioch).

I agree that the Avs are probably still in the playoff hunt next season. I just don't expect a 100 point campaign. Think they could be closer to playoff bubble. I think their forwards look great, but the blueline will be weaker as coaches learn to pick apart Roy's system. Varlamov is the wild card; if he takes a step back, the team will, too.

No you don't get HF logic: Every player from the age of 18 on improves every single year until they hit 29, at that point they regress every single year and become worthless.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Why is it safe to assume that? Do you have any evidence other than the somewhat logical presumption that young players always improve every year (or even that young players are more likely to improve every year)?

It's nice to say that, but it's a trite expression that fans of every team use to predict their team's success.

Show me some data.

These aren't your average ~20 year olds you're dealing with, so any data on the matter is probably highly irrelevant. It's not as much about them being young as it is how talented and touted they are. No one's guaranteeing anything, but how is it unreasonable to suggest a team that includes three of the previous 15 top 3 draft choices might get better next year? Obviously it doesn't always work that way, but I'd like to think the Oilers are the exception, not the rule, and don't see much fault with that line of thinking. No one's saying it will happen, just that it's a very reasonable prediction, given the talent at hand and the progression they've already taken.

MacKinnon alone could take steps forward that will trump any regression from others. This is a kid who could end up being one of the top scorers in the entire league next year.

 

[GKJ]

That isn't obvious at all. They could easily regress next season if Varlamov returns to his career norm.

I think this is more likely.


It wouldn't surprise me of the Avalanche miss the playoffs next year but come back the year after. They were ahead of schedule. Just on the surface, a PDO-heavy team that won its division, but lost to an unspectacular possession team on their 5th goaltender. 7 games is a small sample size, but they made it back on regression.

 

[CanadianHockey]

These aren't your average ~20 year olds you're dealing with, so any data on the matter is probably highly irrelevant. It's not as much about them being young as it is how talented and touted they are. No one's guaranteeing anything, but how is it unreasonable to suggest a team that includes three of the previous 15 top 3 draft choices might get better next year? Obviously it doesn't always work that way, but I'd like to think the Oilers are the exception, not the rule, and don't see much fault with that line of thinking. No one's saying it will happen, just that it's a very reasonable prediction, given the talent at hand and the progression they've already taken.

MacKinnon alone could take steps forward that will trump any regression from others. This is a kid who could end up being one of the top scorers in the entire league next year.

Isn't that the entire premise of this thread? That you can't dismiss an aberration just because it doesn't mesh with the general rule / norm / model?

Why should Colorado obey the 'rule' for player development, but be considered an exceptional case when it comes to advanced stats?

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Isn't that the entire premise of this thread? That you can't dismiss an aberration just because it doesn't mesh with the general rule / norm / model?

Why should Colorado obey the 'rule' for player development, but be considered an exceptional case when it comes to advanced stats?

Well, for one, those two things have nothing to do with one another. If Colorado's a team bucking a trend when it comes to advanced stats, that doesn't mean they're going to do that when it comes to a completely unrelated area. Another thing, they've already shown they've been able to put it together(a lot of that being Roy), where the Oilers haven't shown any signs of putting it together.

But, of course, yeah, they definitely could have all their guys either regress or show no improvement next year. I personally don't see that as likely, though.

 

[CanadianHockey]

Well, for one, those two things have nothing to do with one another. If Colorado's a team bucking a trend when it comes to advanced stats, that doesn't mean they're going to do that when it comes to a completely unrelated area. Another thing, they've already shown they've been able to put it together(a lot of that being Roy), where the Oilers haven't shown any signs of putting it together.

But, of course, yeah, they definitely could have all their guys either regress or show no improvement next year. I personally don't see that as likely, though.

Agreed on the first point, and agreed that their young stars probably won't regress, either. Just playing devil's advocate.

 

[nanzenkills]

As an Avs fan, I do think we overachieved a little bit this season. My prediction would be that we're a bubble playoff team next year, with a point total somewhere in between what Dallas and Minnesota had this year.

I'm certainly not expecting another 112 point season next year.