Devils Team Discussion (current team/player news and notes) ‎PART XII

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

Here is exactly the problem I was getting at. What is the point of how they "stack up" against each other?

Does it make a guys accomplishments who scored 2 huge game winners in a playoff year less significant? Only if you are arguing some mundane point - is the answer

the entire existence of this website (and all hockey forums in general, really) is based upon the debate of how players (and teams) stack up against each other.

 

[StnTwnDevil]

again, for the millionth time, none of the stats people are saying that you should 100% rely on stats. but the anti-stats people are so against using ANY kind of stats to back up an argument is hilarious

I think many people you're including in that blanket statement find stats very useful. The stats you are using are not specific or "advanced" enough to determine if a player is a big moment player. I'd be interested if they started recording stats such as:

Game-tying 3rd period goals
3rd period goals to take the lead

But still, there are other various situations that could be considered a big moment in a game, and then it becomes too complicated and up to every person's discretion to determine if the goal was scored under significant pressure. Those stats above will give a decent starting point though.

 

[StnTwnDevil]

heart/determination only get you so far. give me the pure skill over guys with GRIT and JAM.

Both ways you're not winning anything important. Both are needed.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

Both ways you're not winning anything important. Both are needed.

you need way more skill and good players than you need GRIT

 

[AfroThunder396]

CONTEXT. Numbers are meaningless without CONTEXT.

All stats are tools for the observer, but like any tool you have to use them correctly. Just regurgitating numbers and saying "this means that" contributes nothing to the discussion. You need to have an understanding of both the mechanics of that stat AND the mechanics of the source in order to draw any valid conclusions.

The problem with the clutch argument is there's no reference point. No starting point, nothing to compare it to. Is a 20% increase in scoring during the playoffs enough to consider a player clutch? Is a 10% increase in Game 7 production clutch? Is a 15% increase in GWG rate clutch? How many overtime goals do you need to be clutch? What about when the game is tied, is producing in that situation clutch? Are SCF performances more clutch than ECF of ECQF performances?

On the surface it makes sense - some players consistently exceed expectations in high-stakes situations, while some players consistently fail to meet expectations in similar situations. But without defining the parameters it's impossible to prove it one way or the other. Until someone decides what the bar is, everyone is just going to argue about semantics.

A player may produce at the same rate, yet more of his points are collected in OT or elimination games. Does that make him clutch? Some say yes, some say no. This area, as it is right now, is too subjective to be defined or proven by stats. What everyone considers clutch is difference.

 

[Missionhockey]

as someone else mentioned, you'd have to watch every game of every season for all 30 teams to know how each player stacks up against each other. or, you can just watch a good bit of games and then use stats to help make whatever argument you are trying to.

heart/determination only get you so far. give me the pure skill over guys with GRIT and JAM.

I don't understand this logic. To get to the highest level (and especially to stay there) you have to have a good work ethic. That's how guys like Zherdev end up out of the league or Kabanov never make it. It tooks focus and determination to succeed at the highest level of anything.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

CONTEXT. Numbers are meaningless without CONTEXT.

All stats are tools for the observer, but like any tool you have to use them correctly. Just regurgitating numbers and saying "this means that" contributes nothing to the discussion. You need to have an understanding of both the mechanics of that stat AND the mechanics of the source in order to draw any valid conclusions.

The problem with the clutch argument is there's no reference point. No starting point, nothing to compare it to. Is a 20% increase in scoring during the playoffs enough to consider a player clutch? Is a 10% increase in Game 7 production clutch? Is a 15% increase in GWG rate clutch? How many overtime goals do you need to be clutch? What about when the game is tied, is producing in that situation clutch? Are SCF performances more clutch than ECF of ECQF performances?

On the surface it makes sense - some players consistently exceed expectations in high-stakes situations, while some players consistently fail to meet expectations in similar situations. But without defining the parameters it's impossible to prove it one way or the other. Until someone decides what the bar is, everyone is just going to argue about semantics.

A player may produce at the same rate, yet more of his points are collected in OT or elimination games. Does that make him clutch? Some say yes, some say no. This area, as it is right now, is too subjective to be defined or proven by stats. What everyone considers clutch is difference.

This is fair.

 

[StnTwnDevil]

you need way more skill and good players than you need GRIT

This is a whole other beast that is just as hard to prove. But I'd say you're sort of right and wrong, because I don't think its to the extent that you are saying. Plus I think you are over-simplifying the category each player fits in. There are a lot of skilled players that have both. It seems like Canada is pumping out the most of these balanced type players. The Kings, Bruins, Hawks, Ducks, and Blues are all filled with a lot of grit, as well as skill.

Why do you think Russia has such a hard time winning nowadays?

 

[The 29th Pick]

Stats are replacing common sense in sports and in society

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

This is a whole other beast that is just as hard to prove. But I'd say you're sort of right and wrong, because I don't think its to the extent that you are saying. Plus I think you are over-simplifying the category each player fits in. There are a lot of skilled players that have both. It seems like Canada is pumping out the most of these balanced type players. The Kings, Bruins, Hawks, Ducks, and Blues are all filled with a lot of grit, as well as skill.

Why do you think Russia has such a hard time winning nowadays?

because their defense and goaltending stinks, generally speaking.

 

[tycobb]

Stats are replacing common sense in sports and in society

Statistics and Modeling in general have greatly improved people's understanding of what they are seeing.

 

[JimEIV]

Statistics and Modeling in general have greatly improved people's understanding of what they are seeing.

In a great many areas this is very true...In other areas modeling creates more confusion and misunderstanding than it solves. Modeling in general takes multiple iterations of enhancements and corrections to provide reliable output.

Find your favorite model and see how many revisions it went through.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

Stats are replacing common sense in sports and in society

Quite the contrary. Stats are the reason teams like the Oakland A's remain extremely competitive despite small payrolls. Stats are part of the reason the Chicago Blackhawks and Los Angeles Kings have done so well in recent years.

In five to ten years this will not even be a discussion anymore.

The introduction of puck and player tracking technology in the NHL over the next three years will break the walls down, much like it has done in the NBA.

What you view as common sense is actually conventional wisdom. And conventional wisdom does not necessarily reflect reality.

 

[StnTwnDevil]

Quite the contrary. Stats are the reason teams like the Oakland A's remain extremely competitive despite small payrolls. Stats are part of the reason the Chicago Blackhawks and Los Angeles Kings have done so well in recent years.

In five to ten years this will not even be a discussion anymore.

The introduction of puck and player tracking technology in the NHL over the next three years will break the walls down, much like it has done in the NBA.

What you view as common sense is actually conventional wisdom. And conventional wisdom does not necessarily reflect reality.

Advanced stats will continue to develop and be vital for most teams, but it will never be the only resource used for determining the quality of player. It also will only create more situations like on this forum, where stats were used inappropriately to come to a conclusion.

 

[The 29th Pick]

Statistics and Modeling in general have greatly improved people's understanding of what they are seeing.

What you view as common sense is actually conventional wisdom. And conventional wisdom does not necessarily reflect reality.

So when I go to a game, and see 2-3000 empty seats, but its announced a sell-out, I must believe its a sell-out and I'm not seeing empty seats?

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

Advanced stats will continue to develop and be vital for most teams, but it will never be the only resource used for determining the quality of player. It also will only create more situations like on this forum, where stats were used inappropriately to come to a conclusion.

1) find me the person here who has said that it will (the bolded).

2) what stats were used to "inappropriately come to conclusions" and what conclusions were they?

 

[Desert Devil]

CONTEXT. Numbers are meaningless without CONTEXT.

All stats are tools for the observer, but like any tool you have to use them correctly. Just regurgitating numbers and saying "this means that" contributes nothing to the discussion. You need to have an understanding of both the mechanics of that stat AND the mechanics of the source in order to draw any valid conclusions.

The problem with the clutch argument is there's no reference point. No starting point, nothing to compare it to. Is a 20% increase in scoring during the playoffs enough to consider a player clutch? Is a 10% increase in Game 7 production clutch? Is a 15% increase in GWG rate clutch? How many overtime goals do you need to be clutch? What about when the game is tied, is producing in that situation clutch? Are SCF performances more clutch than ECF of ECQF performances?

On the surface it makes sense - some players consistently exceed expectations in high-stakes situations, while some players consistently fail to meet expectations in similar situations. But without defining the parameters it's impossible to prove it one way or the other. Until someone decides what the bar is, everyone is just going to argue about semantics.

A player may produce at the same rate, yet more of his points are collected in OT or elimination games. Does that make him clutch? Some say yes, some say no. This area, as it is right now, is too subjective to be defined or proven by stats. What everyone considers clutch is difference.

I agree. It's tough to even define clutch, let alone try to measure it with statistics.

 

[StnTwnDevil]

because their defense and goaltending stinks, generally speaking.

Don't read my whole post, the rest was just filler.

 

[The 29th Pick]

I agree. It's tough to even define clutch, let alone try to measure it with statistics.

this is where you have to be a human and draw your own conclusion
if I've watched hockey for 30 years and think Claude Lemieux is a clutch playoff performer...well then thats what I believe as a fan
I dont need a computer program to see it differently

 

[RSeen]

Hope we can find a way to keep Carter. Still like him a lot on the 4th line. Plus he seems to do very well against the Rangers. I hope Lou can hurry and get rid of Ryder.

 

[tycobb]

So when I go to a game, and see 2-3000 empty seats, but its announced a sell-out, I must believe its a sell-out and I'm not seeing empty seats?

Well if everything seat is sold is it not a sell out? I don't really care what people think about stats. They are only fooling themselves.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

this is where you have to be a human and draw your own conclusion
if I've watched hockey for 30 years and think Claude Lemieux is a clutch playoff performer...well then thats what I believe as a fan
I dont need a computer program to see it differently

so what you are saying is that whenever someone believes something, it means they are right?

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

So when I go to a game, and see 2-3000 empty seats, but its announced a sell-out, I must believe its a sell-out and I'm not seeing empty seats?

if every ticket is sold and 0 fans show up, its still a sellout.

 

[StnTwnDevil]

1) find me the person here who has said that it will (the bolded).

2) what stats were used to "inappropriately come to conclusions" and what conclusions were they?

1) Find me where I suggested that a person said that.

2) Do you think you've figured out whether clutch players exist or not with those career statistics posted? I mean, we've been having a pretty interesting conversation about the complexity of trying to determine this. Where have you been?

 

[Bleedred]

The thing with Claude is that he did have a pretty mediocre 95 season. By his standards it was below average. He was on a whole nother level during the playoffs that year. He was having a monster 97 playoffs too. If Colorado didn't get bounced in the WCF by Detroit that year, he was a Conn Smythe contender. At least from what I remember.

A few ho hum playoffs later in his career when he got older.