News Article: "Fun With Numbers" - Advanced Stats Talk Here

[Micklebot]

Best to not take everything for face value and "follow the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything" -Neil deGrasse Tyson

This quote is spot on, you shouldn't take a lack posting names of members of an analytics department on the Sens website at face value, particularly given how notoriously slow that site has been in updating information in the past.

That said, I know Tim Pattyson is involved in the analytics side as well. Cookson is in charge of it. Not sure about anything else, but I imagine based on the way both Boucher and Crawford have talked about analytics in the past, they will want the info available, and will likely ensure that the means for them to get the info they want is there.

 

[DrEasy]

It's funny how no matter the information (or lack thereof), the optimist will decide to interpret it one way, and the pessimist the other. Humans...

 

[StefanW]

The Senators do have an analytics person, and Dorion has made reference to him in interviews for about a year now. As is the case with every other team the exact types of things the person is asked to look at is proprietary info and kept secret.

While the Sens have beefed up their analytics department over summer with Cookson and and Pattyson, there is valid reason to question what this means in terms of the team's use of analytics. For example although video analysis is really handy, and can provide insight for coaches to use, this is not what is typically meant by "analytics" unless it is done on a very large scale (such as what analytics firms like SportLogiQ do).

From the outside it looks as though Ottawa is doing what a small number of teams such as Edmonton are doing, which is to emphasize old school (circa 1980s) approaches to collecting info such as coaches pouring through video analysis. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it is not likely to appease fans who are looking for the team to hop onto the analytics bandwagon in a larger way. It is even less likely to appease fans who believe the team will be left behind as other teams are snapping up quality analysts as they search for a competitive edge.

IMO all of this has nothing to do with optimism or pessimism. Either analytics make teams better or they dont, and it should come through in the results either way. Either teams make decisions to collect info in ways that lead to improvement or they dont, and that should also come through in the results. And, either teams use the info they have to good effect (i.e. knowing how to weight info so that low value things are not assigned high value during decision making) or they dont, and that should come through in the results. These standards never change.

 

[DrEasy]

IMO all of this has nothing to do with optimism or pessimism. Either analytics make teams better or they dont, and it should come through in the results either way. Either teams make decisions to collect info in ways that lead to improvement or they dont, and that should also come through in the results. And, either teams use the info they have to good effect (i.e. knowing how to weight info so that low value things are not assigned high value during decision making) or they dont, and that should come through in the results. These standards never change.

I agree with this, and actually that's why I'm very pro-analytics because it takes away subjective matters out. (it's a different debate as to whether hockey analytics are at a point where there's enough nuggets to be found yet in the very noisy data they have to deal with).

I was only referring to the fact that people who are down on the org look at the evidence we have regarding the existence of an analytics team and conclude that we don't really have one, and the people who are pro-org will look at the same evidence and draw the opposite conclusion. It's very predictable. That's what happens when you have a polarized fanbase/electorate/etc. I'd love to be surprised more often by people's opinions. But I digress.

 

[StefanW]

I agree with this, and actually that's why I'm very pro-analytics because it takes away subjective matters out. (it's a different debate as to whether hockey analytics are at a point where there's enough nuggets to be found yet in the very noisy data they have to deal with).

For sure. IMO there are overlapping issues. First off, using public analytics is not going to create much of an edge because everyone has access to the exact same information. Proprietary data can give you the most bang for your buck in terms of gaining a real edge on the competition.

This leads to the second point, which is that teams have to be able to identify which information will lead to the best results. A typical approach you see in industry is to hire people to run particular numbers that are of interest. With hockey that would mean hiring an analyst to run numbers on things the team already believes is there. So if a team believes a cross ice pass leading to a one timer leads to goals they may ask an analyst to measure cross ice passes in the O zone. This can be problematic if the things the analyst is asked to measure are meaningless or have low value.

That brings up the third point, which is the skill of the analyst. If a team leaves room for an analyst to run the numbers he or she wants then it becomes a matter of ferreting out high value information that no one else has. Some analysts are more highly skilled than others and are much more likely to be able to use their imagination to come up with new ways of approaching problems. This is where a lot of online analysts fail, because they start to over-rely on data that is already available rather than figuring out what they would do if they had full access to the team and its resources. The worst over-reliance occurs when the data that is publicly available frames the question rather than asking questions and then figuring out how to get the data to answer it.

Ok, I've rambled too much. I could go on and on with this stuff.

 

[Engineer]

Does anyone know if WAR/GAR stats are available on the Senators players.

https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/02/08/understanding-war-and-its-practical-applications-to-player-evaluation-part-1/

Ever notice that the GAR and WAR stats that people love to throw around never display error bars.

Or why is it that a full article that's dedicated to explaining why WAR and GAR stats are important, doesn't have a single use of either of the words "variability" or "standard deviation"

How can one actually analyze data without knowing how much it varies?

 

[BonkTastic]

Some really good stuff from Bob McKenzie here.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Ever notice that the GAR and WAR stats that people love to throw around never display error bars.

Or why is it that a full article that's dedicated to explaining why WAR and GAR stats are important, doesn't have a single use of either of the words "variability" or "standard deviation"

How can one actually analyze data without knowing how much it varies?

Well no actually. I am just beginning to trying to understand the WAR stats. I've read a couple of articles on them and find it interesting.

With any stats context is important. They provide an answer to a specific question but that is only a slice of the pie. The data quality / consistency / variability is obviously important to this type of analysis.

Are you a WAR / GAR guru that could help me understand it better? or point me to something that explains the metrics and factors and calculations used to derive the numbers.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Some really good stuff from Bob McKenzie here.

I am with Bob on this but I don't see it changing. In fact I think it will get worse as more astats are published and more sights allow the slicing and dicing to drive conclusions and provide the basis for argument. It is unfortunate... It is hard to model hockey players with a plethora of stats or enter into meaningful discussions where there is a common ground understanding of what they mean what is in context and what is not.

 

[BondraTime]

Fully agreed with Bob. I'm open to "advanced stats", but I would never, ever, ever rely on them.

 

[DrEasy]

I don't think anybody's saying you should manage a team just by looking at numbers. Stats are just there to help you make a decision. When you see some number that doesn't match the eye test, you want to find out why. Is that a problem with the stat, is the sample too small, or is there really something worth investigating?

Teams are all looking to gain an edge. Sure, if you can have the best scouts out there, good for you (hmm, how would you know they're the best scouts? you probably look at some set of numbers?), but if you can't you need to find another way.

We're all already using numbers all the time. The whole point of advanced analytics is to go beyond the basic numbers, because we know they're not good enough: W/L, a goalies GAA. We know that run differential is a better predictor of future performance than W/L. We want to find even better predictors if possible. What's wrong with that?

More generally you should always strive to have a way to compare things quantitatively. The trick is to find the right metrics for that. So, sure, some people may jump on the latest fancy stat as if it's a miracle recipe, and then we find out that there's more going on. Well, that's how science progresses. If all you do is just rely on eye test you get stuck.

Baseball has made huge progress thanks to fancy stats, but I feel there's way more variability in numbers in hockey (hence the need for error bars and standard deviations mentioned earlier by someone), and so it's going to be more difficult to find meaningful metrics. That doesn't mean we should give up.

 

[dumbdick]

Here's the rest of the team's top 10 closest comparable players. Probably have to open in a new tab as it's a huge image.

You can read a bit more about the work here: https://datafuntime.wordpress.com/

I'm going to pump out graphs for the other teams, but I'm still trying to tweak the way I build them a bit. Most of the comparisons are what you'd expect, but I don't like Zib and Ryan being comparables. Any help is appreciated. Specifically, is there a close comparable player that you would have expected to see that isn't on the list? If so, I can dig into the data and see what's going on.

Also, I love how Boro is such an anomaly.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Here's the rest of the team's top 10 closest comparable players. Probably have to open in a new tab as it's a huge image.

You can read a bit more about the work here: https://datafuntime.wordpress.com/

I'm going to pump out graphs for the other teams, but I'm still trying to tweak the way I build them a bit. Most of the comparisons are what you'd expect, but I don't like Zib and Ryan being comparables. Any help is appreciated. Specifically, is there a close comparable player that you would have expected to see that isn't on the list? If so, I can dig into the data and see what's going on.

Also, I love how Boro is such an anomaly.

Hi is there a sweat spot to the comparables.. on the virticle axis... IE closer to the center means close match , above means > than and below < than?

 

[dumbdick]

Hi is there a sweat spot to the comparables.. on the virticle axis... IE closer to the center means close match , above means > than and below < than?

No, I probably should make it easier to read. Closest to the bottom is the #1 closest comparable, closest to the top is #10 closest comparable. There's supposed to be a line and a circle on the player name at the bottom, but it seems to have got lost somewhere. EDIT: updated the image. Hopefully it's less confusing now. I'm going for more infographic and less scatterplot.

 

[DrEasy]

The graphics look really nice. Hard to judge the results without knowing the metrics you used to compare them. For example, it is interesting that the data did not include the position they were playing, and yet it shows up. But if you have used data about where their shots came from, maybe things aren't so surprising.

 

[thinkwild]

Lots of cool new data coming out for hockey these days, keep it up. Something hockey fans yearned for for a long time. Data is never wrong, its just data. Our ability to interpret it however seems an art for that is still in progress. Which really just adds to the the fun.

 

[BigRig4]

4th in shots for per game and 14th in shots against per game surely this means our success is probably sustainable right??

 

[18Hossa]

*bump*

Apparently the Sens held a "Growth of Data & Analytics in Business" discussion panel yesterday before the game. StefanW wrote up a summary of things here http://thesportsdaily.com/the-6th-s...st-post-growth-of-data-analytics-in-business/

 

[DrEasy]

*bump*

Apparently the Sens held a "Growth of Data & Analytics in Business" discussion panel yesterday before the game. StefanW wrote up a summary of things here http://thesportsdaily.com/the-6th-s...st-post-growth-of-data-analytics-in-business/

Good stuff, thanks for the pointer and thanks to StefanW for writing the post! Wish I'd known about the event. Well, there's still the hockey analytics conference at Carleton to look forward too.

 

[StefanW]

Good stuff, thanks for the pointer and thanks to StefanW for writing the post! Wish I'd known about the event. Well, there's still the hockey analytics conference at Carleton to look forward too.

Glad you enjoyed the summary! I hope the Sens put on more events like this down the road.

Along with OTTHAC in the spring there is another one in Vancouver this weekend. I dont think any announcement has been made about streaming it but it will probably be worth checking that day to see if any streams are available.

 

[aragorn]

Fully agreed with Bob. I'm open to "advanced stats", but I would never, ever, ever rely on them.

Finally, something you & I can agree on.

 

[JungleBeat]

 

[solidprospect]

Summary:

-Novak is ranked extremely low in hf prospect rankings.
-We currently have 5 forward rookies with a greater than %80 chance of making the NHL
-these stats can change as the season goes along, could add Batherson and others to that group of forwards by next year or they could drop
-Wolanin and Jaros are likely NHL defenceman eventually
-Drake Batherson is very good right now compared to our other top rookies his war/82 projection is only lower than Logan Brown's
-Tychonick and Bernard Docker should also be very good.
-it's interesting that Batherson has the 2nd highest war/82 projection for the rookies but in the other chart he's only at %60 chance of making the NHL right now. Whereas the others have a greater chance of making it but a lower war/82 projection.
-Some of these players should still get time in the AHL, this just indicates the chances of making the NHL and their projected production if they we're in the NHL next season.

 

[solidprospect]

oct 15th

 

[solidprospect]

We're fun.