i am truly curious, since i'm an old dude that mostly relies on the eye test. which metrics do you consider the most important, and where are these available? thanks.
Player Discussion: Hickey
- Thread starter nystromshairstylist
- Start date
wingnutks
Registered User
- Nov 17, 2011
- 6,737
- 2,517
majormet
Registered User
After seeing Mayfield and now Davidson I value Hickey more, if we can get him for one year that works.... His biggest issue will be size but after seeing Aho, well that changed
someone mentioned, and i have no way of knowing, that Hickey seemed to always be on the ice with JT's line. is it possible? one thing i have been wondering, is there any stats that show GA and GF when on PK? seems like Hickey is on for a lot of PK goals against. maybe it's because i don't think he should be PK'ing, that i have a biased view?
Look at his dreadful on ice Sv% last season - how can you get unlucky for that many games? Hickey clearly sucks. Goaltending luck is one of the many flaws of plus minus.
There's a huge deal of randomness in hockey, in a given season some players are luckier than other, isn't that natural? Read the article I linked, it has a nice analogy at the end.
I'm certainly no authority on the subject, let me just start with that. As for which stats are considered the best, nowadays a lot of stock is placed into xGF% that is, expected goals for percentage. It's a stat that aims to improve on corsi by taking the shot quality (distance, type) into account.
Here's a popular tool for a general stats overview of players.
Tableau Public
A popular though a bit harder to use advanced stats site is
Corsica | Home
which is where I got the abovementioned stats from.
redbull
Boss
- Mar 24, 2008
- 12,593
- 654
and advanced stats can account for that randomness?
Can you explain where these stats are captured? by whom? are they standardized across all rinks/teams? Vetted by anyone in the NHL? Are they even consistent across sources/websites?
Can you seriously capture statistics on different scenarios - in the randomness that you mention?
I'd like to see metrics that are truly "advanced" but the nonsense people around HF quote would make a Scientologist look like Albert Einstein.
Tell me who the best and worst defensemen in the NHL are, based on your metrics. Maybe list the top 20 and bottom 20 and let's see if the metrics, the quantitative aspects are scientific? are they repeatable?
The reality is, if you (or anyone) believes a player is good, it's easy to find a metric to show that, and vice-versa.
As Mike Babcock says "I understand the metric, but who rewinds the tape and watches exactly what the breakdown was and corrects it" - NHL teams that review game tape, understand what they are coaching, where the mistake(s) happened and who needs 1on1 coaching/instruction have a better sense than scientolistics
i agree that nothing is perfect, but i think advanced stats are getting better and better. not that i'm an expert, by any means.
the one thing that means a lot to me, and probably is very hard to capture statistically, is how the player reacts, given that each scenario is unique. it makes it very hard to quantify.
let's take Beau's scenario, last night. he get's the puck on his stick, and then quickly surveys the scenario. he has lots of options, and has probably less than a second to decide. how much time does he have? this is a factor, IMO. did he have players that were open, to pass to, or were they all covered? let's say they were all covered. the issue now is, do i turn back, try to maintain possession, and make a 'smart' play that the coach will congratulate me for? or do i bang the puck off the boards, toward the opposition's end, resulting in a giveaway, and have to possibly put up with the coach's icy stare. now that he's committed, he has more options... throw it around the boards and hope that his teammate comes back and helps out? pass it to the goalie (i think Hasek was maybe anticipating this, and calling for it, resulting in him being partially out of the net)? try to carry it, maintain possession, and maybe even deke away from his pursuer, creating an odd man rush? well, we know the rest...
anyway, i still like video review for an 'in a vacuum analysis', but i can see how advanced stats could give a general picture, for example, when considering a possible trade or draft. i see the value in both.
and when we are all pretending that we would make the best GM, we can use advanced stats to make our points. that might be the best use for them lol.
They attempt to, yeah. That's the point, to get something useful.
Well the basic ones are captured by the NHL scorekeepers. So they're accepted by the NHL I guess. As for how accurate they are - the good thing about shot attempts is that there's so many of them. If per say every 1000 shot attempts a scorekeeper makes 1 mistake then it's not going to impact much. Random errors are diminished as the sample size increases. As long as there's no conspiracy to help out certain players/teams they should be plenty accurate.
Well I'd guess the shot attempt data come from the NHL boxscores so they should be.
Not entirely sure what you mean by this. The article I linked shows that relative on ice save percentage for the players isn't correlated. So in other words the impact the players have is so small we can't identify which ones are good at controlling it.
The 'advanced' stats (even the very word) are misused all the time, I think everybody would agree with that. As for 'truly advanced stats', you'd have to have access to what the teams use I imagine.
What are 'my' metrics exactly? I don't have any metrics or know any catch all stats to tell me who the best and worst defensemen are. I don't know what a "scientific" metric is supposed to be, but I can tell you that increasing repeatability and predicting wins is the main focus of any stats work done today. Anyway, since you're using such a word as repeatability you could read the article I linked and see for yourself that the relative on ice save percentage and the good Sv% fortune Hickey is having isn't repeatable - i.e. it's mostly luck. That's pretty much all I initially meant to say here.
What is a good player? I'd say the one that greatly contributes to his team winning games. If you know of a respected stat that would measure the total catch all value a player provides to his team, I'd like to hear it. I'd be better to ask whether a player is good at this or that one particular thing and surely you agree that's a much easier question to answer. People who say player x has a good stat y therefore he is great are suspect, I don't disagree.
I'd understand if all the various stats are too inaccurate for your liking. But I don't get why you use plus minus to defend players then. Just because we don't have perfect stats we may as well use the obsolete ones? It's like comparing the sticks and stones to steam engines. One technology is not perfect, the other is definitely a lot worse.
Last edited:
redbull
Boss
- Mar 24, 2008
- 12,593
- 654
sincerely appreciate the non-troll response. I read the article, it's neither here nor there for me. I know face-off statistics are also discredited as not contributing to wins/losses but that's not my point or question. All of these numbers are questionable in one way or another and the reason I bring up plus-minus is simply this - the great disparity among Hickey and say, Leddy (approaching 50 goals). We all know Leddy's struggled this year and has played against top opponents but Hickey's often paired with the weakest dmen and somehow he's carved out a really nice season, statistically and non-statistically.
In terms of the metrics you shared (links to the sites), I see a lot of numbers but little or no insights into how these numbers can be used to make decisions on players, to evaluate them and choose a roster (free agent signee who's undervalued, like the Oakland A's in that baseball movie that correlates to hockey in zero ways) - not a knock on you or your post, just about all the nonsense I've read on HF over the years.
Watching Hickey all year, I will drive him to the airport. His issues are numerous, and he will run out of games before his plus minus is negative. Our D corps is weak in general, and he is beyond his peak. Coupled with the possibility that Snow keeps his titles, we are talking major overpayment for mediocrity.
nystromshairstylist
Registered User
- Dec 13, 2009
- 2,107
- 677
hickey is beyond awful, and is clearly not an NHL defenseman. He gets shoved around like a doll, makes many bad decisions, and his occasional good pass/smart play does not make up for his numerous failings. It is a miracle of numbers and fate that he does not have a negative plus-minus of about -30 like Leddy, maybe only because he sees so much less ice time.
Yes, clearly a miracle
Hickey is better than most of our current D. He is a perfect number 6 guy on this team, and gets the job done more than admirably. While he plays 80% of Leddy's minutes, the difference in +/- doesn't even come close to being explained by that.
From a defensive standpoint, he is better than Leddy, Seidenberg, Mayfield, and Aho. If the top 4 were doing their job, there would be no discussion about Hickey. The Hickey haters are looking for a scapegoat.
Is Leddy a solid 1-2 guy? No. Are Pelech and Pulock solid 3-4 guys? No. Should Seidenberg and Mayfield even be in the NHL? No. Even Boychuk is really a 3-4 guy. The Isles need two top tier D men, with Boychuk/Leddy as 3-4. And really Leddy's speed is the only thing that saves him at all. Pelech/Pulock/Hickey should be 5-7.
Plus/minus way not be a great stat but when you have 38 points and you're a minus 33 there's a problem. You can't blame that on your defensive partners or bad luck.
No. Whenever something's not shown to be a repeatable skill it's deemed luck. A stark difference from your method of calling everything you don't understand bad.
Glory Days
Registered User
Hickey served a useful purpose but it is time to move on. Pelech/Mayfield/Aho/Davidson should be the bottom pairing/spare D next year. We have 2 top 4 D in Leddy/Boychuk. Let's set out sights on improving the top 4.
The great disparity is explainable in ways that have nothing to do with their defensive ability since plus minus is a flawed stat about as useful as astrology. If you can't tell me exactly what you don't like about the article or my posts, I can't do anything else but repeat myself over and over.
All the linked sites have their glossaries that tell you what the used abbreviations mean. It's also not difficult to find articles explaining those stats and why they're used. Certain work went into those numbers so it stands to reason that one needs to put in certain work to understand them. That's up to everyone to decide for themselves how much they wish to learn about this part of hockey. Trying to talk to people about advanced stats in this place is a fool's errand I personally have no interest in doing (much).
redbull
Boss
- Mar 24, 2008
- 12,593
- 654
we can agree that talking advanced stats on this board is futile and pointless.
I don't agree or disagree with the article. Just because someone writes something on the internet doesn't make it factual or relevant. If there's statistics that don't correlate individual player impact on goalie save percentage then fine - but not sure who's that's trying to correct or who's even disputing that.
I understand the advanced stats better than most. I've done my research, read dozens of articles on various sites, have a good enough understanding but frankly, I don't see any way to use them to evaluate players based on who's good or who's not, at whatever position.
There are simply too many variables that make any conclusions impossible.
I'd love to hear from someone with a masters/PHD in statistics who also understands the game to explain how metrics can be used to evaluate players. And also explain variances in the data, whether any conclusions are transferable from one team to the next, what decisions can be made on players. That's the one thing that lacks.
What advanced stat could be used to project William Karlsson's performance on Vegas? Would he have produced the same in Columbus with similar linemates? time on ice? Who's the best and worst Isles defenseman this year based on the best metrics available? If you have any suggestions on where I can find this info, would be happy to do the research.
If I sort the top plus/minus players of all time, I see players like Orr, Robinson, Lidstrom, Gretzky - it kinda passes the sniff test on who I'd expect to see there. Is there a source you'd recommend?
For example, here are older articles on the best CORSI players:
https://thehockeywriters.com/corsi-numbers-new-nhl-statistics/
Here are the relative Corsi leaders for the 2010-11 regular season (who played a minimum of 50 games), in five-on-five situations. All statistics are courtesy of behindthenet.ca.
1. Mikhail Grabovski (TOR): 21.3
2. Dustin Byfuglien (WIN): 20.7
3. Clarke MacArthur (TOR): 19.3
4. Ryan Kesler (VAN): 18.2
5. Mason Raymond (VAN): 17.5
Jeez, I hope Garth didn't chase Grabovski based on this metric!
Here are the five-on-five Corsi leaders during the 2010-11 playoffs (who played a minimum of five games).
1. Marc-Andre Bergeron (TB): 53.3
2. Claude Giroux (PHI): 30.6
3. Ryan Smyth (LA): 28.8
4. Chris Kunitz (PIT): 28.8
5. Nicklas Backstrom (WAS): 28.3
And here are the Lightning’s playoff Corsi leaders.
1. Marc-Andre Bergeron: 53.3
2. Steve Downie: 25.7
3. Sean Bergenheim: 20.5
4. Teddy Purcell: 17.0
5. Blair Jones: 12.8
and this quote:
"In the case of Teddy Purcell, it’s entirely possible the his Corsi Numbers helped earned him his new two-year, $4.73 million contract – especially once Bergenheim signed with the Lightning’s cross-state rivals, the Florida Panthers."
---
Anyway, don't mean to pick on you or this topic but I've yet to see value from advanced stats in evaluating players. When you look back at past advanced stats performances, and the player names and how terrible their careers have gone, you have to wonder.
Is there a source that ranks the best "undervalued" players based on metrics from 1-3-5 years ago so we can see whether there was any predictive value in the metric?
PK Cronin
Bailey Fan Club Prez
- Feb 11, 2013
- 34,257
- 23,635
Same problem with all of our guys. They're fine for what they are, but they shouldn't be playing the roles they're put in. Hickey is an acceptable bottom pairing guy but shouldn't touch the top 4. We need to UPGRADE these types of players instead of keeping them around for more years and money than they're worth.
Mayfield and Aho have not proven that they are better than Hickey. In fact, I'd say they have proven the opposite thus far. Davidson is a question mark. So unless they upgrade this summer, we're still looking at Hickey in the bottom pairing, unless he is not resigned because of budgetary reasons. which is a possibility as he will likely get a raise somewhere else and Snow (cry cry) will need to save pennies to pay JT 12 mil per (cry cry), unless JT walks, which in my opinion is likely (more cry cry).
Instant
Registered User
- Feb 20, 2018
- 2,259
- 1,451
So basically you're saying that we're ****ed in every scenario.
I agree, Davidson is a big question mark, but it looks like he isn't affected by Weight's superb coaching that much. Who know what will happen in the next weeks.
Unless:
-Snow fired
-Real GM hired
-At least one top tier D is obtained
-JT signs, but
-JT signs for 10 per, max
-Top tier goalie is somehow obtained
Unfortunately, I'm not sure any of these happen.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
GAME 7 - North Bay Battalion @ Oshawa Generals - Series tied 3-3Wagers: 5Staked: $1,097.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Series Winner Florida Panthers vs Boston BruinsWagers: 15Staked: $115,345.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
GAME 6 - Portland Winterhawks @ Prince George Cougars - Portland Winterhawks leads series 3-2Wagers: 2Staked: $110.00Event closes- Updated: