Oilers analytic/advanced stat thread

[duul]

Not at all. Matt Benning is doing well in his role. Russell is doing well in his role which is in harder minutes. The stats point to Russell being a really good 3rd pairing D ideally, the eye says he can handle 2nd pairing minutes

Ive actually really budged on Russell and I enjoy him on this team. But I see where his poor analytics come from. He gives up the blueline almost every rush to avoid getting burnt wide. This prevents those type of breakaways/rushes but then allows the forward time and space to make a play or get a shot off from further. More shots against him are allowed by he makes up for it by blocking a ton of them. He allows a lot of low and mid danger shots but prevents high danger ones on the rush

Interesting.

To me it seemed like Russell does a good job in making the opponent run out of room along the wall. He plays very passively in defending and won't often step up on a guy. He seems to prefer angling them off and trusting his skills as a shot blocker or letting Talbot stop a muffin from outside than trying something a bit more risky and getting burned, allowing for a HDSC.

I know almost nothing about corsi and analytics but that's what I gain from it. The eye test says Russell is a great defenceman to me. Obviously not a top pairing guy but he moves the puck well and skates well.

 

[Aceboogie]

i think the discussion on Russells highlights one of the biggest deficiencies of advanced stats, which is objectively quantifying strong defensive attributes. corsi, zone exits, etc., all provide some measure, but are not nearly as indicative as offensive stats.

maybe i'm biased because i play defense, but it is IMO, a much more cerebral position that makes it much harder to track.

I am torn on him because I was a D too so I do agree that its hard to quantify D zone play. But I always kepe coming back to the thought that at the end of the day what matters is shots against. However you prevent them it doesnt matter, as long as you prevent them. Not all shots are created equal so prevent the high danger ones first and foremost. But they shouldnt tell whole story as their is other things involved that cant be measured

On a side note- mini vent. I used to hear about people who said "well Corsi isnt a proper proxy for possession, time of possession should measure possession". But when you think about it- what good is time of possession? in the end getting shots on net wins you games (or preventing them). Not hanging on to the puck for longer. If you have puck for long but get no shots off you are just inefficient. So if we suddenly started focusing on time of possession I doubt wed have better insight and instead get caught up in unimportant noise that is time of possession. Obviously high shots + high TOP is indicative of better team but id argue shots are a better measure than TOP if you were to compare them straight up

 

[McJadeddog]

I think the OPs use of analytics is faulty and biased.

I'm allowed to say that. You don't like it, feel free to put me on ignore. Neither you nor the OP get to dictate who can/cannot respond to this thread.

no, but a mod does... and they have been pretty clear in the past about allowing/disallowing people to post non-relevant posts in a thread... i don't personally see the value of posting against advanced stats in a thread that is specifically about advanced stats, but i'm not a mod anymore either, so my opinion doesn't much matter

 

[Aceboogie]

Interesting.

To me it seemed like Russell does a good job in making the opponent run out of room along the wall. He plays very passively in defending and won't often step up on a guy. He seems to prefer angling them off and trusting his skills as a shot blocker or letting Talbot stop a muffin from outside than trying something a bit more risky and getting burned, allowing for a HDSC.

I know almost nothing about corsi and analytics but that's what I gain from it. The eye test says Russell is a great defenceman to me. Obviously not a top pairing guy but he moves the puck well and skates well.

That is very much what hes good at. Hes let the forward come to him because hes backed up so far. But what are the implications of that? Well id say that it allows more shots from top circle, it allows the forwards to start a play in our end, and it allows opposing D to get in the rush and then have Russells forward stop, turn back and find that trailer. The upside is he keeps forwards in front of him, allowing him to block shots and preventing them from getting in to close

So you have to weigh those against the downside of challenging the line more, which is players burn you and get a 2 on 1 or breakaway or some sort. But upside is you stop any rush at the source, not letting them gain zone entry

I would say one of Russels saving grace is that Sekera is good at getting the pucks out of the zone after. Russell allows forward to get in the zone and start a cycle. Traditionally weve bene horrible at breaking this up and get hemmed in for a while, in fact we still do. But Sekera is good at finding the puck and moving it out quickly. I think Larsson and Russell are a VERY bad fit because while Larsson is a good defender and can break up a cycle, he doesnt have the urgency to get the puck out and struggles in that regard. So when the pair is on the ice its the worst of both. Russell lets em in, Larsson cant get em out. When Larsson and Klefbom are together, Larsson stop em from coming in, Klefbom is great at getting the puck out. They work well. Same for Sekera/Russell

 

[IAGTTAYM]

Individual corsi per 60.

RNH, Puljujärvi and Eberle are generating plenty, but not cashing in. I'd bet heavily on a bounce back in the next few months if they can keep that up.

Only a 5 game sample, but when you combine it with last season, Matt Hendricks seems to have fallen off the cliff. Pouliot trending poorly too. I've liked Pouliot up until this season, but I think it's time to sell if you can find a buyer.

 

[Aceboogie]

Individual corsi per 60.

RNH, Puljujärvi and Eberle are generating plenty, but not cashing in. I'd bet heavily on a bounce back in the next few months if they can keep that up.

Only a 5 game sample, but when you combine it with last season, Matt Hendricks seems to have fallen off the cliff. Pouliot trending poorly too. I've liked Pouliot up until this season, but I think it's time to sell if you can find a buyer.

Maybe I am jinxing them but I have been expecting a bounce back game or stretch for past 5/6 games and it hasnt happened unfortunately. So this game: No expectations

They need to do what we did in junior and put your blade in the toilet and flush the toilet to get all the s*** out of your stick. 60% of the time it worked all the time

 

[IAGTTAYM]

On the topic of RNH:

He has taken a significant step forward this season when it comes to generating shots 5v5 (while still facing the toughest competition among forwards in EDM). How much of that can you attribute a better blueline? Hard to tell, but nice to see nonetheless.

 

[McDraekke]

K here's a legitimate question rather than a "Nuge sucks posts." I'll admit I have a bias against that player that can colour my perception on him at times.

What are the qualifications of a high danger scoring chance? I question that being able to be an objective stat that can be accurately kept. I imagine it has to do with distance from the net when shot. But that is not really an indication of how dangerous a scoring chance is is it?

Maybe it's more elaborate than that.

That is a pretty good elaboration. And one that I can understand as well. I've often thought about that, and even in this thread when Ace says that RNH is generating a lot of chances, even in high danger areas my mind was like (ok sure but does that take into account his shot, his strategy on the play [deke or shoot])... so does a flimsy shot from the slot right to the chest of a goalie (just an example, not saying Nuge does this often) qualify as a high danger area chance?

Edit: Noticed this was answered, please disregard the question.

 

[Aceboogie]

That is a pretty good elaboration. And one that I can understand as well. I've often thought about that, and even in this thread when Ace says that RNH is generating a lot of chances, even in high danger areas my mind was like (ok sure but does that take into account his shot, his strategy on the play [deke or shoot])... so does a flimsy shot from the slot right to the chest of a goalie (just an example, not saying Nuge does this often) qualify as a high danger area chance?

Edit: Noticed this was answered, please disregard the question.

Yeah that would. But a laser snipe off the post would also count oo as a high danger chance. So taking all type of shot sinto consideration goalies have noticebaly lower save %s in those areas. Thats using lasers with no interference, flubbed shots, deflected shots. Over the course of a season almost every player will have the similar quality of shots from certain areas (ie theyll have similar % of shots that are low quality slow shots to chest, high quality corner picks etc). Id like see to the data on RNHs shot specifically the accuracy and speed but I have yet to notice any change in his shot ability this year

Eberle on the other hand... I have noticed his shot just isnt there. Still getting away shots from close but they are weak and inaccurate a lot. A far cry from 2011/12 when he picked corners like nothing. Maybe its a confidence thing or maybe in offseason he focused so much on one timers he changed his wrister too dramatically

 

[MessierII]

Feel free to post your own use of analytics to argue against it. Dont just scream wrong and then make people cater to you.

How are the stats wrong exactly? How are they biased?

Well for one no nhl teams use league data for their analysis because it is wrong and bias.

 

[Aceboogie]

Well for one no nhl teams use league data for their analysis because it is wrong and bias.

Is bias the word of the day here? How so is it bias? How do you know what type of data they collect? You dont think bias might be, I dunno say, creating a narrative and then sticking to it in the face of every sort of evidence against it?

NHL teams use shot data and collect data almost the exact way its collected by the league. The one difference is that teams do use internal tracking for more in depth quality data that is more informative. The tracking wouldnt be too dissimilar to the the zone entry/exit and defensive zone data collected by WheatnOil every game. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to track in depth data, it just takes manual labor

 

[MessierII]

Is bias the word of the day here? How so is it bias? How do you know what type of data they collect? You dont think bias might be, I dunno say, creating a narrative and then sticking to it in the face of every sort of evidence against it?

NHL teams use shot data and collect data almost the exact way its collected by the league. The one difference is that teams do use internal tracking for more in depth quality data that is more informative. The tracking wouldnt be too dissimilar to the the zone entry/exit and defensive zone data collected by WheatnOil every game. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to track in depth data, it just takes manual labor

I'm just quoting Tmac here. He said in an interview last year NHL teams won't use the league data for their own analytics because it's wrong and bias they have their own guys on it.

 

[Aceboogie]

I'm just quoting Tmac here. He said in an interview last year NHL teams won't use the league data for their own analytics because it's wrong and bias they have their own guys on it.

Could you link this interview. I have no doubt they use their own data, I have my suspicions he called the leagues data "wrong" and "bias" outright. Unless he was referring to stats like hits and giveaways which are manually tracked in arena by the home teams and can change venue to venue. I would have my doubt TM said shot data was wrong and bias, because its tracked actually by the NHL not in arena like hits/giveaways/takeaways

 

[MessierII]

Could you link this interview. I have no doubt they use their own data, I have my suspicions he called the leagues data "wrong" and "bias" outright. Unless he was referring to stats like hits and giveaways which are manually tracked in arena by the home teams and can change venue to venue. I would have my doubt TM said shot data was wrong and bias, because its tracked actually by the NHL not in arena like hits/giveaways/takeaways

Actually I'm mistaken it was Dave Tippett. Here's an article with the quote I was thinking of.

http://www.foxsports.com/arizona/st...tream-as-nhl-com-adopts-advanced-stats-022015

 

[Spawn]

Yes distance from net. As of right now their is no feasible way to measure the quality of a shot otherwise. When we get tracking chips in pucks we can better measure shot speed/deflections etc. But shot location is used for high danger chances. Shots from in close are more dangerous and also harder to get to in the first place (getting to middle of slot).

Yes there is the times where a puck from the slot is deflected or misshot so its marked as a high danger chance even tho it is really not dangerous. But also there is similar # of occurances where a player gets off a completely clean shot from that area. In the middle is the regular shot, some distortion from defenders but still a strong shot

To prove these areas actually do render more dangerous shots. They used goalies save % from different areas on the ice and found the save % was much lower in these high danger chances than in others.

Here's where I have some issues with some of these advanced stats.

High danger scoring chances suggests that it tracks scoring chances. But it doesn't track that. It tracks shots on net within a certain distance from the net. It makes the assumption that every shot within X distance of the net is "equal" and every shot outside of that distance is "equal." There is a hell of a lot more that goes into a scoring chance than simply where the puck is shot from. How quickly the puck is shot, what kind of traffic is in front of the net, who is shooting, and how well the puck is shot etc. So when someone argues that Nuge is creating scoring chances at a higher rate than any point in his career based on these stats, that isn't a true statement. A true statement would be that Nuge is getting more shots from closer to the net than any other point in his career.

I legitimately find a lot of these stats for interesting to read. But I take issue when they are used to draw such strong conclusions about players one way or the other. These things can certainly be useful, but any stat to be accurate needs to be narrow in its focus. So you can only really draw narrow conclusions from it.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Hope I word this correctly.

As of late I have noticed that many people talk about Analytic or advanced stats but I think not all understand them. It is not as simple as 1 + 1 = 2 here. I have an advance degree from London School of Economic(Take five to chuckle and remember--this place is where I come to relax and turn off my brain) and analytics plays a large part of my degree as in business and how numbers are crunched across the board and seven ways from Sundays. (Right now I building a budget based upon my forecast based upon business analytics for how BREXIT will affect all hotels in my chain) For the numbers being tossed out I think people need to explain their interpretation of the numbers and the how and why they got their decision. To explain analytics more and more business are using SWOT or a hockey version of STEEPLE or PEST(these version factor in where they were developed, amount of games they played, international play, amount of games played per year, injured suffered, type of equipment used)

Just tossing out numbers and saying there is the proof--is not how analytics work. Explaining what the numbers mean is the proof and how you got the numbers to make your decision.

For those he keep using analytics do you have advance statistical training or an advanced degree in data collection and analysis method? Most don't(sorry) most have downloaded an excel spread sheet or created one based upon other peoples information and after typing in stats--they get numbers and think is the conclusion and is proof. That is just step 1 of larger process to understand analytics and their use. Data Collection is the easiest part--it is the method used to analyse the data gathered where many people fail to grasp the complex nature of the project.

Not picking on any in particular, I just see people posting small sample sizes and proof of analytics of a certain player or team.

Here are some(small example) of the data collection that is done for D-men
1) Time on ice
2) Partner
3) Shift length(per period and per game)
4) Special teams play(both PP and SH)
5) Play on back to back nights and game per 7 days
6) Quality of competition
7) Time between shifts
8) Time in offensive and defensive zones
9) Quality of line mates beyond that of D-Partner
10) Breakdown of each shift (Shifts are usually broken down into 10 second segments) Break down of period play--each period has 3 ten minute segments-first ten minutes of a period, last ten minutes and 5 minute to 15 minute)
11) Continues play(this is explained best when we have say 5 to 10 minutes without a whistle and a D man may have 3 to 7 shifts during that time)

Just having stats and not explaining the methodology put into is were many people who talk analytics fall down/

Will give three examples.

1) Kris Russel--Corsi sucked--but when you look what lines he played against and who his partner was, situations he played and line mates--it clears the picture a bit
2) Jeff Petry. Petry was and is a 3 to 6 d-man who the oilers kept playing as a top pairing D-man on most nights. His perfect Ice time should have been between 15m to 18 minutes per night, but on many nights he was playing 20+ minutes a night and on back to back to nights. More then that he got worn down. the oilers expected too much too soon from him and his numbers were bad and well it got ugly. He went to Montreal--they changed what TYPE of partner he had, gradually increased his ice time to and limit his shifts
3) Adam Larsson. Lets be honest. We lost a lot posters in the 2 hours after this trade. Posters saw his numbers and went ape ****. Most had never seen the guy play more then two games a year. I saw him play as a 17 year old in Skelleftea and he blew my mind. He is not fancy but he is good and his numbers do not show for the most part how good he has been.

Yeah, I know--will get the Did not read gif for this post. but it is an observation that not everyone who talks about analytics actually understands them, can not put them in context or explain methodology behind how the numbers were concluded

 

[Aceboogie]

Actually I'm mistaken it was Dave Tippett. Here's an article with the quote I was thinking of.

http://www.foxsports.com/arizona/st...tream-as-nhl-com-adopts-advanced-stats-022015

First off, it should go without saying that NHL teams have much better data than we have as fans. Corsi and shot stats we have are not much compared to NHL teams with massive budgets. So you have to work with what you have.

Ok he says the stats could be inaccurate. Nowhere does he call it bias. And why would it be. What incentive does the NHL have to bias its shot stats? Shots are much easier to record that a hit or turnover both which are open to interpretation by different people. Just because Tippett thinks the stats might be inaccurate doesnt mean they necessarily are. Are they 100% accurate, absolutely not. But they inaccuracies will balance out over a season or even a game. You dont throw the baby out with the bath water because they might be slightly inaccurate

Also not to forget- if that sta trackers at NHL are prone to mistakes, why does Tippett think his team of shot counters will be totally accurate themselves? Arent you just opening youself up for legit bias if you collect them yourselfs.

 

[MessierII]

Hope I word this correctly.

As of late I have noticed that many people talk about Analytic or advanced stats but I think not all understand them. It is not as simple as 1 + 1 = 2 here. I have an advance degree from London School of Economic(Take five to chuckle and remember--this place is where I come to relax and turn off my brain) and analytics plays a large part of my degree as in business and how numbers are crunched across the board and seven ways from Sundays. (Right now I building a budget based upon my forecast based upon business analytics for how BREXIT will affect all hotels in my chain) For the numbers being tossed out I think people need to explain their interpretation of the numbers and the how and why they got their decision. To explain analytics more and more business are using SWOT or a hockey version of STEEPLE or PEST(these version factor in where they were developed, amount of games they played, international play, amount of games played per year, injured suffered, type of equipment used)

Just tossing out numbers and saying there is the proof--is not how analytics work. Explaining what the numbers mean is the proof and how you got the numbers to make your decision.

For those he keep using analytics do you have advance statistical training or an advanced degree in data collection and analysis method? Most don't(sorry) most have downloaded an excel spread sheet or created one based upon other peoples information and after typing in stats--they get numbers and think is the conclusion and is proof. That is just step 1 of larger process to understand analytics and their use. Data Collection is the easiest part--it is the method used to analyse the data gathered where many people fail to grasp the complex nature of the project.

Not picking on any in particular, I just see people posting small sample sizes and proof of analytics of a certain player or team.

Here are some(small example) of the data collection that is done for D-men
1) Time on ice
2) Partner
3) Shift length(per period and per game)
4) Special teams play(both PP and SH)
5) Play on back to back nights and game per 7 days
6) Quality of competition
7) Time between shifts
8) Time in offensive and defensive zones
9) Quality of line mates beyond that of D-Partner
10) Breakdown of each shift (Shifts are usually broken down into 10 second segments) Break down of period play--each period has 3 ten minute segments-first ten minutes of a period, last ten minutes and 5 minute to 15 minute)
11) Continues play(this is explained best when we have say 5 to 10 minutes without a whistle and a D man may have 3 to 7 shifts during that time)

Just having stats and not explaining the methodology put into is were many people who talk analytics fall down/

Will give three examples.

1) Kris Russel--Corsi sucked--but when you look what lines he played against and who his partner was, situations he played and line mates--it clears the picture a bit
2) Jeff Petry. Petry was and is a 3 to 6 d-man who the oilers kept playing as a top pairing D-man on most nights. His perfect Ice time should have been between 15m to 18 minutes per night, but on many nights he was playing 20+ minutes a night and on back to back to nights. More then that he got worn down. the oilers expected too much too soon from him and his numbers were bad and well it got ugly. He went to Montreal--they changed what TYPE of partner he had, gradually increased his ice time to and limit his shifts
3) Adam Larsson. Lets be honest. We lost a lot posters in the 2 hours after this trade. Posters saw his numbers and went ape ****. Most had never seen the guy play more then two games a year. I saw him play as a 17 year old in Skelleftea and he blew my mind. He is not fancy but he is good and his numbers do not show for the most part how good he has been.

Yeah, I know--will get the Did not read gif for this post. but it is an observation that not everyone who talks about analytics actually understands them, can not put them in context or explain methodology behind how the numbers were concluded

This is the problem I have with advance stats. People get on me for being against the stats but it's not the stats I have a problem with the fact over 90% of hockey writers/bloggers are not using the stats correctly and the percentage of hf posters doing the same thing is even higher.

 

[MessierII]

First off, it should go without saying that NHL teams have much better data than we have as fans. Corsi and shot stats we have are not much compared to NHL teams with massive budgets. So you have to work with what you have.

Ok he says the stats could be inaccurate. Nowhere does he call it bias. And why would it be. What incentive does the NHL have to bias its shot stats? Shots are much easier to record that a hit or turnover both which are open to interpretation by different people. Just because Tippett thinks the stats might be inaccurate doesnt mean they necessarily are. Are they 100% accurate, absolutely not. But they inaccuracies will balance out over a season or even a game. You dont throw the baby out with the bath water because they might be slightly inaccurate

Also not to forget- if that sta trackers at NHL are prone to mistakes, why does Tippett think his team of shot counters will be totally accurate themselves? Arent you just opening youself up for legit bias if you collect them yourselfs.

That's a snippet of the interview he goes into greater detail in the whole thing which I can't find. All I'm saying is tipett an NHL coach who is pro analytics refuses to use Corsi or fenwick what does that tell you?

 

[Aceboogie]

For those he keep using analytics do you have advance statistical training or an advanced degree in data collection and analysis method? Most don't(sorry) most have downloaded an excel spread sheet or created one based upon other peoples information and after typing in stats--they get numbers and think is the conclusion and is proof. That is just step 1 of larger process to understand analytics and their use. Data Collection is the easiest part--it is the method used to analyse the data gathered where many people fail to grasp the complex nature of the project.

This post is super solid and I appreciate it. Ill address it more later but I just wanted to commend you for this. Ill only say three things on this:

1) While I use "advanced stats" alot, I am not under the impression I am close to being completely right. I am human so I understand I am far from correct. But I use it to come up with my own opinions.

2) In the above quote you mention how can we use stats when people havent trained in stats? Valid point- But ill ask you this- why are people who predomiantly use the ey test qualified to do as such? What training do they have as pro scout? If I was a game of say Crickett- am I qualified to make a call on a player in that sport? I have no qualificiations

3)In the list you provided, all that is very relevant data to collect and analyze by teams. But why is fans use of analytics critcized for not using that data? There is no access to it. And as far as reading PGTs I see no mention of people using the eye test to mention any of that stuff. Noone is like "Oh Player X get scored on by played 0.45 the shift before with only 1:01 of rest and then played in the D zone for 30 seconds against top line on a back to back and thats the reason they scored". I think trying to take ALL that info into account just brings in a ton of noise

As for the list of 3 exceptions
Russell- Hard line analytic people just undervalued by his poor corsi can be explained. Its up for debate whether his style is really helping the team or could be hurting it (well when ON ICE sv% drops)
Petry- Universally loved by analytics crowd- this was accuratly assessed as a poor trade for second it happened. He had good numbers here on a lousy team and most everyone saw his breakout before it happened
Larsson- Fine player but the issue wasnt him it was the trade. It was giving up Hall. That is still the issue with the trade

 

[Aceboogie]

That's a snippet of the interview he goes into greater detail in the whole thing which I can't find. All I'm saying is tipett an NHL coach who is pro analytics refuses to use Corsi or fenwick what does that tell you?

No he uses it the same methodology. He justs collects his own data (which is exactly what NHL collects), calls it something different and then uses that

Sure the stats might be wrong in some occurances but you dont throw the baby out with the bathwater because the counter might be off a few shots. I have yet to see anyone on HF ever say "Yeah bullshi** shots were 30, I counted 20 thats it". If the shot counts were so inaccurate its weird noone has ever voiced this concern. I can see hits and takeaways but both are open to judgement as to whats a hit or whats a takeaway

 

[Aceboogie]

This is the problem I have with advance stats. People get on me for being against the stats but it's not the stats I have a problem with the fact over 90% of hockey writers/bloggers are not using the stats correctly and the percentage of hf posters doing the same thing is even higher.

Could you give an example of how 90% of people use it incorrectly? Quality of comp and quality of teammate and zone starts are ignored by some people yes but its far lower than 90%

 

[Aceboogie]

I always will question the eye test (or people who only use that and claim analytics is wrong). How often do we see different opinions in PGTs. We all just watched the same game, how can opinions be so different? Probably personal biases or people saw different parts of the game which moves ever so quickly. You could write a paper on the issue with personal bias and the influence on people opinions. Its why eye witnesses are so shaky in the court of law. Your brain tricks you all the time or you just interpret things a different way. GMs have used the eye test for decades now and its led to 100s (thousands?) of bad decisions, but those largely get a free pass or attributed just to the GM. Noone ever said "Our Nonis was wrong on Clarkson! eye test is useless". Yet because analytics was potentially wrong on a few players the concept itself is wrong or mis guided? I dont buy that

Anyway this is the last time ill debate eye test vs analytics here as this is the exact oppsoite of what I intended the thread to be. Ill stick to discussing analytics for players and if people have an issue they can post as to whats incorrect or feel free to gander to another thread. I realize analytics arent the be all and end all. This is just supposed to be a light hearted convo on them

 

[IAGTTAYM]

I always will question the eye test (or people who only use that and claim analytics is wrong). How often do we see different opinions in PGTs. We all just watched the same game, how can opinions be so different? Probably personal biases or people saw different parts of the game which moves ever so quickly. You could write a paper on the issue with personal bias and the influence on people opinions. Its why eye witnesses are so shaky in the court of law. Your brain tricks you all the time or you just interpret things a different way. GMs have used the eye test for decades now and its led to 100s (thousands?) of bad decisions, but those largely get a free pass or attributed just to the GM. Noone ever said "Our Nonis was wrong on Clarkson! eye test is useless". Yet because analytics was potentially wrong on a few players the concept itself is wrong or mis guided? I dont buy that

Anyway this is the last time ill debate eye test vs analytics here as this is the exact oppsoite of what I intended the thread to be. Ill stick to discussing analytics for players and if people have an issue they can post as to whats incorrect or feel free to gander to another thread. I realize analytics arent the be all and end all. This is just supposed to be a light hearted convo on them

I did the exercise in this video a few months ago: https://youtu.be/_w1IKTPrTNw

It's pretty shocking how much stuff you miss while watching a game.

 

[Jumptheshark]

This post is super solid and I appreciate it. Ill address it more later but I just wanted to commend you for this. Ill only say three things on this:

1) While I use "advanced stats" alot, I am not under the impression I am close to being completely right. I am human so I understand I am far from correct. But I use it to come up with my own opinions.

2) In the above quote you mention how can we use stats when people havent trained in stats? Valid point- But ill ask you this- why are people who predomiantly use the ey test qualified to do as such? What training do they have as pro scout? If I was a game of say Crickett- am I qualified to make a call on a player in that sport? I have no qualificiations

3)In the list you provided, all that is very relevant data to collect and analyze by teams. But why is fans use of analytics critcized for not using that data? There is no access to it. And as far as reading PGTs I see no mention of people using the eye test to mention any of that stuff. Noone is like "Oh Player X get scored on by played 0.45 the shift before with only 1:01 of rest and then played in the D zone for 30 seconds against top line on a back to back and thats the reason they scored". I think trying to take ALL that info into account just brings in a ton of noise

As for the list of 3 exceptions
Russell- Hard line analytic people just undervalued by his poor corsi can be explained. Its up for debate whether his style is really helping the team or could be hurting it (well when ON ICE sv% drops)
Petry- Universally loved by analytics crowd- this was accuratly assessed as a poor trade for second it happened. He had good numbers here on a lousy team and most everyone saw his breakout before it happened
Larsson- Fine player but the issue wasnt him it was the trade. It was giving up Hall. That is still the issue with the trade

with Larsson many and I do mean many people said he was a product of the devils system and had Schneider behind him--I tried to warn people he was better then they knew