What are you talking about?
I think you might have missed the point of my post.
What makes a better scout? I think most scouts in the NHL probably have fairly equal abilities. Some might be worse than others, but I don't think there's a Wayne Gretzky of the scouting world out there.
Besides, look at how NHL teams perform at the draft. There is almost no consistency to it. The Devils scouting was amazing in the 90s. Then it sucked in the 00s. And then got a bit better in the early to mid 10s.
Did Conte suddenly lose his magical scouting powers and then regain them?
What makes a better scout? I think most scouts in the NHL probably have fairly equal abilities. Some might be worse than others, but I don't think there's a Wayne Gretzky of the scouting world out there.
So I'm a wee bit confused - is this a thread to discuss analytics or a thread to argue about the role of analytics?
To be fair I don't think Conte changed...the game did though. To keep with the theme of the thread, not adjusting to the game's changes quick enough decreases the odds of good drafting even more.
I think whoever the overseas scout is for Detroit is pretty close to that, Hakan Andersson I think is his name. I saw an article on him a while back how the Wings discovered so many gems in low rounds overseas.
it's to discuss bad theories veiled as analytics
I am not really that into analytics so when I was just randomly scrolling around a stat website, I happened to come across a stat Corsi Save Percentage (C sv%) and noticed that Kyle Palmieri was 5th in the league and Ben Lovejoy was 19th. Palmieri was also 1st is C Sv% Rel and Lovejoy was 6th. I was curious to find out what this actually meant, as I don't use stat websites too much and only focus mainly on the basics, including corsi and fenwick, and pretty much the basics. Any help would be appreciated, as I just found this a little bit interesting
I am not really that into analytics so when I was just randomly scrolling around a stat website, I happened to come across a stat Corsi Save Percentage (C sv%) and noticed that Kyle Palmieri was 5th in the league and Ben Lovejoy was 19th. Palmieri was also 1st is C Sv% Rel and Lovejoy was 6th. I was curious to find out what this actually meant, as I don't use stat websites too much and only focus mainly on the basics, including corsi and fenwick, and pretty much the basics. Any help would be appreciated, as I just found this a little bit interesting
Bleedred is correct. Stats people have found that this sort of thing really isn't a talent - defenseman and forwards alike show almost no ability to consistently elevate their goalie's save percentage. We should expect Palmieri and Lovejoy to be closer to the league average next season.
Bleedred is correct. Stats people have found that this sort of thing really isn't a talent - defenseman and forwards alike show almost no ability to consistently elevate their goalie's save percentage. We should expect Palmieri and Lovejoy to be closer to the league average next season.
This guy is suggesting otherwise.
http://hockeyanalysis.com/2017/01/29/offensive-players-negatively-impact-save-percentage/
I also remember an article regarding Larsson and his high on ice save % last year. That guy suggested it might be a thing as well.
I'm very far from an opponent of Corsi, I absolutely love it and have a great amount of respect for how useful it is, I've benefitted greatly from it in playoff brackets.
But it does have a key weakness I wish someone could address. Both Corsi and Fenwick see all shots or shot attempts as being created equally. A flubbed shot attempt from the point and a shot from the slot after a cross crease pass are both only counted as one attempt, yet clearly one was more dangerous than the other.
The reason Fenwick and Corsi are used is because they give us the largest sample size possible. So sure, there's some nonsense counted in there, but many shots on goal have little to no chance of going in the net either - it's a sport where around 9% of the shots on goal are goals. In addition, people have counted scoring chances for ages and for the most part they have mirrored Fenwick and Corsi.
The danger with something like high-danger scoring chances is A: the definition of them - as you narrow your sample size, NHL scorers are bound to miss more important events (including goals), whereas missing individual Fenwicks and Corsis is less important and B: the repeatability of them. Part of why we like Fenwick and Corsi is that over smaller samples, it's more reliable at predicting future goal rates than goal rates themselves. If high-danger scoring chances show similar randomness to goal rates, they're not particularly useful other than measuring past performance. I haven't really seen anyone take a look at high-danger scoring rates yet.
What're your guys' feelings on those hero charts? I'm not too crazy into advanced stats to know if they're good or not