Garbo Man
Meh
All good my guy shit happens We all get fired up from time to timeMe? You're kidding. haha. Fair comment.
All this World Cup action today has fired me up like Herdman. heh
All good my guy shit happens We all get fired up from time to timeMe? You're kidding. haha. Fair comment.
All this World Cup action today has fired me up like Herdman. heh
With the exception of xG% and PDO the stats that were quoted don't need to be validated. They are a tabulation of what happened while he was on the ice. Fenwick for example is simply shot attempts that are not blocked.I never use "advanced stats" grab a clue.
The advanced stats the poster is using, and many of the type have not been substantiated, proofed, validated and these metrics are devised mostly by people not even with a background/education in statistics so that theres methodological problems as well.
I bet if you gave him a left handed stick, he could still make a better pass than either of these players.Kesselring is better than both…too bad he’s a RD.
We've had the convo countless times. The sport of hockey is incredibly complex and hard to quantify. So that the attempts to break hockey down are as I stated not validated. They are tools, metrics, we don't know how much they really mean. We also don't know about interobserver reliability of the stats, standardization, counting errors or even counting bias. We're talking about a league that can barely tally SOG somewhat adequately or accurately.With the exception of xG% and PDO the stats that were quoted don't need to be validated. They are a tabulation of what happened while he was on the ice. Fenwick for example is simply shot attempts that are not blocked.
The HDCF% reflects where the shots are coming from combined with how the shot was initiated.
Natural Stat Trick - Glossary
www.naturalstattrick.com
There is a lot of decent statistical evidence to back up the claim that shots that are classified as HDCF are more likely to end up in goals than other shots. It's not an exact science but it does have real statistical evidence behind it. If you want some clear and easy to find evidence of this look at goalies sv% vs HDSV%.
Player Season Totals - Natural Stat Trick
www.naturalstattrick.com
Last year Shesterkin had the best 5 vs 5 HDSV% at .883 amongst goalies with at least 500 minutes. His overall 5 vs 5 sv% was .936. Demko was at .852 vs . 932. Hellebyuck was .919 vs .831. This means that for these three goalies a shot that was classified as HDCF was twice as likely to result in a goal as a generic shot.
Now what is not true is that you can isolate Niemo's individual impact on these stats. The stats don't tell you explicitly that he was at fault, but they do make a pretty compelling case that when Niemo is on the ice the play is decidedly in the Oilers zone and that there is danger for the goalie. The on ice save % of 94% given the high HDCA rate means that he has benefit of solid play by the goaltenders while he was on the ice together with the benefit of playing against guys who don't score a lot. This is not really sustainable. Last year there were only 7 players in the NHL who played 400 minutes or more with a 94% or better on ice save percentage. Only 5 defensemen had an on on ice save percentage of 93% or above.
Theres enough data out there over the years to detect a pattern.We've had the convo countless times. The sport of hockey is incredibly complex and hard to quantify. So that the attempts to break hockey down are as I stated not validated. They are tools, metrics, we don't know how much they really mean. We also don't know about interobserver reliability of the stats, standardization, counting errors or even counting bias. We're talking about a league that can barely tally SOG somewhat adequately or accurately.
Anyway that said its not something I'm going to look further into. I enjoy the sport of hockey. I don't enjoy spending any time on hockey analytics. Thanks for your time.
As always it all depends on what you are trying to understand. This is where you need to recognize what these stats can and cannot tell you. If I said that the "Oilers get outshot regularly" you don't need to validate the shots stats because they clearly measure exactly what you need to verify or deny the claim. Now of course there could be a small error in tabulation but it is highly unlikely that this would skew the numbers enough to alter the conclusion. Especially since small random errors will tend to even out over time.We've had the convo countless times. The sport of hockey is incredibly complex and hard to quantify. So that the attempts to break hockey down are as I stated not validated. They are tools, metrics, we don't know how much they really mean. We also don't know about interobserver reliability of the stats, standardization, counting errors or even counting bias. We're talking about a league that can barely tally SOG somewhat adequately or accurately.
Anyway that said its not something I'm going to look further into. I enjoy the sport of hockey. I don't enjoy spending any time on hockey analytics. Thanks for your time.
tbh I'm not following this distinction. I took the one to be the other in terms of the other posters comments. I mean in fairness that poster was positing Nemo shouldn't even be seeing the ice.As always it all depends on what you are trying to understand. This is where you need to recognize what these stats can and cannot tell you. If I said that the "Oilers get outshot regularly" you don't need to validate the shots stats because they clearly measure exactly what you need to verify or deny the claim. Now of course there could be a small error in tabulation but it is highly unlikely that this would skew the numbers enough to alter the conclusion. Especially since small random errors will tend to even out over time.
In this case, the claim was that the Oilers got "caved in" when Niemo was on the ice. This is something that the sorts of stats being quoted can actually address accurately which was the point of my post. But if you use them to say "Niemo is bad defensively", then you have work to do because they do not really isolate the individual without looking at more context. They can provide evidence in support of this later sort of statement, but that evidence can often melt under additional analysis.
I have said this before but when I use numbers I do so with a clear view of what their limitations would be. I have been as critical of inappropriate use of all stats, advanced or not as anyone here. I also have a healthy appreciation for the "saw him good" point of view. But what we "see" is also very subjective. Moreover, our memory of what we saw is also often inaccurate. The key is to use all tools at your disposal to tell the most accurate story.
Since you're not a fan of advanced stats.tbh I'm not following this distinction. I took the one to be the other in terms of the other posters comments. I mean in fairness that poster was positing Nemo shouldn't even be seeing the ice.
The other poster was saying that Nemo was so bad he was being "caved in" on ice which to me reads as saying equal or worse than "Nemo is bad defensively" The poster was trying to posit that Nemo and Kulak were some kind of black holes.
Since you're not a fan of advanced stats.
When niemo is on the ice at 5on5, the oilers are giving up 36 shots per 60. This is while facing fairly sheltered usage.
The only one even in the same realm as him is Kulak giving up almost 37. And Kulak hasn't been good this year at all.
"Niemo is bad defensivley" and the "Oilers got caved in while he was on the ice" are two different statements. They are related and the same stats can be used as evidence in support of both statements. But the first statement can be much more dicey to really "prove" using the stats presented in these posts while the second statement can be addressed much more definitively. An extreme example would be having Chris Pronger play a season with 4 junior level teammates. No matter how good he might be that five man unit will get "caved in".tbh I'm not following this distinction. I took the one to be the other in terms of the other posters comments. I mean in fairness that poster was positing Nemo shouldn't even be seeing the ice.
The other poster was saying that Nemo was so bad he was being "caved in" on ice which to me reads as saying equal or worse than "Nemo is bad defensively" The poster was trying to posit that Nemo and Kulak were some kind of black holes.
Only an indirect comment but.Since you're not a fan of advanced stats.
When niemo is on the ice at 5on5, the oilers are giving up 36 shots per 60. This is while facing fairly sheltered usage.
The only one even in the same realm as him is Kulak giving up almost 37. And Kulak hasn't been good this year at all.