Proposal: Trouba Mega-Thread Part III

[JetsHomer]

Redmond sucks, but so do most of the Avs Dman so not surprising he does better than them

 

[lomiller1]

There is absolutely no chance that Klingberg or Barrie is a better defenseman than Duncan Keith. They might have had a better year if you look at specific metrics,

GAR is evaluating who had the better year in terms of absolute totals (not rates) so what exactly are you even trying to argue here?

Vlasic outscored Campbell last year and played more minutes in tougher situations. If your statistic says Campbell is better than Vlasic, I question the validity of your statistic.

Campbell played more min, the defensive boost he provided his team mates was narrowly behind Vlasic and the offensive boost he gave them was greater.

Bringing this back to Trouba, last year he had the lowest QoT on the Jets by far, with a 47.8% expected on ice goals. Trouba himself, however had the best expected GF% of 52.8. IOW he played with the weakest set of players and elevated them to the best overall performance. (Byfuglien wins best overall performance if you just base it on volume but expected goals also factors in shot quality, which tilts it in Trouba’s favor)

 

[Nithoniniel]

I think the stats are more important for fans that are uncomfortable with their ability to assess talent.

Perhaps. What I have found is that how comfortable and self-assured people are in their ability to assess talent doesn't really correlate to actually having a good eye for the game. Just judging by my time discussing with people on these boards and other places, the ones with the highest opinion of themselves often post the least convincing reports.

I'd say that stats are more important for fans that know that their eye test is invariably flawed and limited by our cognitive processes. There's an inherent bias in how we perceive situations, and we constantly filter the flood of information in a good depending on those biases. That's just how humans work, and while you can train yourself to do better, you can't eliminate the problem.

So we basically see what we want to see, both in what catches our attention and how we handle that information. Furthermore, we are unable to do anything other than educated guesses in many situations. For example, you have two players. Player A has better stick positioning than player B, but he also makes more mistakes. How much better stick positioning would Player A need to have to make up for every extra mistake? We'd take a guess in the dark on that one, but statistical analysis can help us by giving us data on the end result.

It's all information in the end. Best thing you can do for your eye test is realize it's not infallible. Best thing you can do with statistical analysis is to not stretch the conclusions you draw. That's the biggest problem around here on that issue.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

GAR is evaluating who had the better year in terms of absolute totals (not rates) so what exactly are you even trying to argue here?

Campbell played more min, the defensive boost he provided his team mates was narrowly behind Vlasic and the offensive boost he gave them was greater.

Bringing this back to Trouba, last year he had the lowest QoT on the Jets by far, with a 47.8% expected on ice goals. Trouba himself, however had the best expected GF% of 52.8. IOW he played with the weakest set of players and elevated them to the best overall performance. (Byfuglien wins best overall performance if you just base it on volume but expected goals also factors in shot quality, which tilts it in Trouba’s favor)

GAR attempts to gleen some hidden meaning by manipulating the data of several measurable events. It has almost no bearing on who is better as a player, or where the player should be on the depth chart. It's trying to infer a causal relationship on correlated data.

Vlasic played 23:07 per game. Campbell played 22:16. Vlasic scored 39 points in 67 games. Campbell scored 31 points in 82 games.

And, that's with Vlasic starting only 42.8% of his 5v5 shifts in the OZone. Campbell was over 51%.

So, Vlasic played more minutes per game, scored 8 more points in 15 fewer games, and played in tougher situations. GAR says Campbell had a better season. Something doesn't add up there. But I've only been watching hockey for 35 years, I obviously know less about it than a calculator.

 

[Ivan13]

You have to be special kind of a hockey fan to claim VlaÅ¡ić and Soupy are close to being as good.

 

[Stej]

What in the **** is going on in this thread. Can a mod please start a Redmond thread and clean this up?

 

[Evil Little]

Trouba is probably better off sticking with Winnipeg for these next 4 years. And then leave as a UFA free to sign with any team of his choice.

The Jets would be fools to offer him a contract longer than two years but shorter than six.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

What in the **** is going on in this thread. Can a mod please start a Redmond thread and clean this up?

No need for a new thread. Redmond is simply an example of someone who isn't nearly as good as his advanced stats indicate. This was to refute claims that Trouba is definitely a 1st pairing D because of of a couple specific advanced stats. It's relevent to the conversation, in a round about sort of way.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Perhaps. What I have found is that how comfortable and self-assured people are in their ability to assess talent doesn't really correlate to actually having a good eye for the game. Just judging by my time discussing with people on these boards and other places, the ones with the highest opinion of themselves often post the least convincing reports.

I'd say that stats are more important for fans that know that their eye test is invariably flawed and limited by our cognitive processes. There's an inherent bias in how we perceive situations, and we constantly filter the flood of information in a good depending on those biases. That's just how humans work, and while you can train yourself to do better, you can't eliminate the problem.

So we basically see what we want to see, both in what catches our attention and how we handle that information. Furthermore, we are unable to do anything other than educated guesses in many situations. For example, you have two players. Player A has better stick positioning than player B, but he also makes more mistakes. How much better stick positioning would Player A need to have to make up for every extra mistake? We'd take a guess in the dark on that one, but statistical analysis can help us by giving us data on the end result.

It's all information in the end. Best thing you can do for your eye test is realize it's not infallible. Best thing you can do with statistical analysis is to not stretch the conclusions you draw. That's the biggest problem around here on that issue.

I think stats are good to use sometimes in certain situations, but what us "stat haters" are saying is that when these stats say that Tyson Barrie or Brian Campbell are better than Drew Doughty or Duncan Keith, or that Redmond is a top 4 defenseman clearly something isn't 100% correct. Stats shouldn't be the end all be all for who's the best. If you're comparing players of a similar talent level than you can absolutely use them to see which player is better, but the fact that Keith isn't a top 20 defender according to those stats is just ridiculous.

 

[Liferleafer]

Why does every thread turn into a hockey fan's nightmare AND a nerd's wet dream? Pretty soon the players won't even need to play, we'll just simulate the games using "advanced stats".

 

[The Abusement Park]

Why does every thread turn into a hockey fan's nightmare AND a nerd's wet dream? Pretty soon the players won't even need to play, we'll just simulate the games using "advanced stats".

Because eyes are subjective duhhhh.

 

[Kraken Jokes]

I've always found TOI/GP to be the most telling stat. Although even that doesn't tell the whole story. You gotta watch the game.

 

[Halla]

The Jets would be fools to offer him a contract longer than two years but shorter than six.

fools to lock him up for 5 years?