Boston Bruins Advanced Stat Thread

[NDiesel]

it's funny... I can think of several regular posters off the top of my head who certainly seem interested in this topic because any time you try to use even pretty widely adopted stats to argue for a player's value they are quick to completely disregard your argument and instead tell you how stupid your stats or "charts" are. Usually the response is a reasoned explanation of what the stats mean or why the information being conveyed is valuable.

These reasoned arguments are often met with wilful ignorance or outright disdain, but most often just a general unwillingness to even try to understand what these stats mean. After this back & forth a mod (usually you) will shuffle us off to a thread like this at which point the only people (with some exceptions) who show up to have a meaningful discussion are the people who already agree on the value of analytics. Meanwhile the people who started the shitstorm with their dismissive initial comments never bother to join this thread and engage in real discussion. rinse & repeat.

The point is that these arguments don't happen because guys like @MarchysNoseKnows are just dying to discuss analytics. They happen because they simply try to use the information available to them in a debate about players and someone else comes along and tells them how worthless that information is. how is someone even supposed to respond to that if they aren't allowed to defend their own hockey worldview?

So I guess my questions are these:
1. Why does it seem like people have free reign to make derisive comments about how stupid "fancy" stats are but as soon as someone tries to explain why they aren't, that's when the mods crack down?
2. do you think it's good for the board to isolate serious, thoughtful discussion about evaluating hockey players into its own thread that mostly gets visited by people who already agree?
3. the thread that usually gets "derailed" by these debates is the ongoing trade/rumors/speculation thread. Do you really think the discourse that is typically happening in that thread is worth preserving at the expense of the types of discussion you see just on the first page of this thread?
4. what exactly is the point of this thread? Is it a thread to discuss analytics as a concept? Or is it just the only thread where people are allowed to use analytics in discussions about players?

Don't take this as me coming into this thread to shit on anyone - I generally lurk in the shadows in this thread and prefer to read what more informed posters have to say.

But speaking for myself, and probably for some others around here, some days you watch a game and just want to come on here and discuss how well _____ played or looked in a GDT or player thread without having to discuss data points and anamolies, which is why I myself dont join into this thread but just prefer to read.

I think analytics is a unique way of watching/understanding hockey, that as you touched on, most dont understand or simply don't want to understand which is why there is always disdain around here when threads are derailed a bit.

I'm sure Wally disagrees because of all the bickering that happens, but I appreciate the insight in various threads, we only grow as people and become more informed when opposite ideas are debated. I do wish more people who completely oppose analytics would come to this thread for meaningful discussion because there are some fantastic points in here (props to @GatorMike for his fantastic post earlier).

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

Don't take this as me coming into this thread to shit on anyone - I generally lurk in the shadows in this thread and prefer to read what more informed posters have to say.

But speaking for myself, and probably for some others around here, some days you watch a game and just want to come on here and discuss how well _____ played or looked in a GDT or player thread without having to discuss data points and anamolies, which is why I myself dont join into this thread but just prefer to read.

I think analytics is a unique way of watching/understanding hockey, that as you touched on, most dont understand or simply don't want to understand which is why there is always disdain around here when threads are derailed a bit.

I'm sure Wally disagrees because of all the bickering that happens, but I appreciate the insight in various threads, we only grow as people and become more informed when opposite ideas are debated. I do wish more people who completely oppose analytics would come to this thread for meaningful discussion because there are some fantastic points in here (props to @GatorMike for his fantastic post earlier).

It's hard to resist when people keep calling Derek Forbort our best defenseman in the Carolina series.

 

[Dr Hook]

It's hard to resist when people keep calling Derek Forbort our best defenseman in the Carolina series.

And to read every trade proposal that ships out Grizz or relegates him to 7th D because the new guy is "big and physical."

 

[NDiesel]

It's hard to resist when people keep calling Derek Forbort our best defenseman in the Carolina series.

Oh no doubt people deserve to be called out for stuff like that

 

[burstnbloom]

it's funny... I can think of several regular posters off the top of my head who certainly seem interested in this topic because any time you try to use even pretty widely adopted stats to argue for a player's value they are quick to completely disregard your argument and instead tell you how stupid your stats or "charts" are. Usually the response is a reasoned explanation of what the stats mean or why the information being conveyed is valuable.

These reasoned arguments are often met with wilful ignorance or outright disdain, but most often just a general unwillingness to even try to understand what these stats mean. After this back & forth a mod (usually you) will shuffle us off to a thread like this at which point the only people (with some exceptions) who show up to have a meaningful discussion are the people who already agree on the value of analytics. Meanwhile the people who started the shitstorm with their dismissive initial comments never bother to join this thread and engage in real discussion. rinse & repeat.

The point is that these arguments don't happen because guys like @MarchysNoseKnows are just dying to discuss analytics. They happen because they simply try to use the information available to them in a debate about players and someone else comes along and tells them how worthless that information is. how is someone even supposed to respond to that if they aren't allowed to defend their own hockey worldview?

So I guess my questions are these:
1. Why does it seem like people have free reign to make derisive comments about how stupid "fancy" stats are but as soon as someone tries to explain why they aren't, that's when the mods crack down?
2. do you think it's good for the board to isolate serious, thoughtful discussion about evaluating hockey players into its own thread that mostly gets visited by people who already agree?
3. the thread that usually gets "derailed" by these debates is the ongoing trade/rumors/speculation thread. Do you really think the discourse that is typically happening in that thread is worth preserving at the expense of the types of discussion you see just on the first page of this thread?
4. what exactly is the point of this thread? Is it a thread to discuss analytics as a concept? Or is it just the only thread where people are allowed to use analytics in discussions about players?

My King.

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

I love the advanced stats. They can tell you so much.

I just start tuning people out when they treat it as the end all be all.

Advanced stats are for backing up the eye test. Not the other way around.

 

[BlackFrancis]

Advanced stats are for backing up the eye test. Not the other way around.

What if you're looking for something specific? Say, someone for the deadline - a right shot defenseman who can be physical, excel on the PK and not be completely horrible 5v5.

Far easier to narrow everything down with data queries, then do your eyeballing. Is it more efficient? Do your queries filter out players you shouldn't? Is the eye test vulnerable to being fouled by small samples of viewings?

I think each has blind spots. The eye test gets hampered by the amount of time required to view a given player in a sample of games. With the players being chipped now, there should eventually be a method to highlight a given player, but not for us today. Internet metrics are helpful, but could be a lot more so. Chipped players, chipped puck, someone eventually figuring out a way to factor out coach/systemic effects. Again, not today.

Unless we're talking about someone talking authoritatively about a player using stats without ever really seeing the player via broadcast, never mind live, I'm not sure either really gets prominence.

 

[UncleRico]

I love the advanced stats. They can tell you so much.

I just start tuning people out when they treat it as the end all be all.

Advanced stats are for backing up the eye test. Not the other way around.

I couldn’t disagree more. They are used to notice inaccuracies and discrepancies within each other. The eye test can be easily deceived due to bias(though everyone claims this doesn’t happen because they aren’t bias). And bias is beer goggles for the eyes.

Spend a period of a game in one of the game threads here and you’ll get 15 different interpretations of a play. Everyone’s eye test whether that’s me, you or anyone else in here is faulty to a degree or sees something different during the course of an event. That’s why advanced stats can’t be viewed as something to “back up” or confirm. It needs to be its own separate category that gets compared and contrasted to the eye test.

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

I couldn’t disagree more. They are used to notice inaccuracies and discrepancies within each other. The eye test can be easily deceived due to bias(though everyone claims this doesn’t happen because they aren’t bias). And bias is beer goggles for the eyes.

Spend a period of a game in one of the game threads here and you’ll get 15 different interpretations of a play. Everyone’s eye test whether that’s me, you or anyone else in here is faulty to a degree or sees something different during the course of an event. That’s why advanced stats can’t be viewed as something to “back up” or confirm. It needs to be its own separate category that gets compared and contrasted to the eye test.

I will never go by anyones eye test watching it on TV

Including mine

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

I couldn’t disagree more. They are used to notice inaccuracies and discrepancies within each other. The eye test can be easily deceived due to bias(though everyone claims this doesn’t happen because they aren’t bias). And bias is beer goggles for the eyes.

Spend a period of a game in one of the game threads here and you’ll get 15 different interpretations of a play. Everyone’s eye test whether that’s me, you or anyone else in here is faulty to a degree or sees something different during the course of an event. That’s why advanced stats can’t be viewed as something to “back up” or confirm. It needs to be its own separate category that gets compared and contrasted to the eye test.

Respectfully Rico, that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

So you’re an “eye test” guy…you hate Grizz in the playoffs. You want some more heaviness on the back end.

But how many Blue Jackets games do you watch? What’s the eye test on Gavrikov? Are you tuning into CBJ v. the Wild on a Tuesday?

Why does that not keep you from deciding that we need Gavrikov to replace Grizz? Or Luke Schenn to replace Carlo? If you’re an eye test guy how do you decide that other than height and hits?

That’s what I don’t understand.

 

[KnightofBoston]

I think in some years, injuries have forced him into matchups that the Bruins would ideally like to keep him away from.

I also remember Jaro Halak crapping the bed in the 2nd round against Tampa one year.

The bruins for the past many years have had a tremendously difficult time with teams that can attack the corners and cycle with speed, and subsequently on the break out prevent the bruins from working it up the half wall which they greatly relied on

One thing that has changed under Montgomery for the most part is they are better at getting the winger to be supported by either a center man or weak side defensmen to work the puck out quicker and at least clear the zone if not the red line


In the past if they started scrambling in response to not being able to do that that is typically when they would get scored on, I think with Gryzz he’s really good at moving the puck out when he’s supported but really struggles when the opposition forces the bruins to grind it out along the wall and or just scramble while they keep the diamond and shots to the outside

So if they keep Gryzz I’ll be interested if nothing else to see how he looks in those moments when the going gets tough.

Not for nothing but when those times do happen, it’s a team problem not a Gryzz problem per se

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

The bruins for the past many years have had a tremendously difficult time with teams that can attack the corners and cycle with speed, and subsequently on the break out prevent the bruins from working it up the half wall which they greatly relied on

One thing that has changed under Montgomery for the most part is they are better at getting the winger to be supported by either a center man or weak side defensmen to work the puck out quicker and at least clear the zone if not the red line


In the past if they started scrambling in response to not being able to do that that is typically when they would get scored on, I think with Gryzz he’s really good at moving the puck out when he’s supported but really struggles when the opposition forces the bruins to grind it out along the wall and or just scramble while they keep the diamond and shots to the outside

So if they keep Gryzz I’ll be interested if nothing else to see how he looks in those moments when the going gets tough.

Not for nothing but when those times do happen, it’s a team problem not a Gryzz problem per se

The guy who got killed in the corner last year was Forbort. Every time he was on the ice they tossed the puck at him and he couldn’t get it out. Cassidy didn’t adjust - it was suicide.

 

[EverettMike]

 

[KnightofBoston]

The guy who got killed in the corner last year was Forbort. Every time he was on the ice they tossed the puck at him and he couldn’t get it out. Cassidy didn’t adjust - it was suicide.

I agree with that as well, forbort contributed on the PK but got abused by the fast forecheck of the canes. There’s a reason working around the puck methodically in the PP would be easier for forbort to defend positionally rather than reacting dynamically to a 5 on 5 forecheck

 

[EverettMike]

I agree with that as well, forbort contributed on the PK but got abused by the fast forecheck of the canes. There’s a reason working around the puck methodically in the PP would be easier for forbort to defend positionally rather than reacting dynamically to a 5 on 5 forecheck

I can't find it but somebody had an amazing post after the playoffs last year using advanced stats that showed just how bad Forbort was. Anyone remember it?

 

[False Start]

WITH this caveat:

What does this mean? Were the shots / chances against due to starting in the D-zone more often than the other pairs? Was it from lack of puck movement from the pairing itself? Was it a coincidence our forwards couldn't help limit scoring chances when this pair was on the ice?

Advanced stats can't answer all of these questions but may provide some insight to potentially answering them.

 

[GatorMike]

 

[NDiesel]

Offense is the best defense. Always hated when Cassidy led teams would go into a shell defense, felt like they were barely hanging on. This team never seems to change their style with the lead which us refreshing to me.

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

weird, i've been told multiple times that "fancy" stats are useless and +/- is all you need.

 

[GatorMike]

weird, i've been told multiple times that "fancy" stats are useless and +/- is all you need.

Y'all have no idea how much self-restraint I need every time I read the Roster and Trade Discussion threads.

 

[The Laukomotive]

Y'all have no idea how much self-restraint I need every time I read the Roster and Trade Discussion threads.

If there were a eye rolling emoji option in the like button, I would be constantly spamming it.

 

[KillerMillerTime]

I've said it before, but the disparity between Grzelcyk's expected vs. actual has to be a combo of factors.

• One of those playoffs had that series against the Isles where Rask was friggin' crippled. Not sure how many Grzelcyk was on for, but defending with a statue behind you leaves you pretty much at the mercy of luck.
• Speaking of luck, 60 games isn't exactly small, but it's still in the range where someone could shoot 25% and no one would bat an eye - just wait out the eventual regression to the mean. As MarchyNose has been saying repeatedly, this stuff will probably normalize.
• That Carolina series last year, his xGF was fine, but he was struggling. Just could not get the puck out with the bum shoulder. If 10% of the game is getting the puck out and the shoulder isn't bother you as much the other 90%, I'd imagine the data isn't going to take a giant shit on your head. But if you can't get the puck out and your game isn't normally challenged in this area, the scrambling and frustration is surely following.
• 17% of his playoff games came in his second season, where he was okay but not great. Bruce also flipped his zone starts in the playoffs for some unfathomable reason.
• Someone already brought it up I think but Bruce's teams just farted out 5 on 5, especially in the playoffs. And Grzelcyk only plays 5 on 5. Not easy to get a check mark in the black column when the team is going balls out to win 0-0 until they get a PP attempt, which were more infrequent by the year, as refs and God hated Cassidy.

I'm sure there's more but I'm sleepy. And I'm being a dink, putting up mostly anecdote in a stats thread.

Gryz had the two worst TO in an elimination game by a B's dman I have ever seen and that goes back to 1968. So blaming it on Rask injury isn't accurate. Would it have been nice if Rask made a save? Of course but Rask shouldn't get much of the blame pie in those instances, healthy or not.

 

[sarge88]

Don't take this as me coming into this thread to shit on anyone - I generally lurk in the shadows in this thread and prefer to read what more informed posters have to say.

But speaking for myself, and probably for some others around here, some days you watch a game and just want to come on here and discuss how well _____ played or looked in a GDT or player thread without having to discuss data points and anamolies, which is why I myself dont join into this thread but just prefer to read.

I think analytics is a unique way of watching/understanding hockey, that as you touched on, most dont understand or simply don't want to understand which is why there is always disdain around here when threads are derailed a bit.

I'm sure Wally disagrees because of all the bickering that happens, but I appreciate the insight in various threads, we only grow as people and become more informed when opposite ideas are debated. I do wish more people who completely oppose analytics would come to this thread for meaningful discussion because there are some fantastic points in here (props to @GatorMike for his fantastic post earlier).

I love stats but admittedly understanding the "new" stats doesn't come easy to me because at my age, I've had nearly 40 years of following players based on:

GP - G - A - P - PIM - +/-
and little else.

When I see numbers in those columns -- I know what it means even in context.

If I see 82 - 40 - 40 - 80 - 42 and + 28 I know that's a quality player.

When I see 1.95xf%, I literally need to go and re-read what it means almost once a week.

With that being said two things always resonate with me regarding these stats.

1. For me, it takes the fun out of watching the game if you feel the need to refer to the stats to figure out if a player played well or not. I think there is value in these stats for players you don't see often, but when you've watched hockey for 45 or so years, played a little and see 95% of the games a player plays in a given year -- I don't think that my opinion of that player's value is going to be too different than what the stats say.

2. Dom has alluded many times to teams using advanced stats, but not necessarily the ones that are "out there" for the world to see. If these stats are so accurate and important, why don't the people with the most to gain or lose by using or not using them (the teams themselves) rely on them? Why do they use their own stats, if those are so accepted and widely available.

Again, I'm not saying they hold no value -- but I also think the "eye" test does as well.

 

[goldnblack]

This thread going about how you'd expect