Boston Bruins Advanced Stat Thread

[GatorMike]

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

Unless I'm missing something, I don't think anyone is arguing that there's no need for an "eye" test.

The Bruins invest heavily in analytics. But they still pay scouts to go watch players in person.

 

[Sheppy]

I see advanced stats guys vs eye test guys like this:

Advanced stats are at the BBQ huddled around a table in a group of 10 all wearing suspenders, bearded with slicked back hair discussing the earthy aroma of their craft beer they brought to the party.

Eye test guys are drunk, maybe too drunk enjoying their bud lights eating hotdogs with ketchup stains all over their party attire. They just chucked one of their buddies in a cab because he’s destroyed.

Both can be fun ways to enjoy a BBQ.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

I see advanced stats guys vs eye test guys like this:

Advanced stats are at the BBQ huddled around a table in a group of 10 all wearing suspenders, bearded with slicked back hair discussing the earthy aroma of their craft beer they brought to the party.

Eye test guys are drunk, maybe too drunk enjoying their bud lights eating hotdogs with ketchup stains all over their party attire. They just chucked one of their buddies in a cab because he’s destroyed.

Both can be fun ways to enjoy a BBQ.

Eye test guys definitely put ketchup on their hot dogs

 

[Gee Wally]

Stop dumping on each other.
Eventually, like this morning, an Admin will respond to reports and well, hand out warnings like Skittles.

 

[Sheppy]

Eye test guys definitely put ketchup on their hot dogs

And Advanced Stats guys have birds for pets, but it is what it is.

 

[KillerMillerTime]

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 thing the "eye" test does as well.

My issue begins when I see moderately different percentages for the same supposed stat, as was highlighted about Ullmark and Boston team D in the D zone. Why aren't those numbers reasonably close to identical if we're dealing with stats.

Reminds me of reading the Toronto game board after Boston beat Toronto before the break. The post game thread had screen shots
with stats on xGF% on Carlo's goal, another in close Carlo scoring attempt and Pastrnak's in close attempt. The XG % were supposedly from Natural Stattrick and Moneypuck. Anyway, when I looked at it, the distance from the net listed absolutely was off, in #88 case ridiculously off, which if the poster was site correct, makes one wonder about the accuracy of the stats.

I also noticed those j fresh cards have gotten basic facts like age wrong on players.

So IMO their is probably more GIGO on some of these sites than people realize.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

And Advanced Stats guys have birds for pets, but it is what it is.

My dog is only half as big as Neely’s but no bird

 

[Sheppy]

My dog is only half as big as Neely’s but no bird View attachment 659155

Alright, fine. I like that dog…

 

[goldnblack]

Stop dumping on each other.
Eventually, like this morning, an Admin will respond to reports and well, hand out warnings like Skittles.

There are still states where dumping on each other isn't legal btw. And it's not legal here either!

Some topics (2015, analytics) are like the unsolvable hf riddle.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

Let’s see if Rico makes his way over here to tell me that analytics - despite widely used by the media as well as every single professional and high level amateur hockey team (albeit different models of course) - are horseshit. Nevermind that JFresh’s designation of Reilly as a 2nd pair defender is purely due to his ice time last year and not a measure of his ability - that one designation (despite being accurate in context) invalidates all of analytics as a whole.

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

Let’s see if Rico makes his way over here to tell me that analytics - despite widely used by the media as well as every single professional and high level amateur hockey team (albeit different models of course) - are horseshit. Nevermind that JFresh’s designation of Reilly as a 2nd pair defender is purely due to his ice time last year and not a measure of his ability - that one designation (despite being accurate in context) invalidates all of analytics as a whole.

not telling you anything you don't already know but even if he comes over here for a "debate" it'll be a waste of time. He won't even do the basic due diligence of reading JFresh's explanation for what goes into his player cards before he shits on them as being complete nonsense. There is no piece of information you could give that guy that would make one iota of difference in his opinion because he gleefully wallows in ignorance. For Uncle Rico the ignorance is the juice.

 

[Smitty93]

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.

I think a major problem is the people who model these public advanced stats do a poor job marketing them to the public. As a quant person, it's not exactly surprising to me that the people publishing these models tend to present them from a black and white viewpoint (Player X is good, Player Y is bad), or at least that can be the interpretation from people who are less versed in them.

I think understanding what these models are is important for interpreting what they mean. At their core, advanced stats are event tracking combined with factual results (goals, assists, takeaways, giveaways, etc) that are used to say "when X happens, then we are confident Y should result". If a player consistently makes plays where we statistically expect a positive result to happen, then that's a sign that they're a good player.

I'm a firm believer that you need a combination of "eye test" and advanced stats to see the full picture, neither is good enough on its own. I want the stats to confirm what I've seen, and if they don't, figure out why that is. Is there a problem with the stat, did it not consider something, am I underestimating certain player actions? Theoretically, everything observable in a hockey game can be turned into a stat, and then you can combine them to create a picture of positives and negatives, where the greatest value is then being able to translate that into coaching players how to best perform.

Simply put, there's a reason the best teams in the league are the ones who have invested a lot in advanced stats. When the margins between winning and losing are so close, you need every micro-advantage you can find, and that's exactly what these statistical models provide.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

I think a major problem is the people who model these public advanced stats do a poor job marketing them to the public. As a quant person, it's not exactly surprising to me that the people publishing these models tend to present them from a black and white viewpoint (Player X is good, Player Y is bad), or at least that can be the interpretation from people who are less versed in them.

I think understanding what these models are is important for interpreting what they mean. At their core, advanced stats are event tracking combined with factual results (goals, assists, takeaways, giveaways, etc) that are used to say "when X happens, then we are confident Y should result". If a player consistently makes plays where we statistically expect a positive result to happen, then that's a sign that they're a good player.

I'm a firm believer that you need a combination of "eye test" and advanced stats to see the full picture, neither is good enough on its own. I want the stats to confirm what I've seen, and if they don't, figure out why that is. Is there a problem with the stat, did it not consider something, am I underestimating certain player actions? Theoretically, everything observable in a hockey game can be turned into a stat, and then you can combine them to create a picture of positives and negatives, where the greatest value is then being able to translate that into coaching players how to best perform.

Simply put, there's a reason the best teams in the league are the ones who have invested a lot in advanced stats. When the margins between winning and losing are so close, you need every micro-advantage you can find, and that's exactly what these statistical models provide.

All that’s true, and you won’t find anyone here who is a fan of analytics saying you don’t also need to watch the game. Hell Russell even likes Forbort a little bit. It’s the Luddites who only take one view.

 

[sarge88]

I think a major problem is the people who model these public advanced stats do a poor job marketing them to the public. As a quant person, it's not exactly surprising to me that the people publishing these models tend to present them from a black and white viewpoint (Player X is good, Player Y is bad), or at least that can be the interpretation from people who are less versed in them.

I think understanding what these models are is important for interpreting what they mean. At their core, advanced stats are event tracking combined with factual results (goals, assists, takeaways, giveaways, etc) that are used to say "when X happens, then we are confident Y should result". If a player consistently makes plays where we statistically expect a positive result to happen, then that's a sign that they're a good player.

I'm a firm believer that you need a combination of "eye test" and advanced stats to see the full picture, neither is good enough on its own. I want the stats to confirm what I've seen, and if they don't, figure out why that is. Is there a problem with the stat, did it not consider something, am I underestimating certain player actions? Theoretically, everything observable in a hockey game can be turned into a stat, and then you can combine them to create a picture of positives and negatives, where the greatest value is then being able to translate that into coaching players how to best perform.

Simply put, there's a reason the best teams in the league are the ones who have invested a lot in advanced stats. When the margins between winning and losing are so close, you need every micro-advantage you can find, and that's exactly what these statistical models provide.

Agree entirely.

I think the frustrating/confusing part is that the “publicly available” advanced stats are reportedly different from the stats that teams use to guide their decision making.

So, when people outside the realm of an NHL team point to a stat to support their view of a player that might differ with mine, I’m left to wonder just how valuable those stats are vs.my perception from watching and/or using more traditional stats.

Again, I’m not discounting these advanced metrics entirely, but like you said they are just a piece and not all encompassing and infallible.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

Agree entirely.

I think the frustrating/confusing part is that the “publicly available” advanced stats are reportedly different from the stats that teams use to guide their decision making.

So, when people outside the realm of an NHL team point to a stat to support their view of a player that might differ with mine, I’m left to wonder just how valuable those stats are vs.my perception from watching and/or using more traditional stats.

Again, I’m not discounting these advanced metrics entirely, but like you said they are just a piece and not all encompassing and infallible.

While they may not be exactly what the teams use they’re close enough to be a worthwhile tool. FWIW I’ve heard Dom’s model at the Athletic is the closest to most private models.

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

I think a major problem is the people who model these public advanced stats do a poor job marketing them to the public. As a quant person, it's not exactly surprising to me that the people publishing these models tend to present them from a black and white viewpoint (Player X is good, Player Y is bad), or at least that can be the interpretation from people who are less versed in them.

I think understanding what these models are is important for interpreting what they mean. At their core, advanced stats are event tracking combined with factual results (goals, assists, takeaways, giveaways, etc) that are used to say "when X happens, then we are confident Y should result". If a player consistently makes plays where we statistically expect a positive result to happen, then that's a sign that they're a good player.

I'm a firm believer that you need a combination of "eye test" and advanced stats to see the full picture, neither is good enough on its own. I want the stats to confirm what I've seen, and if they don't, figure out why that is. Is there a problem with the stat, did it not consider something, am I underestimating certain player actions? Theoretically, everything observable in a hockey game can be turned into a stat, and then you can combine them to create a picture of positives and negatives, where the greatest value is then being able to translate that into coaching players how to best perform.

Simply put, there's a reason the best teams in the league are the ones who have invested a lot in advanced stats. When the margins between winning and losing are so close, you need every micro-advantage you can find, and that's exactly what these statistical models provide.

I agree that there's a messaging or marketing problem to some degree, but at the same time there are examples every day (right here on this board) of people who don't even try to understand these models while confidently telling everyone who will listen how wrong they are.

I think the guys who present this data try to simplify the messaging by distilling it down to basis takeaways like "good" & "bad" in order to make them as accessible as possible. To some degree that's necessary in a sport as old school as hockey where there are so many long-time fans who are naturally inclined to hang on to antiquated ideas about the sport, but it's a double edged sword for the reasons you pointed out.

It's very easy for people to see a JFresh player card and assume that it's just some guy on the internet giving players a grade rooted in his own opinions when really those cards are just aggregating historical data and applying the most superficial analysis in terms of how positive or negative those results are. But again, good luck a) explaining that to someone who doesn't even care to learn and b) avoiding shorthand like "good" and "bad" in conversations about players when it's so cumbersome to constantly "when X happens, then we are confident Y should result".

 

[Gonzothe7thDman]

To me I just assume almost all of the posters here who make snide remarks about #chartz are just intimidated by them. And they don't want to put the effort in to learn what exactly each stat is telling them and how the numbers are calculated.

It also makes it uncomfortable for some posters who may have to come to the realization that their "eye test" isn't worth anything. They don't realize how much they don't know about the X's and O's about hockey other than the "flashy" plays.

I can't take a lot of the eye test only posters seriously considering I read the GDTs and the things they see/post don't match up with reality.

"Forbort had a great shift". Great shift to them means he made a decent hit at the tail end. Meanwhile they missed the 2 turnovers, the bad gap at the blueline, letting his check get loose in the slot but Ullmark saved it.

 

[sarge88]

While they may not be exactly what the teams use they’re close enough to be a worthwhile tool. FWIW I’ve heard Dom’s model at the Athletic is the closest to most private models.

I get it…..but here’s where I can see some people getting lost, and why people might be less accepting of them, even among those who want to understand or “buy in”.

Numbers to most people are finite. So when we hear “close enough” it raises something of a red flag.

Like, if the Bruins are looking at a players performance based on a formula or set of numbers that they develop, which isn’t exactly the same as the formulas that people outside of that team are using to analyze the same aspect of the game….


Then to me, it starts to seem similar to me seeing a guy play and feeling that they are effective, while someone else watches him and feels differently.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

I get it…..but here’s where I can see some people getting lost, and why people might be less accepting of them, even among those who want to understand or “buy in”.

Numbers to most people are finite. So when we hear “close enough” it raises something of a red flag.

Like, if the Bruins are looking at a players performance based on a formula or set of numbers that they develop, which isn’t exactly the same as the formulas that people outside of that team are using to analyze the same aspect of the game….


Then to me, it starts to seem similar to me seeing a guy play and feeling that they are effective, while someone else watches him and feels differently.

Couldn’t you apply that exact same logic to the “eye test” though? We as fans or media don’t watch a player the same way a scout does.

 

[sarge88]

Couldn’t you apply that exact same logic to the “eye test” though? We as fans or media don’t watch a player the same way a scout does.

Entirely.

I think the eye test also includes stats though, where it seems as if some of the “analytics” people rely solely on them.

Lastly, the analytics obviously don’t/can’t take intangibles into the equation (pun intended).

Take Lucic for example. I know he‘s nowhere near what he was even 3 years ago. and maybe over the course of the playoffs he wouldn’t be effective.

But, in a game 7, if he were here and the option was him, Greer or Lauko to play 8 minutes on line 4, I’d take him every time, regardless of what the stats say.

This is the same reason I predicted Foligno would turn things around this year. Pride, professionalism, and health aren’t quantifiable.

Lastly, as much as it might not seem it, I do appreciate what the stats are about. I just don’t base as much of my opinion on them as some others do.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

Gf too

Entirely.

I think the eye test also includes stats though, where it seems as if some of the “analytics” people rely solely on them.

Lastly, the analytics obviously don’t/can’t take intangibles into the equation (pun intended).

Take Lucic for example. I know he‘s nowhere near what he was even 3 years ago. and maybe over the course of the playoffs he wouldn’t be effective.

But, in a game 7, if he were here and the option was him, Greer or Lauko to play 8 minutes on line 4, I’d take him every time, regardless of what the stats say.

This is the same reason I predicted Foligno would turn things around this year. Pride, professionalism, and health aren’t quantifiable.

Lastly, as much as it might not seem it, I do appreciate what the stats are about. I just don’t base as much of my opinion on them as some others do.

i completely disagree that the pro-analytics people reply solely on them. Where the anti-analytics people rely solely on their eye test.

And yeah…I don’t want Lucic anywhere near my team in a game 7 this year. But that’s not based only on charts.

 

[sarge88]

Gf too

i completely disagree that the pro-analytics people reply solely on them. Where the anti-analytics people rely solely on their eye test.

And yeah…I don’t want Lucic anywhere near my team in a game 7 this year. But that’s not based only on charts.

In fairness, I said some.

And….a lot of people wanted Foligno nowhere near this team this year.

 

[UncleRico]

Let’s see if Rico makes his way over here to tell me that analytics - despite widely used by the media as well as every single professional and high level amateur hockey team (albeit different models of course) - are horseshit. Nevermind that JFresh’s designation of Reilly as a 2nd pair defender is purely due to his ice time last year and not a measure of his ability - that one designation (despite being accurate in context) invalidates all of analytics as a whole.

Im referring to reilly being an 89th percentile of defensemen in JFRESH’s wins above replacement level player, 94th percentile in offense and 74th percentile in defense while playing against above average quality of competition over a three years weighted average.

That’s what I find hilarious. If his play on the ice was even remotely close to that, there would be multiple teams lining up for his services.

Then there guys like Vince dunn and Justin Faulk who are well known offensive defenders with single digit percentile EV offense and 80%+ percentile EV defense. there’s just so many countless examples.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

Im referring to reilly being an 89th percentile of defensemen in JFRESH’s wins above replacement level player, 94th percentile in offense and 74th percentile in defense while playing against above average quality of competition over a three years weighted average.

That’s what I find hilarious. If his play on the ice was even remotely close to that, there would be multiple teams lining up for his services.

Then there guys like Vince dunn and Justin Faulk who are well known offensive defenders with single digit percentile EV offense and 80%+ percentile EV defense. there’s just so many countless examples.

You’re not going to debate this in good faith. You’re going to be a Luddite screeching that the world is flat. It’s not worth it.

 

[UncleRico]

You’re not going to debate this in good faith. You’re going to be a Luddite screeching that the world is flat. It’s not worth it.

Lmao great response if this isn’t you in a nutshell. I gave you an actual response. You are clearly stumped so you cry, name call and tuck your tail between you legs and walk away.

Maturity level through the roof. you say im not going to debate you in good faith lets just take a quick look back at this convo so far after your original post asking me to come over here:

My response

Im referring to reilly being an 89th percentile of defensemen in JFRESH’s wins above replacement level player, 94th percentile in offense and 74th percentile in defense while playing against above average quality of competition over a three years weighted average.

That’s what I find hilarious. If his play on the ice was even remotely close to that, there would be multiple teams lining up for his services.

Then there guys like Vince dunn and Justin Faulk who are well known offensive defenders with single digit percentile EV offense and 80%+ percentile EV defense. there’s just so many countless examples.

Your response:

You’re not going to debate this in good faith. You’re going to be a Luddite screeching that the world is flat. It’s not worth it.

Somehow you say I'm not going to debate in good faith.. yet my response was in good faith, then you just call me a luddite screeching flat earther.


Now please tell me who is debating in good faith here?