All Purpose Analytics and Extended Stats Discussion

[ChibiPooky]

Neil Greenberg has confirmed that the Caps are the only team in the division without a Director of Analytics or similar position.



MOD NOTE: We recognize that not everyone is into deep statistical analysis. This is a thread for "extended stats" discussions. Stats can still be used in the general roster discussion to make a single point, but if someone wants to debate a player's statistical value ad nauseum, or engage in back and forth about the value of X or Y stat, it must go here. If you have extended analysis that applies in another thread, rather than jam up that thread with large charts and so forth you may want to link to a post here, or use a collapse tag in your original post. Contact a mod if you do not know how to do this.

Click to read more...

 

[Hivemind]

Neil Greenberg has confirmed that the Caps are the only team in the division without a Director of Analytics or similar position.

So long as they don't hire Greenberg to fill that role...

 

[HunterSThompson]

Bit bummed about that. I was hoping he was willing to keep evolving with the times, like Quennville has in Chicago. Q really uses that stats to figure out his strengths and maximize the utility of his roster.

On the other hand, he does seem to be adopting some of the analytics-favored principles (no "checking line," focus on speed and possession, involving the defense in the play, allowing offensive defensemen to thrive against lower competition, etc).

As fancy stats go, he mentioned a situation in Nashville where a defenseman had a huge difference in ratio of dump ins after crossing the red line to controlled entries. By looking at stats they were able to notice a situation that maybe they hadn't noticed just by watching. He said the young d-man was basically playing cautious so as to not make a mistake. They were able to sit him down and get him to change.

He also mentioned a negative example. In the second period of a game, a line is tired and hemmed up deep in their own zone. They finally squeak the puck out and dump it after gaining the red line. He said that analytics guys would look at this is as not a good play because it was not a controlled entry, but every coach and every hockey mind out there would consider it a good play.

He also mentioned quality of competition as a big thing. Ovechkin is for the most part going up against other teams top pairing and top scoring line (since teams don't use checking lines anymore). It is impossible to compare his analytics to anyone else that isn't in that same position.

 

[g00n]

As fancy stats go, he mentioned a situation in Nashville where a defenseman had a huge difference in ratio of dump ins after crossing the red line to controlled entries. By looking at stats they were able to notice a situation that maybe they hadn't noticed just by watching. He said the young d-man was basically playing cautious so as to not make a mistake. They were able to sit him down and get him to change.

He also mentioned a negative example. In the second period of a game, a line is tired and hemmed up deep in their own zone. They finally squeak the puck out and dump it after gaining the red line. He said that analytics guys would look at this is as not a good play because it was not a controlled entry, but every coach and every hockey mind out there would consider it a good play.

He also mentioned quality of competition as a big thing. Ovechkin is for the most part going up against other teams top pairing and top scoring line (since teams don't use checking lines anymore). It is impossible to compare his analytics to anyone else that isn't in that same position.

Spot on from BT. Vindication for those of us who have argued these exact points. Gloat gloat. Sad that Hendy was victimized by fancy stat extremists.

But seriously, in that ONE pre-season event/post we got more detailed information out of BT than Oates gave up in 2 years. And 99.999% of what I read in that summary is very encouraging. Thank you for posting it.

 

[Hivemind]

That sounds like an appeal to authority, g00n.

 

[ChibiPooky]

Actually, analytics guys would completely ignore that play, as it's a line change situation (which I personally don't like).

Quality of Competition is one of the biggest "other" #fancystats out there, though I have my beef with how it's calculated.

But personally I don't want Trotz to be a statistician. It's enough for me if he accepts that these stats exist and have uses, and can find ways to use them (which he has in the past). I've always said that you can't coach to stats and that includes these. Coach guys to play good hockey.

 

[Hivemind]

Trotz's point is flawed, beyond the line change aspect. Analytics doesn't say "always commit [action X] since it's always advantageous." Analytics can be useful for measuring which types of plays are more frequently successful. Nobody is arguing the puck should never be dumped, or that every dump is a "bad play." A dump in can be the correct play, but the more frequently you dump it in (forced or otherwise), the lower the likelihood of your team's success. Most simply put, the "bad play" in Trotz's example already occurred, when the line became hemmed in and tired in their own zone.

No, you shouldn't coach to increase your stats. For instance, analytics disciples would not argue for artificially inflating your possession metrics by taking wasteful shots (ie, taking pot shots from center ice). That doesn't actually increase your win percentage. However, a coach can use the stats supplied to them by qualified analysts to increase their results. Look at how Quenneville builds and deploys his lines and defense pairs. How he maximizes Duncan Keith's utility by not playing him on the shutdown pairing.

 

[HunterSThompson]

Please let's not take this opportunity to break into another fancy stats/analytics debate (I know that's not what anyone is trying to do), but let's refrain. It is like the Redskins name debate or politics, nobody's mind will be changed from talking.

I will say, however, that there are a multitude of ways a team can be hemmed inside their own zone and be tired and also not have committed any bad play, in which case getting out of that zone without an icing, committing a penalty or surrendering a goal against is not a mere nothing play, but a great play.

 

[g00n]

That sounds like an appeal to authority, g00n.

I know you're half joking but you're also half serious. To which I would say, not necessarily. I'm not saying just listen to BT because he's BT, which would be an A2A. I'm saying BT and some of us have stated the exact same things and provided the same reasoning. So there's additional credibility. Other coaches might disagree.

Authoritative opinions and appeal to authority logical fallacies are not the same things.

 

[Hivemind]

Can we just all agree to stop calling corsi, fenwick, zone starts, etc. "fancystats." They're not particularly fancy. QoC, GVT, and other calculated stats I could buy as "fancy," but possession and deployment metrics are pretty darn simple. What some of the teams and consultants do is certainly "fancy," but the public is not privy to their methods.

 

[Ajax1995]

Can we just all agree to stop calling corsi, fenwick, zone starts, etc. "fancystats."

No. Especially when you aren't proposing an alternative. Fancystats works just fine IMO...

 

[HunterSThompson]

No. Especially when you aren't proposing an alternative. Fancystats works just fine IMO...

Ostentatious analytics has a nice ring.

 

[RandyHolt]

It is interesting that we are the only team without a dedicated stat geek guru. Make Blaine do it.

Maybe they have someone dedicated to monitor plain poor simple unfancy stats and its just too much keeping an eye on plus minus and Brouwers hits, for him to take on additional numbers.

 

[Hivemind]

No. Especially when you aren't proposing an alternative. Fancystats works just fine IMO...

Call them what they are. Fenwick/Corsi are possession metrics. Zone starts are deployment metrics. QoC/QoT/etc are utilization metrics. They aren't fancy nor should they always be lumped in together.

Latta in for Beagle since they win the same amount of draws and Latta is 100000x more productive with the puck than Beagle. Biznasty can rotate in with Brown.

Was basing the Beagle choice on Trotz's comments about older guys on the 4th line. We haven't signed Biznasty.

 

[strungout]

F'ing Stats.

 

[ChibiPooky]

I'd rather have no stat guy than a half coach half stat guy. Like a centaur.

 

[HeyMattyB]

LOL. "You monsters show my precious fancystats the respect they deserve!"

 

[Hivemind]

I want a coach who's willing to utilize the analytics presented to him.

 

[g00n]

I want a coach who's willing to utilize the analytics presented to him.

I'm pretty sure that's what BT does, no? How those stats are used is up to the coach. Otherwise why even have a coach? Just let stat guys run the team, right?

 

[Hivemind]

I'm pretty sure that's what BT does, no? How those stats are used is up to the coach. Otherwise why even have a coach? Just let stat guys run the team, right?

Not all coaches value the analytics. Oates and Hunter are two pretty good examples of coaches who either ignored the stats or made decisions that ran counter to them.

It also doesn't help that the team apparently doesn't have an analytics department (though that doesn't exclude the possibility of contract work or consulting).

 

[Ajax1995]

It also doesn't help that the team apparently doesn't have an analytics department...

Do you really think teams need a fancystats 'department'?

 

[BrooklynCapsFan]

Do you really think teams need a fancystats 'department'?

I do and I'm not even a true believer. Look no further than our abysmal pro scouting to see that the eye test and a gut feeling ain't cutting it.

 

[Ajax1995]

I do and I'm not even a true believer. Look no further than our abysmal pro scouting to see that the eye test and a gut feeling ain't cutting it.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have a fancystats guy. But a department...?

 

[Hivemind]

Do you really think teams need a fancystats 'department'?

If you're going to mine your own data, having more than one person would be all but essential. Even if you don't, a lot of teams have multiple people involved with different skills and responsibilities. Some teams split up the analysts for the GM staff and the coaching staff. Toronto just brought in at least 3 people to form their analytics dept.

 

[SimplySensational]

If you're going to mine your own data, having more than one person would be all but essential. Even if you don't, a lot of teams have multiple people involved with different skills and responsibilities. Some teams split up the analysts for the GM staff and the coaching staff. Toronto just brought in at least 3 people to form their analytics dept.

Analytics department=getting data that would of been available on Extra Skater for free.