Analytics be damned!!

[Warden of the North]

my good sir

Hey, look at all that possession!

 

[The Winter Soldier]

Hey, look at all that possession!

If anything, it looked good on Gunnarson, played him perfectly. Zero possession so he won't get any advanced stats cred. Perfectly illustrated how flawed advanced stats are.

 

[Warden of the North]

If anything, it looked good on Gunnarson, played him perfectly. Zero possession so he won't get any advanced stats cred. Perfectly illustrated how flawed advanced stats are.

Yep. Agree 100%.

 

[weems]

I am not sure what Ovie's possession stats are, but it is well known he coasts when he doesn't have the puck. Analytics who cite the importance of possession probably have not watched Ovie without the puck. He rarely backchecks with vigor, there is no stat that measures how a player plays without the puck.

What's worse is that there isnt even a stat that measures the "quality" of a shot.

Phil Kessel can go in on a breakaway = shot taken
JVR can skate down the boards and fire a perimeter shot = shot taken

These Corsi ratings etc are cool to look at but need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. One team could have 33 shots in a game and maybe only 3 high quality chances while the opposing team could have 23 shots but 6 high quality chances. There's just so many variables in a hockey game that dont and will most likely never show up on a stat sheet that it makes advanced stats less accurate then in a sport like Baseball.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

What's worse is that there isnt even a stat that measures the "quality" of a shot.

Phil Kessel can go in on a breakaway = shot taken
JVR can skate down the boards and fire a perimeter shot = shot taken

These Corsi ratings etc are cool to look at but need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. One team could have 33 shots in a game and maybe only 3 high quality chances while the opposing team could have 23 shots but 6 high quality chances. There's just so many variables in a hockey game that dont and will most likely never show up on a stat sheet that it makes advanced stats less accurate then in a sport like Baseball.

Agree here.

 

[DopeyFish]

Leafs D plays a containment style instead of a neutralization style.

Containment = more shots of lower quality, opposition has higher possession. Tends to wear down attacking team.
Neutralization = lower shots of much higher quality, opposition has lower possession. It can open up room in defensive zone for opposition to take advantage of.

Leafs neutralize in neutral zone, which favors the defending team (strength in numbers)

When leafs score, its usually a quick play. Most of players dump the puck in which hurts our possession. Leafs don't typically play cycle game. Also hurts possession. Cycle game tends to blow possession or generate low quality opportunity. Take the puck to the net every play and either the play dies or you tend to have a good scoring chance with an opportunity at a follow up.

Leafs team is like the perfect setup for bad possession stats. The shots we take are typically high quality shots and the shots we give up are typically (on a good night) low quality perimeter shots.

Leafs can do this because of the forward set up: PF - center - finisher or PF - center - PF. Matched with a mobile defense can cause chaos as they can double as PFs. (Exception in the case of gardiner/liles/rielly who would double as finishers)

Cycle game is like looking for opportunity. PFs which plow through defense force an opportunity.

Advanced stats are junk, or at least they don't tell the whole story.

You can in theory win a game without possessing a puck once but you will always win if you keep the puck out of your net.

 

[Epictetus]

What is it that you think scouts do?

A combination of the two.

But this is besides the point, really. No scout will ever want their profession to be deemed something that anyone with knowledge of numbers can do. They will want to still believe they have 'hockey knowledge' and intuition when it comes to judging players, that regular folks do not.

This isnt baseball.
A talented scouts eye will always be > that of some advanced stats.

That is simply untrue, and quite frankly, just your opinion.

Data is still in its initial stages and developing.

I'm sure some scouts, commentators, and people in baseball still believe that about baseball.

 

[leafs in five]

when people use "possession" as a synonym for advanced stats are they just referring to corsi, the stat that uses shot attempts as a proxy for possession, since you can't take a shot unless you have possession of the puck? i assume they are. which makes it worth noting, again, that Ovechkin doesn't direct a shot to the net in that clip. in any event there is no socalled advanced stat called "possession" that only keeps track of how long a player or combination of players keep possession of the puck, so it's not like a clip of a player who maintains possession for a long time with no immediately positive result discredits something that is revered by whoever as an "advanced stat"? but even acting as if this lone clip discredits a stat like corsi because it is an event in which possession of the puck does not translate to offensive success is basically Tea Party-quality thought.

 

[Morbo]

Somehow the Leafs will be amazingly lucky this year too, I'm thinking.

 

[The Legend]

I do believe that the only stats that truly matter are wins and losses. Stats can be twisted to "prove" anything with a little creativity...in the end you can argue a million ways why your team deserved to win a game that they did not win but this will not change the fact that your team lost the game.

Wins and losses matter in terms of evaluating past performance.

In terms of evaluating future performance, puck possession plays a role. How much of a role is still to be evaluated - it's a pretty logical argument that increased puck possession leads to increased scoring chances. The Leafs, though, might be an outlier that can generate good scoring chances without needing to have the puck for longer stretches. Time will tell.

 

[The Legend]

What is it that you think scouts do?

Truthfully? Not much.

 

[The Legend]

Advanced stats are more credible in baseball. In hockey you have the puck randomly richocheting (sp?) off of people, you have scrambles in the crease, you have fights that change momentum, you have all sorts of things that are not repetitive. WIth baseball, you are guaranteed that the pitchers are gonna throw the ball at least somewhere near the strike zone at least 100 times during the game.

1) Momentum doesn't exist
2) Those random bounces should even out over the course of 82 games.

 

[leafs in five]

1) Momentum doesn't exist

or at the very least, it is a concept that can only be speculated upon, and yet many people accept it as a fact of the game. which basically screams for a more scientific attempt to prove or disprove the idea, using stats that are available. like, looking at the number of shots generated before and after a fight, looking at a team's results in games that featured fights versus those that didn't.

i can understand people getting miffed about advanced stats guys who act as if they've unlocked the real truth about success and failure in hockey, but:

1) it's strange that so many people seem offended by the idea of new, statistical methods of investigating the game, as if these investigations are antithetical to enjoyment of the game as a spectator.
2) so many things that are accepted by many in the game as true - that fighting is necessary to swing momentum orprotect players, or that a "shoot-first" centreman can't play with a sniper on his wing - are just entrenched ideas. these notions are "the truth" because the people who say that they're true believe them to be true, and they know the game, and their knowledge of the game includes knowing that this particular thing is true. it benefits the sport, and people's enjoyment of it, to subject these claims to some scrutiny.

 

[Epictetus]

Wins and losses matter in terms of evaluating past performance.

In terms of evaluating future performance, puck possession plays a role. How much of a role is still to be evaluated - it's a pretty logical argument that increased puck possession leads to increased scoring chances. The Leafs, though, might be an outlier that can generate good scoring chances without needing to have the puck for longer stretches. Time will tell.

Possessing the puck without scoring is extremely important, in that it is a defensive tactic. Your opponent cannot score if you have control of the puck. So, technically speaking, you can be on offence and defence at the exact same time.

Now that I think about it, I don't really understand the posting of the Ovechkin clip at all. If he did that near the end of the game, for example, with 1 minute left and a 1 goal lead, he would be praised for "killing time", or something.

 

[leafs in five]

Now that I think about it, I don't really understand the posting of the Ovechkin clip at all. If he did that near the end of the game, for example, with 1 minute left and a 1 goal lead, he would be praised for "killing time", or something.

yeah i don't get it either. like everyone agrees that Ovechkin is a good player as well. it would maybe hold some weight as an argument against assigning value to "possession" if it were a clip of some guy everyone knows is a scrub skating around in possession of the puck for half a minute to no benefit to his team. but it's a clip of a guy who's consensus one of the top 10 (or so, if you are a hater) players in the game doing something that you don't often see other players do. and the reason you probably won't be able to post a clip of some scrub skating around in circles with possession of the puck is because it's pretty hard to do in the NHL. only good players would be able to.

 

[Cor]

A combination of the two.

But this is besides the point, really. No scout will ever want their profession to be deemed something that anyone with knowledge of numbers can do. They will want to still believe they have 'hockey knowledge' and intuition when it comes to judging players, that regular folks do not.



That is simply untrue, and quite frankly, just your opinion.

Data is still in its initial stages and developing.

I'm sure some scouts, commentators, and people in baseball still believe that about baseball.

Whats his face is still looking to win the last game of the season

 

[zeke]

the current crop of "analytics guys" are doing a great job of misinterpreting their data, drawing far too strong conclusions from far too few numbers, and basically ruining what should be a very nice development in statistical hockey analysis.

 

[n1ck13]

1) Momentum doesn't exist
2) Those random bounces should even out over the course of 82 games.

These are the type of things that frustrate me with the analytics crowd. Momentum does exist. It is arguable as to whether fighting effects momentum, but the phenomenon of momentum does exist. I remember, quite vividly, a time where "clutch" didn't exist in baseball. It was a bogus idea that the old guard created. Simply because current analytic minds can not explain an idea yet does not mean it doesn't exist. I remember reading about how historical socieities used to worship fat women (that's why all the statues existed), because they kept the society together because new members came out of them. Well, turns out they weren't goddesses simply normal once somebody figured it out. I am all for the analytical analysis of any topic, just not the "smarter than everybody else" amateurs.

 

[HarrisonFord]

the current crop of "analytics guys" are doing a great job of misinterpreting their data, drawing far too strong conclusions from far too few numbers, and basically ruining what should be a very nice development in statistical hockey analysis.

A certain journalist (lets call him Thames Hertl) sure loves to do that to throw a negative spin on the Leafs. Usually he keeps it thinly veiled, but lately he doesn't even try to hide it anymore. Which is unfortunate, because he's a very smart guy and interesting to read/listen to on the Leaf Report podcast when he puts that behind him.

 

[Epictetus]

I remember, quite vividly, a time where "clutch" didn't exist in baseball.

It depends on your 'definition' of clutch. If, for example, you think a HR in the 7th\8th\9th inning is more 'clutch' (due to a late game situation) than say the 1st\2nd\3rd inning, then this would, in my opinion, be mistaken. Both runs (depending on the amount scored) are equal in value. But if you define clutch in terms of using RISP, it might be more true. Anyway, there is no universal agreement on this.

the current crop of "analytics guys" are doing a great job of misinterpreting their data, drawing far too strong conclusions from far too few numbers, and basically ruining what should be a very nice development in statistical hockey analysis.

Arguments? Examples? Or, no?

Whats his face is still looking to win the last game of the season

What are you trying to argue?

 

[n1ck13]

It depends on your 'definition' of clutch. If, for example, you think a HR in the 7th\8th\9th inning is more 'clutch' (due to a late game situation) than say the 1st\2nd\3rd inning, then this would, in my opinion, be mistaken. Both runs (depending on the amount scored) are equal in value. But if you define clutch in terms of using RISP, it might be more true. Anyway, there is no universal agreement on this.



Arguments? Examples? Or, no?



What are you trying to argue?

I can only explain myself, however, this link is what I meant by Clutch... http://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/clutch/

 

[zeke]

Arguments? Examples? Or, no?

they have basically taken a stat like fenwick which actually has a fairly weak correlation with future wins, and are treating it as if it is a much stronger predictor than it actually is. It's correlation with future wins isn't strong enough to suggest its a a clear "cause" separated from all significant "effects", yet they still treat it as if the numbers have shown that we can actual model predictions with fenwick as the "reality", and factors such as sh% and sv% as just luck or small sample variation factors.

fenwick and corsi are nice stats that tell us something, but the conclusions being drawn from them are far too strong to be justified.

and this year is ESPECIALLY glaring because they are insanely drawing these conclusions from a the tiny half-season sample we had last year. even a full season is a small sample for the advanced stats with a weak correlation to future wins - a half-season sample is even weaker by orders of magnitude.

to give a layman's example, let's look at, say, Bozak.

Bozak Career:

Career: .23gpg, .56ppg
12/13: .26ppg, .61ppg
11/12: .25ppg, .64ppg
10/11: .18gpg, .39ppg
09/10: .22ppg, .73ppg

What we see there is a fairly consistent producer over his career. A guy with a hot rookie year, a bit of a sophomore slump, who then settled in between there the next two years, just a tad above his career average.

We have a solid track record to work off of here, which would give us very good reason to predict him to come in again around .25ppg/.60ppg level this year.

But an "Analytics Guy" is not allowed to draw this fairly simple conclusion, because last year Bozak had a 19.7sh%, an 11.1on-ice sh%, and a 1027 pdo. The "analytics guy" will be forced to claim that Bozak is very likely to suffer significant regression this year from last year's production - despite the fact that that would mean Bozak would "regress" to a level well below his relatively consistent career norms - career norms that were established before last year, even with less "lucky" advanced statistics.

So for an Analytics Guy, Bozak overachieved last year and is due for regression this year - even though Bozak simply continued on scoring at his typical career level last year.

And in fact, when you actually look at all the leafs' career production, weighted for recentness and adjusted for minutes played, it's very hard to argue that many leafs overachieved offensively last year, despite what the advanced stats say. About the only two leafs who played a significant amount of games that could legitimately be said to overachieve were kadri and franson - but even then, those were young guys gettting their first legit offensive opportunities, so their lack of track record is hard to hold against them. And moreover, a number of players, either due to poor performance or injury, clearly underachieved last year to balance those guys out - Lupul, Grabo, gardiner in particular.

What we've ended up with is having so many people with a fairly poor understanding of statistics, who have developed unjustified tunnel vision when it comes to these possession stats - they have literally convinced themselves that last year's half-season sample of possession stats has to be the "base" of their analysis, and are actually completely disregarding contrary facts like the Bozak example I showed above. For them, it doesn't matter that Bozak scored at his usual rate last year - he has to be due regression, because the advanced stats from a half-season sample size say that he was lucky last year.

They're making a big mistake, IMO.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong.

 

[The Legend]

These are the type of things that frustrate me with the analytics crowd. Momentum does exist. It is arguable as to whether fighting effects momentum, but the phenomenon of momentum does exist. I remember, quite vividly, a time where "clutch" didn't exist in baseball. It was a bogus idea that the old guard created. Simply because current analytic minds can not explain an idea yet does not mean it doesn't exist. I remember reading about how historical socieities used to worship fat women (that's why all the statues existed), because they kept the society together because new members came out of them. Well, turns out they weren't goddesses simply normal once somebody figured it out. I am all for the analytical analysis of any topic, just not the "smarter than everybody else" amateurs.

Here's my answer to you n1ck13:

Prove that momentum exists.

 

[TieClark]

or at the very least, it is a concept that can only be speculated upon, and yet many people accept it as a fact of the game. which basically screams for a more scientific attempt to prove or disprove the idea, using stats that are available. like, looking at the number of shots generated before and after a fight, looking at a team's results in games that featured fights versus those that didn't.

i can understand people getting miffed about advanced stats guys who act as if they've unlocked the real truth about success and failure in hockey, but:

1) it's strange that so many people seem offended by the idea of new, statistical methods of investigating the game, as if these investigations are antithetical to enjoyment of the game as a spectator.
2) so many things that are accepted by many in the game as true - that fighting is necessary to swing momentum orprotect players, or that a "shoot-first" centreman can't play with a sniper on his wing - are just entrenched ideas. these notions are "the truth" because the people who say that they're true believe them to be true, and they know the game, and their knowledge of the game includes knowing that this particular thing is true. it benefits the sport, and people's enjoyment of it, to subject these claims to some scrutiny.

I really don't care what people choose to do with their time, but the advanced statistics crowd drive me nuts because they DO take the numbers as facts. Many try not to or at least make it seem like they don't, but they do because every argument is supported with the numbers. The ones that buy into the advanced statistics NEVER have an argument that goes against the numbers which simply doesn't make sense as they are not fool proof.

 

[ak90210]

If anything, it looked good on Gunnarson, played him perfectly. Zero possession so he won't get any advanced stats cred. Perfectly illustrated how flawed advanced stats are.

No it doesn't, possession in advanced stats are measured using shots and there wasn't a shot attempt there. Also, if you make the right play like that over time it will push the puck into the other teams end more often, result in more shots for your team and improve your advanced stats.