Analytics be damned!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Feb 24, 2004
5,490
611
What do you mean "the results simply don't back this up"? Not only does it seem intuitively true that people perform better when they are confident, but there is also a lot of research that backs this up.

Also, people almost universally overrate their own abilities. My guess is we do this in an attempt to capitalize on this phenomenon- If I boost my own confidence by convincing myself that I am better than I am at something, then I will likely perform a little bit better.

And of course high level athletes have to deal with emotions. Everyone has to deal with emotions (unless you have some severe cognitive impairments).

Show me the research that momentum exists in hockey. Ill wait.
 
Feb 24, 2004
5,490
611
How can one even quantify human emotion and momentum? It's not something that can be measured or counted. High level athletes don't deal with emotion? Are you serious? We're talking about one of if not the most emotionally charged game on the planet!

No evidence or results to back up momentum? I'll give you a few.

Boston's comeback against us in Game 7. They scored to make it 4-2, and the Leafs were on their heels the rest of regulation, with Boston not letting up on the gas pedal.

Toronto vs. Montreal opening night this season. After Parros was injured, neither team was the same afterwards, and the game was much slower paced until the final minute when the Habs were trying to tie it up.

Game with Toronto vs NYI last year. After two fights that had happened, the momentum switched to the Islanders favour, and they ended up coming back and winning that game.

Sitting there, and telling people emotion and momentum don't exist is just plain wrong, and I question whetheer or not you've ever played sports in your life.

Do you not realize what confirmation bias is? You have a conclusion in your mind (that momentum exists) and so you bring up examples (or remember only those examples) that fit your theory. I'm sure there are countless other cases of the opposite if you want to play that game.

The Maple Leafs may have been on their heels in Game 7, but that was because they were terrible 5 on 6 THE WHOLE SERIES. Boston's tying goal was a seeing eye shot from the point. Did that go in because of momentum? The Maple Leafs had two great chances in overtime - did those not go in because of momentum?

Stop buying into the narrative. Lets go the other way: how many times have you heard a variation of the cliche that "one team dominates overtime but the other team scored"? These are just narratives that are made up in lieu of actual, reasoned analysis.
 

Disgruntled Observer*

Guest
So you believe that it exists? I'm a touch confused.

If the last 10 minutes of game 7 against the Bruins didn't show momentum in their favor, then what did it show?

I'm sure you'll use some form of words and sentences to describe Bostons domination over the final 10 minutes of that game.

So take those words you use... and that's probably close to my definition of "momentum".
 

Holymakinaw

Registered User
May 22, 2007
8,637
4,512
Toronto
Hey, the Leafs had terrible puck possession stats last season, and were still the 6th highest scoring team in the league. Wha....?

Stop with the analytics stuff already. It's for nerds & is meaningless.

Just watch them play. Anyone who does, can see that they're a pretty good team. Not without flaws........but pretty good nonetheless.
 

The Caveman

We are all the goat
Jan 14, 2007
1,606
30
Montreal, PQ
There is nothing wrong with using statistical analysis to help try and explain and predict. That being said, they only tell a part of the story. Is puck possession and shot differential important? Maybe, but that stat has only any real meaning if you understand it in context: where that possession takes place and the quality of the shots.

This whole back and forth about momentum is interesting. Does momentum exist? Of course it does. Can it be quantified? They haven't figured that out yet but simply something can't be reduced to numerical analysis does not mean it does not exist.

The biggest problem with pure analytics is that it doesn't deal with many of the intangibles that make players/teams more or less successful. Clarkson and Bolland were brought in because of any number of intangibles: experience, winning pedigree, team player, physicality. Stats be damned in this case.

To be fair to Mirtle, his shtick is stats and that's fine. Just remember that it is only one way of looking at the world.
 

William Hylander

There can be only 1
Aug 17, 2009
2,607
338
Do you not realize what confirmation bias is? You have a conclusion in your mind (that momentum exists) and so you bring up examples (or remember only those examples) that fit your theory. I'm sure there are countless other cases of the opposite if you want to play that game.

The Maple Leafs may have been on their heels in Game 7, but that was because they were terrible 5 on 6 THE WHOLE SERIES. Boston's tying goal was a seeing eye shot from the point. Did that go in because of momentum? The Maple Leafs had two great chances in overtime - did those not go in because of momentum?

Stop buying into the narrative. Lets go the other way: how many times have you heard a variation of the cliche that "one team dominates overtime but the other team scored"? These are just narratives that are made up in lieu of actual, reasoned analysis.

How do you explain Montreal turning it up with 10 minutes to go in regulation? Momentum exists, specifically at the end of close games. When you need to score teams turn up the pressure. The OT the leafs played against Boston was a clear domination by the bruins becuase of our failure to hold the lead.

You don't even have an argument your just saying momentum doesn't exist over and over again. Show us these examples then if ours are biased.
 

BayStreetBullies*

Guest
You don't even have an argument your just saying momentum doesn't exist over and over again. Show us these examples then if ours are biased.

To be fair, you can't ask him to prove a negative. The onus is on you.
 

therealkoho

Him/Leaf/fan
Jul 10, 2009
17,011
8,201
the Prior
I had a prof back in the day who used to like to say

"a study was recently done proving that more then 75% of all statistics are misleading"

smart and funny
 

Trainspotter

Registered User
May 28, 2013
424
0
Statistical analysis in hockey will always be exponentially less informative than baseball.

In baseball getting discrete data points is pretty easy. Pitch 1, pitch 2, ... final pitch. Each pitch has a clear outcome for the pitcher and the batter.

In hockey there are no obvious data points. You can't slice the whole game into pitches like baseball, so you have to deal with a time variable (time on ice), but not only that there are usually about 12 other variables that you need to account for at any given time t-- the interactions and positioning of all other players on the ice.

I'm not going to pretend I know much about corsi, but unless it's a complicated algorithm which analyzes games on a computer resulting in each player's relative contribution to preventing/scoring goals, then I'm presuming all these variables are just being collapsed into some vastly inferior statistical categories.

Just because it is mathy it does not mean it is an accurate model of how games are won and lost. It is an accurate model of the invented statistical categories.

The onus is on the model-makers to refine it to capture what actually happens in real life (e.g., the Leafs winning games), and NOT on the leafs to refine their team to fit the model.

Indeed, and this is where they throw their hands up and blame "luck". This is a tacet admission that their numbers don't capture all the relevant variables. Talk about narration. In their story a magic, unmeasurable force called "luck" can significantly effect physical outcomes and the behaviour of individuals. Rather than admit the model they have is woefully incomplete they suggest that what isn't accounted for can't be. Moreover, they also apparently believe that this magical property "luck" must conform to their statistical models such that no team can have an unfair amount of "luck" over the long haul. I wonder if all magical forces are so equitable.
 
Last edited:

weems

Registered User
Jul 3, 2008
17,910
11,152
There is nothing wrong with using statistical analysis to help try and explain and predict. That being said, they only tell a part of the story. Is puck possession and shot differential important? Maybe, but that stat has only any real meaning if you understand it in context: where that possession takes place and the quality of the shots.

This whole back and forth about momentum is interesting. Does momentum exist? Of course it does. Can it be quantified? They haven't figured that out yet but simply something can't be reduced to numerical analysis does not mean it does not exist.

The biggest problem with pure analytics is that it doesn't deal with many of the intangibles that make players/teams more or less successful. Clarkson and Bolland were brought in because of any number of intangibles: experience, winning pedigree, team player, physicality. Stats be damned in this case.

To be fair to Mirtle, his shtick is stats and that's fine. Just remember that it is only one way of looking at the world.

To many analytics people "intangibles" are just fluff and made up junk because they dont show up on a computer and are really tough to measure (thats unless you actually know how to watch a game and properly analyze it).
 
Feb 24, 2004
5,490
611
If the last 10 minutes of game 7 against the Bruins didn't show momentum in their favor, then what did it show?

Two things:

1) I'm always going to disagree with this approach. Picking one (or a few) examples out is easy enough to prove any point. You're obviously more likely to remember those examples that fit your conclusion.
2) Ill still bite on that one point. From minute 10 to minute 2, it wasn't as complete domination as you might think you remember. The leafs even had a breakaway in there - if we score on that, would that change your analysis about momentum existing in those moments?
 
Feb 24, 2004
5,490
611
Hey, the Leafs had terrible puck possession stats last season, and were still the 6th highest scoring team in the league. Wha....?

Stop with the analytics stuff already. It's for nerds & is meaningless.

Just watch them play. Anyone who does, can see that they're a pretty good team. Not without flaws........but pretty good nonetheless.

As many people have pointed out - calling any stat as being something "for nerds" is just a synonym for "I have no understanding of it and don't care to try and learn".
 

Gutchecktime

Registered User
Dec 24, 2005
3,738
341
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.

Curious as to why no one really addressed this post. It's a solid rebuttal, IMO.
 
Feb 24, 2004
5,490
611
How do you explain Montreal turning it up with 10 minutes to go in regulation? Momentum exists, specifically at the end of close games. When you need to score teams turn up the pressure. The OT the leafs played against Boston was a clear domination by the bruins becuase of our failure to hold the lead.

You don't even have an argument your just saying momentum doesn't exist over and over again. Show us these examples then if ours are biased.

I've addressed the Boston point before, but ill do it again: the Leafs had chances in that overtime. If they score - does that mean the momentum didn't exist? Or that we got it back?

Would you agree that if momentum exists, that if team A scored a goal than they are more likely to score the next one? Or judging by your examples, if Team A is trailing in a game with ten minutes to go, that makes them more likely to score than Team B?
 
Feb 24, 2004
5,490
611

I'm not sure these prove that anything actually exists. The last one for instance is more about people's perceptionof momentum, and acknowledges that there is no evidence to support momentum's existence.
 

Jimmy Firecracker

Fire Sheldon.
Mar 30, 2010
35,545
34,097
Mississauga
I've addressed the Boston point before, but ill do it again: the Leafs had chances in that overtime. If they score - does that mean the momentum didn't exist? Or that we got it back?

Would you agree that if momentum exists, that if team A scored a goal than they are more likely to score the next one? Or judging by your examples, if Team A is trailing in a game with ten minutes to go, that makes them more likely to score than Team B?

Your looking at this with way too much emphasis on numbers and statistics. Because you can't quantify it or establish any correlation with it whatsoever, it must not exist in your world.

Answering the examples you've given me, scenario 1, what are the circumstances? Is team A now down a goal? Did they just tie the game? Did it only slightly bridge the gap as they are now still down 6-1? Or have they pulled away even further from their opponent and made the score now 5-2 in their favour?

Scenario 2, how much is team A down by? What has recently impacted the game? Have they recently scored a goal? Did one of the team members just have a decisive win in a fight? Did they just kill a 5 on 3 that has resulted in their home crowd rocking the building cheering them on?

There are way too many variables in your examples to simply say yes or no to anything. I can, honestly tell you that momentum exists in hockey. Just because it doesn't show up on a stat sheet, it doesn't mean it isn't there.
 

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
73,082
38,136
If you've ever played competitive sports you know momentum exists.
 

Ari91

Registered User
Nov 24, 2010
9,900
30
Toronto
I'm not sure these prove that anything actually exists. The last one for instance is more about people's perceptionof momentum, and acknowledges that there is no evidence to support momentum's existence.

Perception is powerful. Momentum is something that many athletes would suggest is very real. I believe your initial approach to the subject was to refute the existence of momentum. The onus then becomes on YOU to defend that position. You are trying to argue that something doesn't exist based on this idea because you can't quantify it. If you choose to severely underestimate the power of belief and intangibles that cannot be measured, that's your prerogative but again, please understand you are the one responsible for providing quantifiable proof that replaces the 'idea' of momentum. You can't use a lack of numbers and calculations to suggest that momentum doesn't exist but then in your defense, you never once use that methodology to actually support your point. It would probably be hard to compile evidence that explains every point in history where it is believed that a shift in momentum took place.

Momentum can shift back and forth. Athletes often suggest that a shift in momentum occurs after an incident that increases their confidence during the game ie. killing a penalty at a crucial part in the game, scoring on a breakaway, scoring a SH goal, your goalie making a hail Mary save, etc. Momentum isn't something that one can predict when it'll take place.

I do hope you realize the irony in you argument. You are trying to say that there is no proof of momentum...rather it's just a 'belief' with no tangible proof of its existence. All the while, you make these claims using nothing more than your own belief with no tangible proof that it doesn't exist.
 

Liminality

Registered User
Oct 22, 2008
13,366
4,013
It's really that simple in my opinion.

Yep, momentum is in every single sport. It's not something you can measure, well maybe the minute to minute time of possession with the puck. That's got to be very hard though. Momentum does exist though, just like when watching the Leafs and you know when they lose momentum sometimes.
 

Guided by Veseys

Registered User
Nov 14, 2011
3,704
2,996
It's pretty ridiculous to suggest that momentum doesn't exist in hockey.
I think two prime features of momentum are focus and fatigue, two variables that aren't accounted for in todays advanced stats.
Momentum is infectious, other teammates feed off it, your opponents start to over think and drain their mental and physical capacities by over compensating. It's impossible at the moment to define how significant momentum is but to deny it's existence is counterintuitive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->