Analytics be damned!!

[zeke]

All right... one more and then back to work.

Possession statistics, as a predictive measure, within an 82-game season, are as strong an analytic as there is available.

This is definitely true.

But being "stronger" than other weak analytics doesn't mean the particular analytic is actually "strong".

 

[zeke]

Vollman's analysis in Hockey Abstract on this is very in-depth. He compares every team over the previous five years and on that basis the Leafs were pretty healthy. It's likely a more substantial portion of the Leafs cap dollars are spent on players on IR this year.

I think whether you consider Gardiner's 36 games missed as "injury" or not would make a big difference to any injury analysis all by itself.

And even if Gards wasn't actually on the IR for that time, the fact is that he still missed 36 games last year, and likely won't miss 3/4 of the season this year, makes him missing last year tantamount to an IR stint anyways, I think.

 

[HarrisonFord]

Yes there is, so what's your point?



Great, so extrapolate that out to 82 games and you get nonsense.

You couldn't deduct my point on your own? Okay, well my point was that you should not treat likelihood as if it is a guarantee.


And I have no idea what that second part is supposed to mean. Are you saying that they can't/won't sustain that over 82 games?

 

[Damisoph]

I can only imagine what the advanced stats would have told us about those Leafs/Sens series' back in the late 90s early 2000s. Ottawa would always dominate possession (reg. season and playoffs), but when push came to shove (literally), the Leafs would always come out on top.

In fact, the Pat Quinn teams were never that great defensively, Cujo and later Eddie Belfour were always saving our bacon. It's a big reason why I don't put a lot of stock in these advanced stats...hockey is not a game that can be reduced to simple numbers, there's too many variables.

If you want to impress me, break out game tape over the last 30 years and get to work.

 

[James Mirtle]

Additionally, the Leafs have currently outshot opponents in 2 of the 3 games so far this year. Obviously 3 games isn't enough games to say that things have changed, but it's encouraging nonetheless

We're dealing with a tiny sample size, but they've been out shot at even strength so far.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

This is definitely true.

But being "stronger" than other weak analytics doesn't mean the particular analytic is actually "strong".

The old "You may be the smartest kid on the short bus but......."

 

[James Mirtle]

This is definitely true.

But being "stronger" than other weak analytics doesn't mean the particular analytic is actually "strong".

As I said, I think these numbers are very often not being used properly. Especially when they're condemned. I try not to overstate their value - what they are is an area of weakness and concern for this team. They obviously have strengths that help mitigate that, but in order to be a contender, this has to be fixed.

 

[TieClark]

a) In some cases, I find the advanced statistics available influence my opinion as I've seen them be very accurate.

b) It would be completely impossible to form every opinion based on advanced statistics given the limited ones available. There's no way to use them for goaltending, for example, or to evaluate special teams play. There are simply a set of situations where advanced stats can help, as when teams (Toronto, Anaheim) or players (Kadri, Fraser) are massive outliers in things like shooting percentage or PDO, and a regression is likely.

c) In my opinion, it's undeniable the Leafs central weakness is their possession game, and the organization's main focus for improvement should be on improving in that area in order to make the next step. Randy Carlyle has said something similar recently when Bob McKenzie asked about improving possession - and this is why analytics are often referenced for this area of their game. You can win without being a good possession team; it is often simply more difficult and harder to sustain. Corsi/Fenwick, or shot attempt metrics of any kind, if used properly, are a very good indicator of possession.

I play hockey, and have for nearly 20 years. Members of my family have played professionally. I'm from a traditional, hockey crazy city and have attended 50+ games a year my whole life. My opinions on hockey are not all about advanced statistics; the way I would frame it is that, out of all the writers for mainstream outlets, I'm one of the few who considers these numbers at all in my work. I think they add considerable value.

If you want analysis without any of this taken into account, you can pretty much read any other newspaper writer out there, rather than picking on the one guy who uses this new information.

Sorry - I can't respond to everyone in this thread. I'm not having a bet with anyone here - that's not something The Globe would condone - but I've put my reputation on the line with my picks, as always. I don't think the Leafs finishing with eight fewer points than they were on pace to a year ago is that unreasonable, as I think they will score fewer goals and suffer more serious injuries, among other things. I will say this: If Bernier is as good as he's looked so far, there's no question they make the playoffs. Predicting what an inexperienced goaltender will do is very, very difficult, though, and I had him more in line with his career averages.

I'm always very accessible - I answer most people on Twitter and email. Thanks.

Listen I understand exactly WHY you do it. I was also never trying to knock your writing ability and I believe I stated as much that it was never about that. Your name was chosen because like you said you're one of the few mainstream reporters who uses the numbers and as such, receive most of your attention because of it. You can't use a niche market however and only want to hear the good while none of the bad. You use a controversial technique in evaluating players and will always receive backlash because of it. It's like Steve Simmonds writing one of his ridiculous articles and after receiving all the attention which was the entire reason he rights such articles, turning around and complaining about said attention because it's not in his favour.

 

[n1ck13]

What is a 'high leverage situation' and what is a 'neutral environment', though?



I never said that.

But you can formulate it this way.

If you are an owner and have 200k to spend, are you going to trust a scout with professional experience who relies simply on 'intuition' and subjective\emotional decision-making, or the scout with a more concrete, mathematical foundation for a specific player?



Not everyone has the Leafs in the playoffs.



The small sample size is often brought up. I don't see the same conclusions being drawn from it. Majority of the data encompasses years worth, not 48 games. But even so, this is no different than using the playoffs. You can make the case that the regular season provides a more concrete basis (larger sample size) than the playoffs.



How much regression is this 'analytics guy' assuming will occur for Bozak? I don't think you've stated an actual number.

And there are always cases where a player drops below their career consistent norms.

People who make yearly statistical predictions for players always engage in regression situations -- are you saying the analytical guy's justification is simply incorrect or weaker than traditional means of doing this?



I agree with the majority of what is said here, excluding the dig at the Leafs and their regression is, since I don't know what specific advanced stats argument you are arguing against. It seems you are more or less attacking some kind of general view that the Leafs are due for a regression.

I would also add in James Reimer, who was a big reason for the Leafs making the playoffs. He provided the Leafs with solid goaltending, something they've lacked.



1) I don't see anyone overlooking the small sample size.

2) Many, many players regress below their career norms. I haven't read the actual argument you are attacking here, or seen how much regression we are talking about, either (you only say "well-below" -- but how much quantified? I think it is also fair to say that Bozak needs both JVR and Kessel to produce. His success is thus correlated to either of them.

3) What is the analytical guys argument for Bozak's regression?



This is what I don't understand: 'corsi enthusiasts' watch the game and check standings, too. This is not something that needs to be separated. Of course there are people who separate the two, but you are probably speaking of a minority.

Advanced stats people look for ways to improve and evaluate the game. Why? Because they love the game itself.



These variables generally, even out. A bad penalty call one game, and a favorable penalty call next game. You hit the post, your opponent hits the post. Etc.

The point about hockey being more dynamic than baseball is true, though. But that doesn't mean advanced statistics have no place in hockey. I've seen numerous people suggest so.

It's already finding a place within the game. So the 'never replacing' talk is premature.

Once again only my part of your question, but this is the best thing I can find with reference to what a critical situation implies. http://www.tangotiger.net/crucial.html There is a chart that accompanies the writing, what is "high leverage" and "neutral" depends on game situation, could be top of the 3rd one out, or top of the 9th two out. I really think a little research by the real statisticians in hockey could prove that momentum exists or that is doesn't for that matter. First 5 minutes after a goal, does a teams other "advanced stats" get better or stay the same, ditto with a fight, goal in the last minute of a period, etc.

 

[Cap'n Flavour]

You couldn't deduct my point on your own? Okay, well my point was that you should not treat likelihood as if it is a guarantee.

And I have no idea what that second part is supposed to mean. Are you saying that they can't/won't sustain that over 82 games?

I was hoping your point would be something more than a useless strawman that nobody has ever brought up. But if you want, go ahead and look back through this thread or others and point out where people are treating likelihoods as guarantees. Statistics is all about probabilties, and so are advanced stats in hockey. If anyone is claiming that their predictions are guarantees, they fundamentally don't understand statistis, and even then I doubt people are actually putting money on such predictions.

The Leafs certainly could end the season outshooting their opponents. I'd say the chances are better that they won't, but concluding anything form the first three games is foolish.


Now to the 'GRAaaah you must watch the games crowd!!!' - this is such drivel. I don't watch every Leafs game anymore since I cancelled cable, but most every time I do what I see is not much different from what the advanced stats say. The advanced stats say Bozak is not a very talented scoring player, even if he's good at faceoffs/PK/shootouts. Everything I see seems to suggest that as well. Last season they suggested that Grabovski was a talented player miscast in a difficult checking role and unlucky to boot. It certainly looked like that to me as well. Hell, recall his awful +/- in the playoffs - when you broke down those goals against (and people have posted liknks to every goal in the offseason threads, so look them up if you want), hardly any were personally his fault. Most were breakdowns by defense or the supposed defensive stalwart Kulemin.

I also continue to see that the Leafs have a group of talented forwards, so it's not a huge surprise that they score a lot, but they do seem to be getting more than their fair share of fortunate bounces. Or you can call it 'better shot selection', although it's funny that people keep bringing that up with not a shred of evidence to support it. I also see a team that continues to struggle in its own end defensively, and the stats from last season backed that up with the large number of shots against. Again, you can claim that the Leafs limit good scoring chances against, but I still haven't seen evidence of that either. I see instead that the goaltending through last season and 3 games so far has been above-average (less Reimer's 4 goals against last night), and again the stats agree with that. So what's so wildly different about what watching the games tells you and what advanced stats say?

 

[mix1home]

I also continue to see that the Leafs have a group of talented forwards, so it's not a huge surprise that they score a lot, but they do seem to be getting more than their fair share of fortunate bounces. Or you can call it 'better shot selection', although it's funny that people keep bringing that up with not a shred of evidence to support it. I also see a team that continues to struggle in its own end defensively, and the stats from last season backed that up with the large number of shots against. Again, you can claim that the Leafs limit good scoring chances against, but I still haven't seen evidence of that either. I see instead that the goaltending through last season and 3 games so far has been above-average (less Reimer's 4 goals against last night), and again the stats agree with that. So what's so wildly different about what watching the games tells you and what advanced stats say?

Here is a thought. Reimer is prone to give out many rebounds [and Shrivens was rebound machine], sometimes 2 or 3 in a row. He is usually in good position to block those from going in, but nevertheless it creates statistical _appearance_ that Leafs are outshout in every game [ES or whatever] simply by unjustly inflating our shots against.

Sometimes rebounds lead to more goals against as last game [with Sens], but in most games that was not the case. This inflates sv% and screws possession stats.

Let's say we play Bernier more this year and he is not as prone to give rebounds and still keeps the same sv%. That would see our shots against go down significantly and our ASS will have huge jump in positive direction.

 

[Cap'n Flavour]

Here is a thought. Reimer is prone to give out many rebounds [and Shrivens was rebound machine], sometimes 2 or 3 in a row. He is usually in good position to block those from going in, but nevertheless it creates statistical _appearance_ that Leafs are outshout in every game [ES or whatever] simply by unjustly inflating our shots against.

Sometimes rebounds lead to more goals against as last game [with Sens], but in most games that was not the case. This inflates sv% and screws possession stats.

Let's say we play Bernier more this year and he is not as prone to give rebounds and still keeps the same sv%. That would see our shots against go down significantly and our ASS will have huge jump in positive direction.

It sure seems like Reimer gives up juicy rebounds, yes, but has anyone actually done the work to measure whether he gives up both more rebounds and lower quality ones than the majority of the league? If this is the explanation, then Reimer/Scrivens would have had to give up many more rebounds than their competitors, but they'd necessarily need to be of lower quality than league average too (otherwise they'd fail to make the second save and would have poor sv%).

If anything, it seems to me that Reimer gives up a fair fraction of his rebounds into dangerous areas around the crease instead of in the corners. If that's true *and* he lets out a higher-than-average number of rebounds in general, then you'd figure his stats would suffer unless the Leafs' D happen to be unusually good at clearing out dangerous rebounds (I don't think that's the case).

 

[Plastis Wafer]

SV% and puckhandling/rebounds

Hello all! new to posting but not to lurking..

One thing I have noticed while viewing many posts and biting my tongue (or finger tips I guess) is using SV% as the be all end all when covering a goalie and their worth in the net. Obviously SV% is a very important statistic and if a goalie has an impressive number then that's great and all, but let's look into this a little closer...

Can we all agree that Martin Brodeur is at least one of if not the best puckhandling goalies in the history of this game? I imagine we easily can. We can also all likely agree that he is up there with the best at stopping pucks and reading the shooters throughout his career. Now, it may surprise some that James Reimer posted a higher SV% last year in a shortened season than Brodeur has at any point in his career outside of the 1996-1997 season. It may sure seem kind of perplexing perhaps, but the reasoning behind this is very simple and I'm sure many of you already know where I'm going with this.

Throughout his career, Brodeur played behind some pretty impressive defense to say the very least, as it is often used as an argument against some of his success. Now no one here is going to downplay the importance of that D over the years, but many seemed to downplay Brodeur's ability to effectively eliminate scoring chances all on his own, without having to make a single save. Let me ask this, is there a better chance of scoring on a 2-1 or an effective dump in? Obviously we all know the answer to this, as it may seem like a dumb question, but which play out of the two has the potential to lead to a more sustained forecheck and more shots? I'd like to think the latter of the two, which brings us back to handling the puck. How many potential chances have Brodeur and Belfour and the like prevented over the years due to being able handle the puck on quick and/or effective dump ins? How many chances were prevented from absorbing a rebound or kicking it out to the right place? The most important question in my mind, is how much energy have they saved their Defensemen by being so active and reliable?

Guys with this ability are often going to have SV% that just don't look indicative of their play, because most of the goals that are scored on them will be of a high quality chance where as they won't be facing as many low quality chances because they will have simply prevented them. I, like many of you, love Reims and his character, but in an age where goaltenders can do much more to help their team than just stop the puck, Reimer does not, despite his best and limited efforts. I would heavily assume the Leafs are not as gassed in game 7 with Bernier in net, and I believe that is one of the reasons they brought him in.

There have been some intelligent posters who I have enjoyed reading over my time lurking the boards who seem to be overlooking this fact, perhaps out of emotional attachment to a guy of Reimer's charm and effort, but it in reality the Leafs will be better with Bernier in net, even when they don't play like it as we have seen so far.


#TeamLeafers

 

[Peasy]

Another reason for Reimers super high save percentage but not that great GAA is because of the ridiculous amount of shots that the leafs allowed throughout the season.

I enjoy having a goalie that can puck handle so well.

 

[leafs in five]

If you want to impress me, break out game tape over the last 30 years and get to work.

would i be allowed to keep any tallies on shots or other quantifiable aspects of what appears on 30 years of game tape, to return to later for parsing? or am i only allowed to watch and reach conclusions based on what i see?

 

[James Mirtle]

Listen I understand exactly WHY you do it. I was also never trying to knock your writing ability and I believe I stated as much that it was never about that. Your name was chosen because like you said you're one of the few mainstream reporters who uses the numbers and as such, receive most of your attention because of it. You can't use a niche market however and only want to hear the good while none of the bad. You use a controversial technique in evaluating players and will always receive backlash because of it. It's like Steve Simmonds writing one of his ridiculous articles and after receiving all the attention which was the entire reason he rights such articles, turning around and complaining about said attention because it's not in his favour.

I'd say it's substantially different. A lot of the criticism I'm seeing is either people not understanding the concepts involved or being so out to lunch that they think I'm doing it out of some sort of vendetta against the team. That's the issue.

But so be it. I've said my piece.

 

[EDDIE20*]

Analytics are for *******s. It's what's on the score that matters, not how it got there.

 

[zeke]

I'd say it's substantially different. A lot of the criticism I'm seeing is either people not understanding the concepts involved or being so out to lunch that they think I'm doing it out of some sort of vendetta against the team. That's the issue.

But so be it. I've said my piece.

You've been great here. Most of us appreciate you discussing it with us quite a bit.

 

[zeke]

Analytics are for *******s.

completely Ignoring Analytics is for *******s, too.

It's what's on the score that matters, not how it got there.

For scores that have already happened, true, but for assessing future scores, quite the opposite.

 

[EDDIE20*]

For scores that have already happened, true, but for assessing future scores, quite the opposite.

Maybe but I don't put much stock in it. Anything can happen on any given night.

 

[ryno23]

I think what is happening is people see Sabermetrics in baseball and want to bring it over to hockey but hockey is a totally different sport and the game does not lend it itself to be judged by advanced stats.

Baseball its for the most part individual performances pitcher vs batter, batter vs fielder that determine the stats, formulas for those advance stats.

Hockey is played 5 on 5 and each player reaction to a moving puck creates different outcomes every second the play is going on.

I look at puck possession Mirtle says the Leafs will eventually start to lose cause they don''t own the puck enough and their high shot % is bound to come down.

The Leafs play a dump and chase game and once they retrieve the puck they have good shooters who are in the right spot and get off quality shots. The days of the Jason Blake's rushing the puck around the ice and getting off a weak shot off outside the faceoff hash marks are gone.

Playing different teams also means different tactics you may play dump and chase one night then play puck possession the next night. The other team may play dump and chase vs holding onto the puck.

Goalies impact that same thing. Reimer lets tons of rebounds out so teams hold the puck longer in our zone and we don't posses it enough meanwhile Bernier holds the puck stops the play. The Leafs win the draw and get out of their zone on the rush.

Zone starts as well are not equal. What if the 4th line ices the puck? They are stuck on the ice and the coach cannot put on his best D. What happens if the shift before the top line took a D zone draw and then rushed up the ice and buzzed around the other teams net forcing a whistle....the coach brings out another line....does he want to put them out? Does he have confidence in them are they trying to shelter them?

Anyways....these stats may work in baseball but hockey is too fast of a game played with 10 players on the ice and coaching strategy plays too important a role in it.

 

[Clark4Ever]

Analytics can be a useful tool without question, but the raw data is far from being infallible as a predictive measure. The Leafs were within a minute of proving that in the opening round of last year's playoffs.

For example, critics often point to the fact that the Leafs were routinely outshot last season, but advanced analytics still can't accurately measure the quality of shots allowed. Therefore, when analyzing a counter attacking team like the Leafs, that statistic in of itself (as well as possession stats) can be entirely misleading, as the Leafs have typically given up less quality scoring chances than their opponent under the tutelage of Randy Carlyle.

 

[egd27]

Maybe but I don't put much stock in it. Anything can happen on any given night.

Sure, but over time things tend to go as expected.

 

[highslot]

the reason your argument doesn't make sense to me, is because rebounds offer greater scoring chances and are hard to stop, than let's say a point shot with no rebound. so not only is a goalie with bad control allowing more total shots, the opportunities are better.

so the save percentage should be higher on a low rebound goalie because percentage-wise, he's stopping more easy shots.

 

[Tyler Biggs*]

The Leafs played back to back on the weekend, had 2 days for assessments and practice, then back to back in 2 different cities against 2 teams that had a four day rest. Four games in six nights, four regular players injured or not in our line-up and then played again on Saturday. Haters please explain to me why you feel this schedule favored the Leafs. Frankly, I don't see it.