Brian Burke is a Dinosaur

Master_Of_Districts

Registered User
Apr 9, 2007
1,744
4
Black Ruthenia
Hockey doesn't lend itself too well to advanced statistics. Maybe if you're on a hockey forum and you're trying to justify an argument with more than just your eye quickly. Not really if you are analyzing players in the show. Trained eyes are what counts there. Don't really see what's so controversial about any of his quotes if you limit them to the realm of hockey (which I'm assuming was the context... cherrypicked quotes like this are worthless).

Just because you happen to think that hockey doesn't lend itself to advanced statistics doesn't mean that you're right.

And you're not.
 

Master_Of_Districts

Registered User
Apr 9, 2007
1,744
4
Black Ruthenia
You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying two things:

1) In order for any useful defensive data to be produced, there are many, many variables that would need be accounted for.

2) It is impossible to produce this data in any meaningful way.

Well, players don't seem to have much influence over the save percentage of their own goaltenders.

They do, however, have some influence over how many shots their own goaltender faces.

What else is there?

Enlighten us.
 

kmad

riot survivor
Jun 16, 2003
34,133
60
Vancouver
Well, players don't seem to have much influence over the save percentage of their own goaltenders.

They do... by playing certain ways, players can influence the shot quality that their goalie faces, lowering or raising his save percentage.

They do, however, have some influence over how many shots their own goaltender faces.

What else is there?

Measuring what contributed to the shot totals, I would think?
 

kmad

riot survivor
Jun 16, 2003
34,133
60
Vancouver
There's probably some influence, but it's a sliver of what people think it is.

No year-to-year correlation for [on-ice EV SV % minus off-ice EV SV %] among defencemen, for example.

I wouldn't think that it would come down to individual defensemen. Overall team defensive strategy for limiting shot quality would likely originate with the coach. I would imagine that some form of relative shot quality decrease has followed Dave Tippett and Ken Hitchcock into whatever team they coach. edit: also Jacques Lemaire!
 

Master_Of_Districts

Registered User
Apr 9, 2007
1,744
4
Black Ruthenia
I wouldn't think that it would come down to individual defensemen. Overall team defensive strategy for limiting shot quality would likely originate with the coach. I would imagine that some form of relative shot quality decrease has followed Dave Tippett and Ken Hitchcock into whatever team they coach. edit: also Jacques Lemaire!

If that's your position, I don't disagree - I thought you were talking about the player level, rather than the team level.
 

kmad

riot survivor
Jun 16, 2003
34,133
60
Vancouver
If that's your position, I don't disagree - I thought you were talking about the player level, rather than the team level.

Of course elite defensemen will be better at executing the strategy (Lidstrom and his lucky friend Osgood come to mind), but lowering shot quality still comes down to the coach.
 

theguyinside*

Guest
I can tell you almost all NHL clubs use advanced statistics when helping make decisions on players. There is no black or white here.

Most general managers use metrics to supplement a decision, not solely decide one. Decisions are based on experience, observation, and statistics.

Some clubs place emphasis on different areas of talent evaluation. It all depends on the philosophy of the brass, and in some cases, the ownership.
 

Hipster Doofus

Registered User
Sep 1, 2006
6,515
0
Certainly not here, okay pal, I'd love to debate baseball with you. Moneyball is the title of the book, it's also the term used to describe the market inefficiencies. If you choose to use another term, that's great. Boston used high OBP guys like Youkilis and Ortiz, while Beane was "buying" runs and wins and using far more advanced statistics that others weren't because of the old school mindset. All GM's are and were aware of advanced statistics but back then chose to ignore them and some still do. It's all about market inefficiency. Boston drafted and picked up high OBP players but without the payroll they had, no title. The payroll was the reason they won before anything. Completely different approach from Bean's.
And what metrics was he buying those runs and wins with? :shakehead
The post below answers your question. The RedSox bailed on the moneyball approach and went the way of their rivals, the Yankees. Spend tons of cash and pray for the best.


Whats that? I thought you said they looked at OBP guys? Perhaps they didn't bail, but maybe, just maybe, you never read anything about stats besides the blurbs in Moneyball. Theo Epstein is a confirmed follower of using advanced stats to help field better teams. Not even sure why you're trying to argue against that.

http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2012/02/epstein-hates-moneyball-and-your-dumb-questions/

He just hates Moneyball because it turned what he considered "proprietary information" into public information.
 
Last edited:

Price is Wright

Registered User
Feb 5, 2010
12,494
5,571
essex
Oakland used Moneyball because they didn't have any money. Boston used Moneyball and then made it better by using it with Money.

Oakland had to find scrap players who get on base. Boston were able to attract the best players in the league to get on base.

Why is this so hard to understand?
 

CanadianHockey

Smith - Alfie
Jul 3, 2009
30,547
513
Petawawa
twitter.com
Of Burke's quotes, only the third is useful/spot on. (The second one is pretty damned ridiculous, as no amount of eyeballing could guarantee a Cup, either).

Statistics are useless without some degree of interpretation. No matter what 'data' you have, there's always been some level of subjective thought applied into the hypotheses, the methodologies, the limitations, and the conclusions/interpretations of the data.

Some fields are more developed than others, and consequently have come to be defined by apparently universal laws and relationships. Other fields (like political science or hockey) have been far less developed, and due to a combination of ethical concerns (read: limiting experimental methods), multiplicity of factors, and relatively small number of case studies will likely take a long time to arrive to the same 'universal' conclusions.

Dismissing statistics off hand is just as bad as dismissing eye judgments off hand. Both are invaluable in forming an accurate assessment.
 

Swarez

Registered User
Mar 10, 2011
1,010
6
The Boston Red Sox won the world series because Manny was on the juice! Everyone knows this right? The moneyball aspect was finding him correct dosage to never be caught.

Hockey is probably the hardest to use stats on out of all the major sports, too fast, too many random occurrences (deflections, bad ice, rolling pucks, shot going not where you are aiming). Not saying it can't be done but will never be as effective as a individual match up sport like baseball.

I know in basketball now days they talk about true shooting %, per possession stats are big, taking into account the type of player guarding you and how that changing your numbers (a starter, mis match off a switch, bench guy etc)

Its way over my head, but a few good talks on NPR if people want to go find them.
 

Giroux tha Damaja

Registered User
Apr 17, 2009
9,247
0
Mount Holly, NJ
The Boston Red Sox won the world series because Manny was on the juice! Everyone knows this right? The moneyball aspect was finding him correct dosage to never be caught.

Hockey is probably the hardest to use stats on out of all the major sports, too fast, too many random occurrences (deflections, bad ice, rolling pucks, shot going not where you are aiming). Not saying it can't be done but will never be as effective as a individual match up sport like baseball.

I know in basketball now days they talk about true shooting %, per possession stats are big, taking into account the type of player guarding you and how that changing your numbers (a starter, mis match off a switch, bench guy etc)

Its way over my head, but a few good talks on NPR if people want to go find them.

All that stuff comes out in the wash. Those random occurences and variance in general, even out with a large enough sample size.

What makes hockey players hard to track statistically is that the game is free flowing. It's not like baseball where there is difinite structure and only so many different situations a player can be in. In hockey there are so, so, so many different "game states", and they're all very different. Where as in baseball the structure is much more rigid, and it's much easier to track and quantify every single thing a player does. In hockey, how do you quantify an accurate and reliable first pass from a defesneman. How many of those is one assist worth? How do you quantify an extremely fast defenseman who's always in position or able to get in position, to discourage opposing forward from attempting to carry the puck to high percentage shooting areas?

Sure, these sorts of things I'm talking about show up in #'s like corsi etc., but those numbers are also tightly tied into the action of team mates. It's just not like baseball, where you're essentially playing alone within the framework of a team. When you bat, run, and field, how you do what you do is impacted very little by your team.
 

MarkGio

Registered User
Nov 6, 2010
12,533
11
I would argue hockey is chaos. One man's dump into the corners turned what could've been a 2-1 game and a 3rd place playoff bout into something else entirely. I think Burke is in a good position to make that statement. I think Burke would've spent his entire career listening to the numbers and watching the game at an analytical level.

I believe statistics are a product, not a predictor. Stats can't factor cognitive processes such as a players motivation after a parent died or after a trade rumor or a coach's speech. Stats can't factor for injuries, training regiment, diet, etc. There's steroids, anger, finding your groove, and everything in between.

I think by not being critical of a given method you're not exercising sound science. I like the numbers because my judgment is subjective, but doesn't mean they're aren't flawed. Maybe they really do lack application in general management
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->