David Conte: Not an analytics fan

[GKJ]

Unrelated: the Devils have been declining while the analytic moment has been ascending

 

[Canadiens1958]

Jacques Plante

Lol, so of course, you can't back anything up. No, they didn't use corsi to predict the trapezoid would diminish the advantage Brodeur gave them with their puck handling, they used common freaking sense. Hell, there's next to no way they could use corsi to do such a thing, as corsi gives no context. No, sorry, they just happen to have brains. The reason I asked if you knew why it was brought in is because, duh, that's why Lou and Conte opposed it. It was brought in to neutralize puck-moving goaltenders who slowed the game down. It's literally right in the motive, no corsi needed.

And no, you didn't give anyone direction for research. It's a cop out because you know you're wrong and can't really back up your claims, as evidenced by your attempt to tie corsi to something a 10 year old could realize on their own(Brodeur-trapezoid). Come back when you actually post something of substance instead of putting the onus on others. It's not my fault you're either too lazy to do your own work or too stubborn to admit you have no clue what you're talking about.

Puck moving goaltenders have always increased the speed of the game - go back to Hugh Lehman, Bill Durnan, Jacques Plante - NHL used to to try to limit his roaming in the fifities.

Hugh Lehman - passing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughie_Lehman

Jacques Plante - roaming rule rejected 1958 June meetings:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=DUswAAAAIBAJ&sjid=a6gFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=6797,361344

So the claims are easy to support, the research was posted on the board previously - see 1958 NHL Draft thread, just a question of the viewers doing a bit or search and reading.

BTW check the HOH Newspaper Archive Library if you want an idea of my research - yet to see any contributions from you that show research or effort.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1479471&highlight=hoh+newspaper+archive+library

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Puck moving goaltenders have always increased the speed of the game - go back to Hugh Lehman, Bill Durnan, Jacques Plante - NHL used to to try to limit his roaming in the fifities.

Hugh Lehman - passing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughie_Lehman

Jacques Plante - roaming rule rejected 1958 June meetings:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=DUswAAAAIBAJ&sjid=a6gFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=6797,361344

So the claims are easy to support, the research was posted on the board previously - see 1958 NHL Draft thread, just a question of the viewers doing a bit or search and reading.

BTW check the HOH Newspaper Archive Library if you want an idea of my research - yet to see any contributions from you that show research or effort.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1479471&highlight=hoh+newspaper+archive+library

And in heavy trapping systems, like the one the Devils played in, they slowed it right down. Hence why they brought in the trapezoid. But you probably thought they just did it for ***** and giggles, and only after extensive research did the Devils finally discover that it was actually a bad thing for them.

Anyway, I haven't contributed much that shows research or effort, mainly because my main argument is based on what the guy just said in an interview, and for the most part all I've needed was half a brain. You really haven't either. I mean, you've quoted plenty of sources, and none of which pertain to the argument at all.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Knock it off with the personal attacks on one another.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

LA and Chicago are both huge on it and they've won four of the last five cups. I think it's safe to say advanced stats and analytics are here to stay and of ever increasing importance in today's NHL.

It goes both ways. Everyone always brings up LA and Chicago because of their success, but no one talks about the Sabres or Jay Feaster's Flames. They're obviously helpful, but it isn't as simple as saying "well they do it so clearly it works", not when there are those examples as well.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Unrelated: the Devils have been declining while the analytic moment has been ascending

New Jersey has actually had some of the better possession teams the last 3 years.

 

[GKJ]

New Jersey has actually had some of the better possession teams the last 3 years.

They're pretty strange, because while they are decent, they're still running out guys who aren't going to score. They'll be in the mix for the playoffs though.

It goes both ways. Everyone always brings up LA and Chicago because of their success, but no one talks about the Sabres or Jay Feaster's Flames. They're obviously helpful, but it isn't as simple as saying "well they do it so clearly it works", not when there are those examples as well.

You still have to use it right, though. They might use it, but no one knows how they were using it. Chicago has come super secret formula that's obviously working. Buffalo went and signed a ton of guys they're now buying out.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

You still have to use it right, though. They might use it, but no one knows how they were using it. Chicago has come super secret formula that's obviously working. Buffalo went and signed a ton of guys they're now buying out.

Isn't that a bit of a cop-out, though? That's such an easy write-off, that any good teams using analytics are the correct ones, while any bad teams simply just didn't do it right. I'm not suggesting it's the opposite, but rather there's a lot more that goes into the process than just how invested a team is in analytics.

Not to mention, for all the talk about Bowman's attention to detail and "secret formula", it's not as if he's had a very tough task. He's done a wonderful job navigating the cap and building up their depth, but he also inherited one of the better cores in the league and it's remained in place. Not to discredit him in any way, but it's a lot different than, say, a total rebuild from the ground up.

 

[Ryker]

Isn't that a bit of a cop-out, though? That's such an easy write-off, that any good teams using analytics are the correct ones, while any bad teams simply just didn't do it right. I'm not suggesting it's the opposite, but rather there's a lot more that goes into the process than just how invested a team is in analytics.

Not to mention, for all the talk about Bowman's attention to detail and "secret formula", it's not as if he's had a very tough task. He's done a wonderful job navigating the cap and building up their depth, but he also inherited one of the better cores in the league and it's remained in place. Not to discredit him in any way, but it's a lot different than, say, a total rebuild from the ground up.

Yup, it's very much a cop-out. The logical conclusion of Chicago's success isn't that their formula is working. Assuming they're employing it, the only conclusion that can be made is that their use of analytics is not bad enough to dismantle the team's success. While it may indeed actually be great and contributing to their success, nothing can be said based solely upon the latter without further information and data. On the other hand, Buffalo's lack of success also says nothing about their use of analytics. They could in fact be even better at it than Chicago, but other factors might have led to the dismal season that was 2013/14. We just don't know and can't tell from afar.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Yup, it's very much a cop-out. The logical conclusion of Chicago's success isn't that their formula is working. Assuming they're employing it, the only conclusion that can be made is that their use of analytics is not bad enough to dismantle the team's success. While it may indeed actually be great and contributing to their success, nothing can be said based solely upon the latter without further information and data. On the other hand, Buffalo's lack of success also says nothing about their use of analytics. They could in fact be even better at it than Chicago, but other factors might have led to the dismal season that was 2013/14. We just don't know and can't tell from afar.

Absolutely. I just hate when people continually use Chicago and LA as examples of how it's an absolute truth that using possession-based metrics are the way to go, without knowing one bit about how they use them in decision-making, and on top of that ignore the teams that did the same and failed miserably. It's very funny that a lot of these people will talk about how the media bends a lot of things to fit their narrative, yet that's exactly what this is.

Case in point, for as much as LA is a dominant possession team and their management praised for embracing metrics like Corsi, you have to wonder, how much do they actually factor in Dean Lombardi's decision making? He's obviously made some great moves to bring in high possession guys, and he's also made great moves to bring in the exact opposite.

 

[Ryker]

Absolutely. I just hate when people continually use Chicago and LA as examples of how it's an absolute truth that using possession-based metrics are the way to go, without knowing one bit about how they use them in decision-making, and on top of that ignore the teams that did the same and failed miserably. It's very funny that a lot of these people will talk about how the media bends a lot of things to fit their narrative, yet that's exactly what this is.

Agreed. They focus on the bright spots, but conveniently forget that the Devils are also considered a possession team. Similarly, I was once also wondering why Chicago gets outhit every single game (I think there have been less than five in the entire previous season where that wasn't the case) and made a thread about it on their boards. The overwhelming response was that it's because they're a possession team. Well, the Kings are a possession team, as well, and they have no trouble outhitting opponents.

Case in point, for as much as LA is a dominant possession team and their management praised for embracing metrics like Corsi, you have to wonder, how much do they actually factor in Dean Lombardi's decision making? He's obviously made some great moves to bring in high possession guys, and he's also made great moves to bring in the exact opposite.

I guess the argument that can be made here is that he brought those guys in exactly because they're high possession guys, but we just don't know. We. Just. Don't. ****ing. Know. So let's stop pretending like we do, and recognize that if given a black box we can't tell its mechanism. I realize that by going to the extreme we'll just be saying we can't say anything about anything, but my point (and where I agree with you completely) is that one should not be so adamant in his/her conclusions when only the outcome is known. Here we don't even have enough data to establish correlation, let alone causation.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I guess the argument that can be made here is that he brought those guys in exactly because they're high possession guys, but we just don't know. We. Just. Don't. ****ing. Know. So let's stop pretending like we do, and recognize that if given a black box we can't tell its mechanism. I realize that by going to the extreme we'll just be saying we can't say anything about anything, but my point (and where I agree with you completely) is that one should not be so adamant in his/her conclusions when only the outcome is known. Here we don't even have enough data to establish correlation, let alone causation.

Yeah, that's an interesting point to think about. It's definitely easy for many to say why a move was made, but it's another to actually know. The Carter/Johnson trade definitely comes to mind, when people praised DL for purposely unloading a bad player on Columbus for Carter and making room for guys like Voynov and Martinez, who were better. Interesting narrative, but doesn't really fit after reading about DL fighting very strongly for Johnson to be on the US Olympic team. Definitely goes to show that us fans have no clue about the methods these executives use.

 

[Ryker]

Yeah, that's an interesting point to think about. It's definitely easy for many to say why a move was made, but it's another to actually know. The Carter/Johnson trade definitely comes to mind, when people praised DL for purposely unloading a bad player on Columbus for Carter and making room for guys like Voynov and Martinez, who were better. Interesting narrative, but doesn't really fit after reading about DL fighting very strongly for Johnson to be on the US Olympic team. Definitely goes to show that us fans have no clue about the methods these executives use.

True. But there's also no reason to believe they're somehow smarter than us and that their decisions follow a consistent logic We might be giving them more credit than they deserve and just over-analyzing what might be going on inside their minds

 

[Scouter]

Hardly a surprise that an amateur scout would say this, as amateur scouting is quite a bit different than pro, so analytics doesn't apply as much.

 

[AfroThunder396]

Um, basically everything Conte said went against the idea of statistical analysis. His area of expertise is scouting, it makes sense. But nothing he said there supported that he's misdirecting anything. He clearly isn't a fan of statistics.

As far as Brodeur goes, is that seriously supposed to be an example of their belief in analytics? Do you understand why the trapezoid was brought in? This isn't breaking any ground here, it was complete common sense that they opposed it. What data is involved? Yes, Brodeur's puck handling was a huge asset, especially in a dump and chase era, and it was hindered by the trapezoid(the reason it was introduced in the first place). That's not some team looking at the data and coming to a conclusion, like I said, it's common sense.

And, if you're going to make all these claims, sorry, I'm not going to go searching for the history forum. It's especially telling when you won't actually bring up a source that ties the Devils management to analytics-based thinking. The onus is on you for this one. Show this proof and you'll have put me in my place, but like the Brodeur example, I think you're really stretching to make this argument come together.

But couldn't the same be said for all analytics? These advanced stats are descriptionary, not explanatory. The thought that shots on goal and zone time being important to team success isn't a revolutionary concept.

No team has ever lost a game because of poor Corsi, but rather, looking at Corsi can explain why a team likely missed the playoffs.

These numbers don't prove anything, the just suggest trends, and knowledgeable hockey people can spot trends in the absence of analytics. Which is what I think Conte is trying to say. Lou and his staff can just tell that Travis Zajac is an outstanding possession player without looking at Corsi, Fenwick, GVT or any other metric.

I know Conte and DeBoer share very different philosophies, which frustrates the hell out of Devils fans. Conte is very much a fan of drafting kids that embrace their own personal skillset and strive to be a unique players. DeBoer likes to mold his players into rank and file two-way assembly line players that are responsible and can grind. Both can work, but not at the same time. I think some of his comments were veiled shots Conte took at DeBoer for hurting the development of guys Conte drafted, like Josefson and Larsson. He's made comments like this before.

 

[Hivemind]

Hardly a surprise that an amateur scout would say this, as amateur scouting is quite a bit different than pro, so analytics doesn't apply as much.

Agreed. It's infinitely more difficult to apply analytics to amateur scouting for a slew of reasons that shouldn't need to be rehashed here.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

But couldn't the same be said for all analytics? These advanced stats are descriptionary, not explanatory. The thought that shots on goal and zone time being important to team success isn't a revolutionary concept.

No team has ever lost a game because of poor Corsi, but rather, looking at Corsi can explain why a team likely missed the playoffs.

These numbers don't prove anything, the just suggest trends, and knowledgeable hockey people can spot trends in the absence of analytics. Which is what I think Conte is trying to say. Lou and his staff can just tell that Travis Zajac is an outstanding possession player without looking at Corsi, Fenwick, GVT or any other metric.

I know Conte and DeBoer share very different philosophies, which frustrates the hell out of Devils fans. Conte is very much a fan of drafting kids that embrace their own personal skillset and strive to be a unique players. DeBoer likes to mold his players into rank and file two-way assembly line players that are responsible and can grind. Both can work, but not at the same time. I think some of his comments were veiled shots Conte took at DeBoer for hurting the development of guys Conte drafted, like Josefson and Larsson. He's made comments like this before.

Absolutely, I definitely think that's what he was getting at, and why I firmly believed him. Interesting stuff about his views clashing with DeBoer's, though. I agree, that would be frustrating.

 

[Mubiki]

Anyone who says they don't use metrics is probably lying, or a complete idiot. Even before we had metrics, they were most likely still being used, they just weren't labeled as such.