From the BP people: Puck Prospectus

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

http://www.puckprospectus.com/

Leading article...
http://www.puckprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=10

Pretty intriguing.

Click to read more...

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

Not many sabermetrics fans here?

 

[pitseleh]

Heard about this yesterday. I'm extremely excited to see what this will bring.

 

[Alchemy]

I am too lazy to read all of it.

 

[BlueMonk]

As an old time SABR guy myself, I'm very excited to read this!

 

[marc-edouard grier]

Not many Sabremetrics fans here?

Didn't see it pre-bump.

All I can say is, ****ing awesome! Love this kind of stuff, and it helps that I watch pretty much all my teams games, so I can see whether or not the statistics/analysis is actually spot on, or whether it actually works. Plus, the lead article you linked to makes it seem like they're going for an NHL PECOTA, which I absolutely love in BP. Great thread

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I'm glad to see that Iain's involved. He brings a good mix of maths and opinions.

 

[kingfisher]

just thought it was funny that the first thing i read in an article was baseball reminiscent

looks good boys

 

[Dr Quincy]

Not many Sabremetrics fans here?

There's quite a contingent of flat earthers here who refuse to believe that statistics can provide any evidence at all. Looks like a good site, but don't expect many to like it.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

There's quite a contingent of flat earthers here who refuse to believe that statistics can provide any evidence at all. Looks like a good site, but don't expect many to like it.

On that note, I was watching the MLB network the other day. Harold Reynolds and a panel of others were posed the question: if you were to evaluate a player, would you pick the statistician with the computers and advanced sabermetrics or the scout with the qualitative judgments to do it. Everyone on the panel unequivocally picked the scout, which is a shame considering so many misconceptions can be formed from simple observation (in every sport).

I'm excited to see how deep they can go with hockey.

 

[marc-edouard grier]

On that note, I was watching the MLB network the other day. Harold Reynolds and a panel of others were posed the question: if you were to evaluate a player, would you pick the statistician with the computers and advanced Sabremetrics or the scout with the qualitative judgments to do it. Everyone on the panel unequivocally picked the scout, which is a shame considering so many misconceptions can be formed from simple observation (in every sport).

The fact that guys like Harold Reynolds and John Kruk get paid for their views on baseball is part of the reason I sometimes find it hard to assume that the opinions held by a player in any sport actually has any basis in reality. God, SOOOO INCREDIBLY DUMB. How is it not transparent that HR has NO IDEA WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT?

/rant

 

[CrosbyCrosby*]

So excited

 

[David Dennison]

My interest is piqued, but I am a bit skeptical of most statistics in hockey.

 

[marc-edouard grier]

My interest is piqued, but I am a bit skeptical of most statistics in hockey.

Sounds like they're going to try to separate the wheat from the considerable chaff...baby steps, Baseball Prospectus wasn't built in a day you know . Plus, might lead to better stats available to use, like the specific locations and reasons for giveaways/takeaways, better indications of the shot quality, accounts for screening, etc. I just hope it gets enough viewership to get the NHL to take these statistics into account in their official statsheets.

 

[MXD]

The thing with hockey -- unlike baseball -- is that the game is more than stats. I think we can sorta predict stats with SABRMETRICS (or whatever we call it), but usefulness to a team... it's much more than that.

 

[LarmerAmonteSeabrook]

This stuff can be a total load of crap. In 2005, BaseballProspectus predicted my Sox would finish in last place with a 72-90 record. The actual result of that season: A 99-67 tops-in-the-AL record with a World Series Championship.

I wouldn't put much gospel into Puck Prospectus.

 

[windflare]

And this is their February top 10 prospects. I'd imagine that some people will have some complaints with it, as usual. Have fun.

http://www.puckprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=17

 

[The Expert]

Really enjoyed that article, site's looking good! I'll definitely be checking in on that site.

I'm gonna be honest. I don't dislike Sabremetrics (or really fully understand them to be honest...), but some of the fans that use Sabremetrics can be a bit annoying imo. I'm not a hardcore baseball fan, so to me most of it seems a bit much. Chances are I just need to get a better grip on them, nonetheless very impressive how some people come up with them, math was never my forte.

And this is their February top 10 prospects. I'd imagine that some people will have some complaints with it, as usual. Have fun.

http://www.puckprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=17

Nice to see an honorable mention for Karlsson. Don't seem too bad, reallly surprised to see Pietrangelo that high.

 

[Market Street Heroes]

This stuff can be a total load of crap. In 2005, BaseballProspectus predicted my Sox would finish in last place with a 72-90 record. The actual result of that season: A 99-67 tops-in-the-AL record with a World Series Championship.

I wouldn't put much gospel into Puck Prospectus.

Please, no one predicted the 2005 White Sox were going to be any good. Sometimes **** just happens.

 

[windflare]

Please, no one predicted the 2005 White Sox were going to be any good. Sometimes **** just happens.

They are what is commonly called a 'Statistical Anomaly'.

 

[hockeyfan125]

Statistics don't explain everything, and they often aren't correct. People that say hockey is impossible or tough to track compared to baseball are only half-correct.

Everything comes down to what context you use to gather/track/analyze the data. Hockey can be broken down into situations/decisions/plays/time frames, just like any other event in the universe. I am surprised it took hockey so long to catch on to the stat bandwagon, it seems like such a surefire way to attempt to explain the often unexplainable.

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

This has the potential to be glorious.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

This stuff can be a total load of crap. In 2005, BaseballProspectus predicted my Sox would finish in last place with a 72-90 record. The actual result of that season: A 99-67 tops-in-the-AL record with a World Series Championship.

I wouldn't put much gospel into Puck Prospectus.

Ummm...no. No, they didn't - I'm looking at it right now. They show a mean 2005 victory total of 72, but you must have missed the full spectrum of forecasted results shown.

Consequently, you don't understand the result, and you label it "crap".

 

[piqued]

Looking forward to where this goes. BP does good work.

Hockey may be harder to quantify, yes, but smart people are always figuring out new ways to look at the game and the players who play it.

Interesting how both b-r and now BP have decided to branch out. It's a positive sign for the sport's popular relevance.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Hi all:

Glad to see the interest in the new site. It's an exciting time for us.

Personally, I agree that hockey will never be subject to the same degree of rigorous analysis that baseball lends itself to. But that's alright, we're just tyring to develop more rational thinking about hockey than currently exists.

Hockey will never be as objectively measurable as baseball. We're just trying to mover it beyond "analysis" like the typical truisms and groupthink that permeate the mainstream.