From the BP people: Puck Prospectus

[Strong Island]

This is very exciting. Hopefully "sabermetric" hockey thought will grow, giving us a better way to evaluate players.

 

[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.

And it turns out that I was wrong when I posted last night - the 2005 edition has a White Sox Pythageonport Projection of 84 wins, not 72 (that's quite a bit of difference, and certainly not last place as you claim). So I'm not sure where you made your numbers up from.

 

[Brodeur]

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.

In 2007, they also predicted the Sox would finish 72-90. They finished 72-90. Such a prediction would be considered blasphemy after 99/90 win seasons and a World Series title.

It is what it is, just another way to view things. I make fun of my buddy for buying too much into BP (ie, Morgan Ensberg leading all 3B in VORP for his freak year). But I also try to keep an open mind.

 

[Dr Quincy]

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.

But that can work the other way too. In 2001 every expert who had watched teams with their eyes (not relying on stats) picked my Patriots to finish last. The actual result? Super Bowl championship.

One wrong season neither proves nor negates.

 

[Left Of The Dial]

Really interested in seeing what they can do about translating stats from Europe. Also looking forward to the inevitable projection system.

 

[David Dennison]

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.

We can only hope, hockey statistics are centuries behind the rest.

 

[Enoch]

Finally!

 

[Abyss]

that's awesome, thank you for a new bookmark!

 

[Brandinho]

Disclaimer: I don't like Sabremetrics (though to be fair, I also don't like baseball). Baseball is unique among the world's major sports in that it's basically a series of loosely connected individual matchups, ergo making it much easier to analyze using complex statistics. It's not a true team sport, per se. Hockey is and therefore cannot be analyzed in the same way. From a brief perusal of the site, they seem to understand this, so I'm interested in what kind of output they produce but I wouldn't expect (nor want) anything all that similar to what they try to do with BP.

 

[Left Of The Dial]

So we are a month into the Puck Prospectus "era," so how does everyone feel about it so far.

I'm pretty disappointed to be honest. The MVP article, which used GVT, was especially disappointing. It seems like the defensive component of GVT is basically just plus/minus, which makes players from good teams seem better than they really are. The trade deadline analysis article about the Guerin trade was also pretty terrible, as the writer seems to think Pittsburgh gives Eric Godard significant time on ice, and seems to think Guerin was brought in to replace Godard.

I think my biggest problem is I am not sold on GVT at all, and some of the writers seem to be only looking at that statistic when judging players.