Fuzzy Analytics

[The CyNick]

I'm sort of the same, though less pretentious about it. My eye test and very elementary observation of basic stats is good enough for me as a fan.

But I recognize the value if I were making hockey management decisions professionally. Anything else would just be negligence.

Its not about negligence. If I came across a stat that I thought was collected accurately and a manipulation of that stat that I thought made sense, sure I would glance at it. But say I'm a GM and im deciding whether or not to give up two prospects to acquire an established player, I'm not looking at a bunch of numbers. I'm watching every shift that player played that season and scrutinizing his game.

Take it further. Say I'm preparing for a draft. Are you going to rely on turnover stats from some random arena in the middle of Russia? Or am I going to trust my own eye or the eye of a trusted scout to tell me if he projects to be a good player? I would go with the latter 100% of the time.

Again I will say if advanced stats were so great, you would see mathmaticians, statisticians, and a different type of mathmatician at draft tables instead of gtitty scouts.

 

[The CyNick]

Key line:



I knew I was going to have to address this question because it comes up every time and then I will simply point you in the direction of high/low/medium scoring zones. A shot from in the slot is worth more than a shot from the point.

Again, I said a very basic approach and even this slightly more in depth analysis gives you us again a ton of new information.

Shot statistics are not new.

And again, shots on their own, regardless of location are not a measure of a good hockey play. If stamkos is open in the slot and colton orr takes an unscreened shot from outside the crease, I don't think Orrs shot decision was a good one. How many stats tell you when a junk player looked off someone like Crosby or Kane? If I watched those plays I would know the player who didn't pass off to the snipe show is a dope.

 

[Stand Witness]

Take it further. Say I'm preparing for a draft. Are you going to rely on turnover stats from some random arena in the middle of Russia? Or am I going to trust my own eye or the eye of a trusted scout to tell me if he projects to be a good player? I would go with the latter 100% of the time.

Or are you going to employ your own scouts and research teams to collect the data themselves for your selected player and use that in your evaluation as well? If you are so worried about bad data then collect it yourself. You are completely ignoring that possibility and when you have the resources to do it you can take advantage of it.

Again I will say if advanced stats were so great, you would see mathmaticians, statisticians, and a different type of mathmatician at draft tables instead of gtitty scouts.

I am willing to bet the Leafs took some sort of analytical approach with their draft this year and it is not much of a secret. Look at how many D+1, D+2 players we picked this season. I am almost certain the analytics team has some sort of information on the success of players performing X in their Y season.

If you disagree with this than I am curious for your explanation. There has to be some reason the Leafs went this route. At the same time the Florida Panthers also drafted a D+ in the 1st round and that management group has taken an analytical approach since their management change.

 

[Stand Witness]

Shot statistics are not new.

And again, shots on their own, regardless of location are not a measure of a good hockey play. If stamkos is open in the slot and colton orr takes an unscreened shot from outside the crease, I don't think Orrs shot decision was a good one. How many stats tell you when a junk player looked off someone like Crosby or Kane? If I watched those plays I would know the player who didn't pass off to the snipe show is a dope.

They don't tell you that but what they do tell you is Colton Orr shouldn't ever be on the ice so it wouldn't be an issue in the 1st place.

The analytics would show you that Stamkos shouldn't be playing with dopes and whoever he is on the ice with should already be a strong enough player to take the chance themselves. If you have a player that is so bad you don't want them shooting then they shouldn't be playing. Simple as that.

 

[The CyNick]

They don't tell you that but what they do tell you is Colton Orr shouldn't ever be on the ice so it wouldn't be an issue in the 1st place.

The analytics would show you that Stamkos shouldn't be playing with dopes and whoever he is on the ice with should already be a strong enough player to take the chance themselves. If you have a player that is so bad you don't want them shooting then they shouldn't be playing. Simple as that.

Its not a line. Orr got trapped out there cuz he's a dope. He still made a decision. Advanced stats would say "A plus shot selection". The eye test would be a face palm and massive eye roll.

 

[hotpaws]

I am willing to bet the Leafs took some sort of analytical approach with their draft this year and it is not much of a secret. Look at how many D+1, D+2 players we picked this season. I am almost certain the analytics team has some sort of information on the success of players performing X in their Y season.

If you disagree with this than I am curious for your explanation. There has to be some reason the Leafs went this route. At the same time the Florida Panthers also drafted a D+ in the 1st round and that management group has taken an analytical approach since their management change.

and last year i was reading on this board we drafted a large number of smurfs because of the analytics team recommendations , so i guess in next years draft we'll double down and draft D+1 or D+2 smurfs , that way can we can really "game" the draft

 

[The CyNick]

Or are you going to employ your own scouts and research teams to collect the data themselves for your selected player and use that in your evaluation as well? If you are so worried about bad data then collect it yourself. You are completely ignoring that possibility and when you have the resources to do it you can take advantage of it.



I am willing to bet the Leafs took some sort of analytical approach with their draft this year and it is not much of a secret. Look at how many D+1, D+2 players we picked this season. I am almost certain the analytics team has some sort of information on the success of players performing X in their Y season.

If you disagree with this than I am curious for your explanation. There has to be some reason the Leafs went this route. At the same time the Florida Panthers also drafted a D+ in the 1st round and that management group has taken an analytical approach since their management change.

You guys are saying one of the key benefits of advanced stats is that you can't watch every game. But now you're telling me I need all of my scouts to watch every game to do their own advanced stats. Sounds like double the work when I could just tell a trusted scout to watch the flow of the game and focus on X player instead of feverishly writing down shot attempts, turnovers and zone times.

Your next point about the leafs draft this past year is baffling. You're saying the leafs drafted a bunch of plus year guys and assuming there were some analytics behind it and then further asking me to challenge said phantom analytics. That's a tough position to put me in.

My assumption is the Leafs and Panthers went with BPA according to their scouts with each pick. I don't have access to their methodology for determining one player over another. If you have proof of how they generate their lists I would love to see it.

 

[saltming]

Its not a line. Orr got trapped out there cuz he's a dope. He still made a decision. Advanced stats would say "A plus shot selection". The eye test would be a face palm and massive eye roll.

http://blueseatblogs.com/2016/07/24...systems-stats-tools-talent-evaluation-primer/

This is a good read if you want to pass some time.
Imo a good view of how to use analytics.

 

[LeafingTheWay]

You're missing the point.

PPG is in itself a reliable stat because I know what an assist, what a goal is and what a game played is. And by and large that doesn't change from arena to arena and league to league. Many advanced stats rely on other stats that are very unreliable (ie what is a turnover exactly? ) and each arena and each scorer in each arena has a different definition of what qualifies to count towards those tallies. So the stat itself is at best suspect. PPG is not.

Whether or not YOU feel PPG is a measure you should rely on to determine a players worth is up to you. But the stat itself is a million times more reliable. It's hard to debate that point.

It's reliable in the sense that it measures exactly what you're looking for. But as an evaluation tool it's not the best to use. Points/60 is much more useful.

 

[LeafingTheWay]

You guys are saying one of the key benefits of advanced stats is that you can't watch every game. But now you're telling me I need all of my scouts to watch every game to do their own advanced stats. Sounds like double the work when I could just tell a trusted scout to watch the flow of the game and focus on X player instead of feverishly writing down shot attempts, turnovers and zone times.

Your next point about the leafs draft this past year is baffling. You're saying the leafs drafted a bunch of plus year guys and assuming there were some analytics behind it and then further asking me to challenge said phantom analytics. That's a tough position to put me in.

My assumption is the Leafs and Panthers went with BPA according to their scouts with each pick. I don't have access to their methodology for determining one player over another. If you have proof of how they generate their lists I would love to see it.

A huge improvement in recent hockey analytics is the tracking of players on the ice. There are now companies that have computer-based tracking programs (players don't have an actual tracker on them, computer automatically finds them) that are able to produce turnover results, shots against/for, zone exits, etc for each player. It's amazing, and effectively eliminates the bias and selective memory that comes along with being a scout. Scouts are not being driven out of the game, scouts need to adapt and incorporate advanced stats within their work to progress their work.

I don't know where it was, but someone in the management or media said their draft strategy was based on capturing a market inefficiency going on right now.
This website produced an article describing what the Leaf's strategy was:
http://lastwordonsports.com/2016/06/26/market-inefficiencies-leafs-draft-strategy-brilliant/
Take a read and tell me what you think. It's pretty interesting.

 

[Nithoniniel]

My stance is this: If you want to have so strong an opinion on a subject, you should have read up on it so you know what you stand for. If you had done that, you would know that the criticism raised have been answered and dismissed years ago.

 

[4thline]

All this gentleman talk reminds me of Game of Thrones...

"Any man who must say "I am the King" is no true king"

 

[Nithoniniel]

and last year i was reading on this board we drafted a large number of smurfs because of the analytics team recommendations , so i guess in next years draft we'll double down and draft D+1 or D+2 smurfs , that way can we can really "game" the draft

It's not very complicated. To draft well, you want to get better players than their value on the draft board. To do that, you find types of players that generally do better than where they get picked. That used to be smaller, skilled forwards. Now, those guys are drafted much higher so you can't take advantage anymore.

This draft, we (and others) targeted another such market inefficiency. Overagers like Brooks have the efficiency of a late 1st round pick, yet was available in the fourth round. That's an opportunity.

 

[Joey Hoser]

Its not about negligence. If I came across a stat that I thought was collected accurately and a manipulation of that stat that I thought made sense, sure I would glance at it. But say I'm a GM and im deciding whether or not to give up two prospects to acquire an established player, I'm not looking at a bunch of numbers. I'm watching every shift that player played that season and scrutinizing his game.

Take it further. Say I'm preparing for a draft. Are you going to rely on turnover stats from some random arena in the middle of Russia? Or am I going to trust my own eye or the eye of a trusted scout to tell me if he projects to be a good player? I would go with the latter 100% of the time.

Again I will say if advanced stats were so great, you would see mathmaticians, statisticians, and a different type of mathmatician at draft tables instead of gtitty scouts.

You can't watch every shift of every player you need to know about(which is like, basically every pro player in the world)and even if you could you wouldn't remember most of it.

I don't even understand your last paragraph. Statistics, even advanced ones, are certainly used at the draft table. The idea that it's one or the other is absurd.

 

[The CyNick]

It's reliable in the sense that it measures exactly what you're looking for. But as an evaluation tool it's not the best to use. Points/60 is much more useful.

Again, the debate was about the stat itself, not how it is used. Let's try to keep it on topic.

Point per 60 I have no problem with because the stats used to generate the number would be fairly consistent from rink to rink and league to league.

 

[The CyNick]

http://blueseatblogs.com/2016/07/24...systems-stats-tools-talent-evaluation-primer/

This is a good read if you want to pass some time.
Imo a good view of how to use analytics.

I wish I had time to just pass. I tried to read it on two separate occasions and couldn't get through the whole thing. It's like they are speaking another language. Too much talk about Corsi which is the ultimate flawed stat and exactly why I'm against advanced stats.

I'm sure the author thinks it makes sense. If you're the author, it seems like you put in a lot of effort, which I applaud. I'm sure that work ethic will serve you well in life.

 

[The CyNick]

A huge improvement in recent hockey analytics is the tracking of players on the ice. There are now companies that have computer-based tracking programs (players don't have an actual tracker on them, computer automatically finds them) that are able to produce turnover results, shots against/for, zone exits, etc for each player. It's amazing, and effectively eliminates the bias and selective memory that comes along with being a scout. Scouts are not being driven out of the game, scouts need to adapt and incorporate advanced stats within their work to progress their work.

I don't know where it was, but someone in the management or media said their draft strategy was based on capturing a market inefficiency going on right now.
This website produced an article describing what the Leaf's strategy was:
http://lastwordonsports.com/2016/06/26/market-inefficiencies-leafs-draft-strategy-brilliant/
Take a read and tell me what you think. It's pretty interesting.

Why do so many people want me to read articles?

Edit - I skimmed the article. Waste of time. No evidence that the Leafs used the DEV system. Only 2 of the top 10 DEV players were drafted, which proves the leafs were not using this "system". And most important the article acts like we won the draft. That won't be known until for half a decade or more.

You're missing the point that if all these fancy computers could tell you everything you need to know, you would fire all your hockey people and put all of the budget towards people who could mine data all day long. It would be a waste of money to send a scout to some dank arena in Finland because all of these computers would already know everything you need to know. Until we see even one successful team do this, the data is at best a minor part of the equation. Teams will say in the media that they use analytics because it's the new buzz word, but until I see a draft table with a bunch of geeks and not a bunch of grizzled hockey people, I will remain skeptical about the effectiveness of analytics.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Why do so many people want me to read articles?

Because you spend a lot of time on a topic that you are obviously ignorant about?

You're missing the point that if all these fancy computers could tell you everything you need to know, you would fire all your hockey people and put all of the budget towards people who could mine data all day long. It would be a waste of money to send a scout to some dank arena in Finland because all of these computers would already know everything you need to know. Until we see even one successful team do this, the data is at best a minor part of the equation.

Again, nobody is saying stats tell you everything. They are saying they are useful. This has been said several times now. I trust you are able to understand the difference, so why are you going on about this? Willful ignorance is not something to flaunt, you know.

Teams will say in the media that they use analytics because it's the new buzz word

This is obviously a construct of yours, unless you claim to be able to read mind or has inside knowledge that very few are privy to. Furthermore, it stands to reason that organisations don't spend a ton of money on something so they can use buzz words in media.

but until I see a draft table with a bunch of geeks and not a bunch of grizzled hockey people, I will remain skeptical about the effectiveness of analytics.

That's kind of like saying "until I see a team full of only defensemen, I will remain skeptical about how useful they are in hockey."

Arguments like the last two make it very hard to take you seriously.

 

[saltming]

I wish I had time to just pass. I tried to read it on two separate occasions and couldn't get through the whole thing. It's like they are speaking another language. Too much talk about Corsi which is the ultimate flawed stat and exactly why I'm against advanced stats.

I'm sure the author thinks it makes sense. If you're the author, it seems like you put in a lot of effort, which I applaud. I'm sure that work ethic will serve you well in life.

Fair enough.
I am not the author. He does point out the flaws of corsi and how he uses a combination of factors to judge.

 

[The CyNick]

My stance is this: If you want to have so strong an opinion on a subject, you should have read up on it so you know what you stand for. If you had done that, you would know that the criticism raised have been answered and dismissed years ago.

So the world came together and decided all new age stats are relevant? I must have missed that vote.

The pro analytics people just scoff at criticism. Most of the people who write about this stuff are just bloggers with little to no credibility.

 

[saltming]

Why do so many people want me to read articles?

Edit - I skimmed the article. Waste of time. No evidence that the Leafs used the DEV system. Only 2 of the top 10 DEV players were drafted, which proves the leafs were not using this "system". And most important the article acts like we won the draft. That won't be known until for half a decade or more.

You're missing the point that if all these fancy computers could tell you everything you need to know, you would fire all your hockey people and put all of the budget towards people who could mine data all day long. It would be a waste of money to send a scout to some dank arena in Finland because all of these computers would already know everything you need to know. Until we see even one successful team do this, the data is at best a minor part of the equation. Teams will say in the media that they use analytics because it's the new buzz word, but until I see a draft table with a bunch of geeks and not a bunch of grizzled hockey people, I will remain skeptical about the effectiveness of analytics.

For myself I'm pointing to the technology to address the issue of questionable data colection as this will help the formation of accurate analytics.

 

[Nithoniniel]

So the world came together and decided all new age stats are relevant? I must have missed that vote.

The pro analytics people just scoff at criticism. Most of the people who write about this stuff are just bloggers with little to no credibility.

Most of the people who write about it are professionals who work in this very field.

Criticism is fine. Yours has been countered long ago. It's the first thought that comes to mind to anyone who starts to look into the subject, and most bother to read on to learn how those questions are answered.

I wager you don't, because you don't want an answer.

The stats are relevant because they have gone through a lot of testing and verification to see their limits and potential usefulness. That weighs a hell of a lot more than your theories on a subject you are not well-read on.

 

[The CyNick]

It's not very complicated. To draft well, you want to get better players than their value on the draft board. To do that, you find types of players that generally do better than where they get picked. That used to be smaller, skilled forwards. Now, those guys are drafted much higher so you can't take advantage anymore.

This draft, we (and others) targeted another such market inefficiency. Overagers like Brooks have the efficiency of a late 1st round pick, yet was available in the fourth round. That's an opportunity.

You think they went into the draft to pick as many overagers as possible? Or do you think they picked the players their scouts who watched these players play, identified as best available when the mic came to their table? I know what I think.

 

[Nithoniniel]

You think they went into the draft to pick as many overagers as possible? Or do you think they picked the players their scouts who watched these players play, identified as best available when the mic came to their table? I know what I think.

Again, why does it have to be one or the other? You seem to continuously argue as if one has to chose. You don't.

Take Brooks. They like him. Some say that he is an overager. They use statistics to show the extent of this issue, and since it's smaller than commonly thought, they put less weight on it. He moves up their draft list, and gets picked as a high-value target.

 

[Joey Hoser]

So the world came together and decided all new age stats are relevant? I must have missed that vote.

The pro analytics people just scoff at criticism. Most of the people who write about this stuff are just bloggers with little to no credibility.

This completely backwards. The pro-analytocs crowd still sees value in the eye test. "You don't even need to watch the games!" Is something none of them have ever said. Also, that fact that it's a developing field makes it inherently open to criticism.

It's the anti-analytics crowd who flat out refused accept criticism and the limitations of their analysis.

I think it's largely born out of fact that people think they already know what they need to know about hockey, so the idea that something they haven't considered before has merit, offends that perception of themselves.