Fuzzy Analytics

[The CyNick]

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.

Its more like saying there are claims the trap is the most useful method to win hockey games, but yet teams only use the trap once or twice during a given game. 95% of the time they are playing more traditional styles. The fans of the trap write a bunch of blogs using flawed stats as examples to back up why the trap is being used to win games 95% of the time.

It's not really like that either, but your example was bad.

I'll try to reword my point. New age stat supporters say these stats are useful because a group of scouts can only watch so many games. If the stats and computers were actually effective you would have already seen a drastic shift in the number of 40-30 types who travel around to crappy rinks in hole in the wall towns. You would hire more data analysts to mine data and maybe have one or two traditional scouts to watch games. That's the whole crux of this debate is the value of watching games (that's what I do) vs reading graphs from the ugly couch in your basement (stat guys). If watching games is secondary, you don't need many people to watch games. Yet we still see Mark Hunter types leading scouting departments and not some dude from MIT.

 

[The CyNick]

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.

Did analytics tell the Oilers to get Wayne Gretzky? I think the eye test has a pretty decent track record.

 

[4thline]

I'll try to reword my point. New age stat supporters say these stats are useful because a group of scouts can only watch so many games. If the stats and computers were actually effective you would have already seen a drastic shift in the number of 40-30 types who travel around to crappy rinks in hole in the wall towns. You would hire more data analysts to mine data and maybe have one or two traditional scouts to watch games. That's the whole crux of this debate is the value of watching games (that's what I do) vs reading graphs from the ugly couch in your basement (stat guys). If watching games is secondary, you don't need many people to watch games. Yet we still see Mark Hunter types leading scouting departments and not some dude from MIT.

For being a "scholar" you're awfully fond of a false dichotomy.

 

[The CyNick]

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.

I don't believe he was targeted because he's an overager, which is the narrative that is out there. They picked him because their scouts have probably been watching him for years and liked his progression. I don't think they needed advanced stats to tell them he has gotten better from year to year.

 

[Nithoniniel]

I'll try to reword my point. New age stat supporters say these stats are useful because a group of scouts can only watch so many games. If the stats and computers were actually effective you would have already seen a drastic shift in the number of 40-30 types who travel around to crappy rinks in hole in the wall towns. You would hire more data analysts to mine data and maybe have one or two traditional scouts to watch games. That's the whole crux of this debate is the value of watching games (that's what I do) vs reading graphs from the ugly couch in your basement (stat guys). If watching games is secondary, you don't need many people to watch games. Yet we still see Mark Hunter types leading scouting departments and not some dude from MIT.

No. The basis for the usefulness of stats is that they are a quantitative approach in a field that relies on qualitative measures, and that more information is always better than less information. There's no need to cut into scouting to make room for analytics, unless you are on a budget.

And no, the crux of the debate is the value of only watching games (what you do) vs getting as much useful information as possible (what I do).

And yes, the information is useful. Actual rigorous testing shows it is useful. Your unsupported opinion doesn't change that.

Did analytics tell the Oilers to get Wayne Gretzky? I think the eye test has a pretty decent track record.

And that's how you support it? Jeez. A blind monkey could have told Oilers to get Wayne Gretzky.

I don't believe he was targeted because he's an overager, which is the narrative that is out there. They picked him because their scouts have probably been watching him for years and liked his progression. I don't think they needed advanced stats to tell them he has gotten better from year to year.

So they invest in analytics. Analytics show that overagers drop way too much compared to their value. Leafs obviously and reportedly on purpose target overagers, yet it has nothing to do with their investment in analytics?

What changed, as similar players had been ignored previously?

 

[The CyNick]

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.

I am not against the idea of analytics telling you things that you may miss. What I am against are current analtyics that use poorly collected data.

It's all good in theory, but what we have today is inaccurate.

 

[The CyNick]

For being a "scholar" you're awfully fond of a false dichotomy.

Ive got my eye on you

 

[Joey Hoser]

I think this conversation should stop until Cynick accepts that nobody is suggesting that analytics are all you need. Until then this whole thing is stupid.

 

[The CyNick]

No. The basis for the usefulness of stats is that they are a quantitative approach in a field that relies on qualitative measures, and that more information is always better than less information. There's no need to cut into scouting to make room for analytics, unless you are on a budget.

And no, the crux of the debate is the value of only watching games (what you do) vs getting as much useful information as possible (what I do).

And yes, the information is useful. Actual rigorous testing shows it is useful. Your unsupported opinion doesn't change that.



And that's how you support it? Jeez. A blind monkey could have told Oilers to get Wayne Gretzky.



So they invest in analytics. Analytics show that overagers drop way too much compared to their value. Leafs obviously and reportedly on purpose target overagers, yet it has nothing to do with their investment in analytics?

What changed, as similar players had been ignored previously?

You think nobody ever thought to take overagers? Even though that article talked about a handful of successful overagers drafted before analytics became water cooler talk?

 

[Nithoniniel]

I am not against the idea of analytics telling you things that you may miss. What I am against are current analtyics that use poorly collected data.

It's all good in theory, but what we have today is inaccurate.

It's not inaccurate. You don't like the way the data is collected. That's fine, and very reasonable. However, the metrics are effective for prediction and evaluation. They have a high success rate.

You ignore the actual result because of what you identify as a potential problem. A problem which effects have already been explored.

You think nobody ever thought to take overagers? Even though that article talked about a handful of successful overagers drafted before analytics became water cooler talk?

And again with the extremes. The point wasn't that nobody took overagers, it was that overagers got overlooked way more than they should, and they were an avenue of getting more value than you normally get from the range of picks you'd have to use to pick them.

I think this conversation should stop until Cynick accepts that nobody is suggesting that analytics are all you need. Until then this whole thing is stupid.

At this point, I doubt he's willing to ever concede any point anyone else have, regardless of merit. It's like arguing with Interactif again.

 

[The CyNick]

I think this conversation should stop until Cynick accepts that nobody is suggesting that analytics are all you need. Until then this whole thing is stupid.

Seems like a hot topic. And isn't that the point of having a message board?

 

[Joey Hoser]

Seems like a hot topic. And isn't that the point of having a message board?

The point is to exchange ideas. Not sit across from someone and twist their ideas to the point of nonsense and say that's what they think.

What is the point of that?

 

[saltming]

The point is to exchange ideas. Not sit across from someone and twist their ideas to the point of nonsense and say that's what they think.

What is the point of that?

While I feel the frustration the flip side is that there is so much informative counter arguments that are very educational for others to learn from.

 

[Nithoniniel]

The point is to exchange ideas. Not sit across from someone and twist their ideas to the point of nonsense and say that's what they think.

What is the point of that?

Well said.

Joey, you've been on fire lately. Spot on time after time.

While I feel the frustration the flip side is that there is so much informative counter arguments that are very educational for others to learn from.

You are right, Salty. I usually say that when I discuss something, I do it for all who read the thread and not just the guy I'm quoting. I think I lost sight of that in this thread.

 

[The CyNick]

It's not inaccurate. You don't like the way the data is collected. That's fine, and very reasonable. However, the metrics are effective for prediction and evaluation. They have a high success rate.

You ignore the actual result because of what you identify as a potential problem. A problem which effects have already been explored.



And again with the extremes. The point wasn't that nobody took overagers, it was that overagers got overlooked way more than they should, and they were an avenue of getting more value than you normally get from the range of picks you'd have to use to pick them.



At this point, I doubt he's willing to ever concede any point anyone else have, regardless of merit. It's like arguing with Interactif again.

High success rate according to what standard?

 

[The CyNick]

The point is to exchange ideas. Not sit across from someone and twist their ideas to the point of nonsense and say that's what they think.

What is the point of that?

Nobody is twisting.

 

[saltming]

Well said.

Joey, you've been on fire lately. Spot on time after time.



You are right, Salty. I usually say that when I discuss something, I do it for all who read the thread and not just the guy I'm quoting. I think I lost sight of that in this thread.

I appreciate it!! As I'm sure others do.
Many thanks.

 

[RoadWarrior]

Just because the Leafs are analytics-inclined, does not mean all decisions are made using analytics.

Martin brings a physical element to the forward ranks that is lacking on this team aside from Komarov. Especially important now that we have young rookies coming into the league. They need to feel safe.

Polak brings a physical element to the back end that is lacking on this team as well. Additionally, he sounds like a good soldier. Someone who sets an example in the gym and has leadership qualities. A glue guy.

My guess? Babcock thinks we're too soft.

We can't just ice a team of 6 puck-moving defencemen and 12 possession-driving forwards. Teams need balance. Sometimes you forego the analytics piece to address a need that is undervalued or immeasurable by metrics.

There are intangibles like leadership and intimidation that simply cannot be measured statistically except that the team has a better record when player A is in the lineup.

Guys like Komarov and Martin set an example for the kids to follow. Without Polak the leafs D is ridiculously soft.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I think this conversation should stop until Cynick accepts that nobody is suggesting that analytics are all you need. Until then this whole thing is stupid.

Pretty much.

It's not inaccurate. You don't like the way the data is collected. That's fine, and very reasonable. However, the metrics are effective for prediction and evaluation. They have a high success rate.

You ignore the actual result because of what you identify as a potential problem. A problem which effects have already been explored.

And again with the extremes. The point wasn't that nobody took overagers, it was that overagers got overlooked way more than they should, and they were an avenue of getting more value than you normally get from the range of picks you'd have to use to pick them.

At this point, I doubt he's willing to ever concede any point anyone else have, regardless of merit. It's like arguing with Interactif again.

Yikes! But yeah, pretty much. I do admire your patience.

 

[Nithoniniel]

High success rate according to what standard?

The standard of evaluating hockey players, pretty much. I don't argue that the stats we have are perfect. They have just done better than any other option, and as such is valuable as part of an evaluation process.

I appreciate it!! As I'm sure others do.
Many thanks.

You're welcome. We're all (most of us) here to learn. Exchange ideas as Joey said it. I know I've learned a lot in my years here.

There are intangibles like leadership and intimidation that simply cannot be measured statistically except that the team has a better record when player A is in the lineup.

Guys like Komarov and Martin set an example for the kids to follow. Without Polak the leafs D is ridiculously soft.

And this is absolutely something to take into account, even though mixing qualitative factors with quantitative metrics can be hard.

Yikes! But yeah, pretty much. I do admire your patience.

Patience? I'm not patient. This is me annoyed out of my mind.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Patience? I'm not patient. This is me annoyed out of my mind.

LOL. You're a better man than I. When I get annoyed out of my mind, I have a tendency to post in a way that earns me infractions and gets me banned from threads.

 

[Mr Hockey*]

The :

So you are Pro fancy stats and use them?

 

[Gary Nylund]

So you are Pro fancy stats and use them?

Please define "fancy".

 

[Mr Hockey*]

Please define "fancy".

advanced

 

[The CyNick]

The standard of evaluating hockey players, pretty much. I don't argue that the stats we have are perfect. They have just done better than any other option, and as such is valuable as part of an evaluation process.

But how are you measuring the effectiveness of the stats. You made a blanket statement saying advanced stats have been successful. But you can't illustrate how you are measuring success.

Seems like fuzzy analytics.