So I want to start by saying I'm a complete analytics layman. I understand what they mean and do use them to support or challenge my eye test of players. This article is quite good and pretty much how I view and use analytics.
http://blueseatblogs.com/2016/07/24/putting-together-hockey-systems-stats-tools-talent-evaluation-primer/
I would recommend it to anyone who is also an analytics layman.
As I was reading I came across some interesting things like this that got me thinking there is obviously some analytics we are not privy too:
This says to me that the true important analytics are looking for things other than what the market has already identified.
Also when dubas said this:
It made me think that Dubas already has a formula that extends past what we (or I) know as the norm for advanced analytics. He talks about how the total buy in has to be there for it to work, GM, coach, players etc.
So in light of the Martin and Polak signings with the subsequent HF grumblings of signing these players, I submit that there is a fuzzy analytic that says these are the guys we need because the formula we have designed needs X+Y÷Z to be a winning team.
Do any of you that are well versed in analytics know if these analytical formulas exist or have any theories or evidence that will either support or challenge my thoughts?
http://blueseatblogs.com/2016/07/24/putting-together-hockey-systems-stats-tools-talent-evaluation-primer/
I would recommend it to anyone who is also an analytics layman.
As I was reading I came across some interesting things like this that got me thinking there is obviously some analytics we are not privy too:
Kyle Dubas said:This is one area where analytics in hockey can get derailed. If everything is about Corsi, for example, that won't be the aspect that is undervalued. We're not at that stage yet, but understanding that it's about market inefficiencies means that should the day come when puck possession stats are overvalued metrics, teams can find a new edge with whatever is the inefficiency of that particular time.
This says to me that the true important analytics are looking for things other than what the market has already identified.
Also when dubas said this:
Kyle Dubas said:The parallels with the Leafs were obvious – and it was hard to not read into his comments when he discussed the transformative effect a coaching change had with the Greyhounds.
“What I learned was the extreme value of the buy-in throughout the organization,†Dubas said as he presented a graph of the Greyhounds’ dramatic improvement in possession data after hiring Sheldon Keefe as coach.
“If you have a coach that isn’t really buying into it and you’re bringing in personnel that are analytics-friendly and you have a coach that isn’t, it’s not going to work, because they have to work together. They can’t work separately.â€
It made me think that Dubas already has a formula that extends past what we (or I) know as the norm for advanced analytics. He talks about how the total buy in has to be there for it to work, GM, coach, players etc.
So in light of the Martin and Polak signings with the subsequent HF grumblings of signing these players, I submit that there is a fuzzy analytic that says these are the guys we need because the formula we have designed needs X+Y÷Z to be a winning team.
Do any of you that are well versed in analytics know if these analytical formulas exist or have any theories or evidence that will either support or challenge my thoughts?