OT: Hockey analytics-What gives?

[Kaners Bald Spot]

So to clarify my thoughts from another thread:

Eye test: Toews>Strome by a lot, it's not close

Numbers: Toews is just a bit better than Strome

Evolving-Hockey.com | Standard Skater Stats

How do you use hockey analytics, when it's very contradictory from the eye test?
Do you throw out the numbers and ignore them?

I'm kind of confused. Analytics are supposed to be an objective measure of the game, so when it's contradictory like this, which side do you lean on?

I tend to like things quantified, so if hockey cannot ever be completely quantified I'm a bit confused on how to use this stuff.

Click to read more...

 

[RayP]

Hockey isn’t and never will be like baseball. You can’t turn everything into a reliable stat.

 

[ClydeLee]

I dont know what in those numbers you're concluding that say differently than the everest.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

Hockey isn’t and never will be like baseball. You can’t turn everything into a reliable stat.

Yeah I get that so how do you use this info, especially when the eye test and the numbers contradict each other?

Rundblad was another example of this. The numbers said he was above average but the eye test said he was awful.

 

[deytookerjaabs]

Strome's IQ/vision is a saving grace for him. He'll give up the puck way too easily, but almost before he gives it up he heads back to the right spot where he should be on the ice. In the eye test, I think he improved his positional 2-way play a good bit last season versus the year(s) prior.

 

[Mrfenn92]

Fake news

 

[hawksfan50]

What eye are you takking about to substantiate that Toews better than Strome on that test ?

NEITHER is competent defensively in the D-zone uoto any standard of acceptability...

Offensively,Tiewscpkays more minutes and gets Pp time where Stronecwas taken off tge Op so you cannotvconoarecthem now onto production or eye test for that.

You are left with Even Strength comps...again Toews pkays more minutes ...I am notcsurevofcwhobfacesctgevithercteam's top lines or facesctgevitgertean's top defensive lines which in some cases is their 3rdvorc4th checking line..

But in any case inES it shows in tge +/- statxand itvus ckose when you woukdcthink a great 2 way Toews should pull away with a +29or more IF he was tge defensivecpkayerchexwas in his youngerchkiryvdays but somehow now seems at least meh(to be kind ti hon) on checkibgvoroperkybin the d-zone anymore.

How often lastcseadon did we see the Toews line get hemmed in tgeirvown zone by tgevioos 4th line grunts?Wayctoo often.

How manyvtines did we see the Toews line not stay focused on checksvor arriving too late behind tge pkay to prevent goals hittkngvtge back ofvour net..
If the Toews line's defensive flaws reducedctge effect of tgeir offense on a net basis showing not a great dominance in tge ES +/-, then who do you blame most for this:

Toews?
Saad?
Kubakij?


Well your C enter is tge most most important piece in preventing attack in the middle slot areas where high danger chances come from...this does not excuse his wingers if they blow checking assignments ..

Pierre McGuire dissed I Saad saying he has no conception of d-zone coverage by imlication an indictment of Saad for being in tgecrught position and on tge necessity to stay with his check and not be left looking..

While McGuire neverxsaysxtgatcabout tge legendary Tiews who did stick hardcob checks abd did do orooervoositiobal coverage in his younger glory days...there us no eye test Now that can confirm Toews is doing what he once did...rather we see him too often trailing checks or orv not in position to check to prevent high danger shots..

It is hard to believe Toews has forgotten proper d-zobe defending...ratherxwe suspect it is lack of focus and lack ofvthe will to use tenergy it takes to defend well...

So my eye test has shown me that Saad had zero idea how to properly defend his assignments in thecd-zone...Toews does have such understanding but has lost the mental focus and ability to extend the energy it requires to defending the d-zone with checking competence anymore.

I will leave Kubakikboutvof the analysis. Sone ganesxveryvstringvdefebsivelybotgervhe coujd not bail out Toewz or Saad firctgeur checking lapses ...but he also was an NHL rookie so we shall see over tme if his d-zone efforts inprove,stay the same,or goof off lije Toews and Saad became ..

As ti Strome...his problem is less jack of a grasp ofcd-zobe checking assignments BUT rather simple lack of foot speed to get to prooer blocking position or to his checks and then stop stickvwith them.
To an extent slower players can improve drfensivelyvover time with better anticipation and reads to use better blocking positioning or to understand where pucjsxwill go and to leave in time to get to those oucksvor blocking lane positions better ...SO far we have not yet seen such improvement take place with Strome..but hopefully hexwill show some improving..

...Problem usctgeceyectest for mistbofvthe Hawjs forwardsxand dmenis Not very Goid In Own End ...

So hardcto siglevoutvsonevovervothers when entirecteam stinksvin own end.

So if tge analytics show shot much difference between Toewsxand Strome,the eyectest realkyvdoesn't either...both need to be better in the d-zobe.. period!

So if you think your eyes shiwd Toews far better than Srome,your eyes deceived you...Tiews stunk too and you are imagining the younger Toews when he committed to hard d-zone checking which is apparent he has abandoned now in his 30s and probably will keep on not bothering to expend much energy on as time marches on..

 

[Crow]

I don’t think hockey analytics are very reliable at all because I don’t think you can quantify the subtleties of hockey as well as baseball.

 

[Dr Salt]

Well just to add some context
Toews GAR: 11.2
Strome GAR: 4.7

That's not really close.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

Well just to add some context
Toews GAR: 11.2
Strome GAR: 4.7

That's not really close.

I didn't have that info because it was behind a paywall. That's where I went first.
I was looking at rate stats because that's all that was free.

what were they last year only?

 

[JaegerDice]

So to clarify my thoughts from another thread:

Eye test: Toews>Strome by a lot, it's not close

Numbers: Toews is just a bit better than Strome

Evolving-Hockey.com | Standard Skater Stats

How do you use hockey analytics, when it's very contradictory from the eye test?
Do you throw out the numbers and ignore them?

I'm kind of confused. Analytics are supposed to be an objective measure of the game, so when it's contradictory like this, which side do you lean on?

I tend to like things quantified, so if hockey cannot ever be completely quantified I'm a bit confused on how to use this stuff.

None of the stats in the table this link is loading for me are particularly advanced. They’re just individual event counts at 5v5.

G/60 is literally just the number of goals they scored every hour of ice time. Its really no more ‘advanced’ than goals-per-game, its just normalized to account for the fact that players play different TOI.

A/60 is just assists per 60 minutes.

A1/60 is just primary assists per 60 minutes.

A2/ is just secondary assists per 60 minutes.

They’re split because A2s are less repeatable and therefore less predictive than A1s.

P/60 is just points total per 60 minutes.

P1/60 is just points minus A2s per 60 minutes.

None of these are advanced, these are the stats hockey has been following for decades, with a little bit of grade-school math to account for differences in ice-time.

iSF/60 is 5v5 shots on goal per hour.

iFF/60 is 5v5 unblocked shots that were saved or went wide per hour.

iCF/60 is 5v5 shots that were blocked, saved or went wide

ixGF/60 is 5v5 scoring chances, basically (there’s some more math in there as far as shot distance, shot angle, shot type, etc).

The more important stats, because they’re more predictive of wins and future goal differential, are on-ice counts. That is, not just a single players output, but their impact on the team success as a whole when they’re on the ice. ‘Play driving’ for lack of a better term.

With these counts, you can measure how they impact the team, and the impact they have on the opposition.

x iG/60 is much less meaningful if that player is on the ice for x+2 GA/60.

There are also contextual stats that are used in advanced stats but not traditional stats. Zone deployment. Quality of competition. Quality of teammates. On-ice sh%. Etc.

There is no Ur-stat that sums up everything in one number. There are just better, more granular, more predictive stats.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

None of the stats in the table this link is loading for me are particularly advanced. They’re just individual event counts at 5v5.

G/60 is literally just the number of goals they scored every hour of ice time. Its really no more ‘advanced’ than goals-per-game, its just normalized to account for the fact that players play different TOI.

A/60 is just assists per 60 minutes.

A1/60 is just primary assists per 60 minutes.

A2/ is just secondary assists per 60 minutes.

They’re split because A2s are less repeatable and therefore less predictive than A1s.

P/60 is just points total per 60 minutes.

P1/60 is just points minus A2s per 60 minutes.

None of these are advanced, these are the stats hockey has been following for decades, with a little bit of grade-school math to account for differences in ice-time.

iSF/60 is 5v5 shots on goal per hour.

iFF/60 is 5v5 unblocked shots that were saved or went wide per hour.

iCF/60 is 5v5 shots that were blocked, saved or went wide

ixGF/60 is 5v5 scoring chances, basically (there’s some more math in there as far as shot distance, shot angle, shot type, etc).

The more important stats, because they’re more predictive of wins and future goal differential, are on-ice counts. That is, not just a single players output, but their impact on the team success as a whole when they’re on the ice. ‘Play driving’ for lack of a better term.

With these counts, you can measure how they impact the team, and the impact they have on the opposition.

x iG/60 is much less meaningful if that pl

That stuff is what was available for free.
I don't wish to pay for them nor can I afford them.

Let me go to NST and see if I can get some on-ice data. Here it is.
Player Season Totals - Natural Stat Trick

Toews and Strome look pretty similar to me here too, @JaegerDice

 

[JaegerDice]

That stuff is what was available for free.
I don't wish to pay for them nor can I afford them.

Let me go to NST and see if I can get some on-ice data. Here it is.
Player Season Totals - Natural Stat Trick

Toews and Strome look pretty similar to me here too.

Yep.

There’s not much of a gap. If you put Toews in Stromes deployment he’d do a bit better, and if you put Strome in Toews deployment, he’d do worse.

One of the major delusions holding the Blackhawks back is the idea that their once elite core is still elite. That they just need to strengthen things around the edges, and the core will do the rest. Its nonsense. They simply do not have the same measurable impact they did when they were younger, in their prime.

Meatballs can hang their hat on Toews point totals if they like, while ignoring the fact his actual on-ice impact as far as possession, goal differential and wins has cratered. He’s not a guy that elevates others anymore, he’s a guy that needs elevation.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

Yep.

There’s not much of a gap. If you put Toews in Stromes deployment he’d do a bit better, and if you put Strome in Toews deployment, he’d do worse.

One of the major delusions holding the Blackhawks back is the idea that their once elite core is still elite. That they just need to strengthen things around the edges, and the core will do the rest. Its nonsense. They simply do not have the same measurable impact they did when they were younger, in their prime.

Meatballs can hang their hat on Toews point totals if they like, while ignoring the fact his actual on-ice impact as far as possession, goal differential and wins has cratered. He’s not a guy that elevates others anymore, he’s a guy that needs elevation.

Kane is still pretty damn good but Toews and Keith certainly aren't the same players they were from 2008-2015.

Also, I think Bowman knows this...he's biding time and building up a talent pool for when Keith/Seabrook retire and Toews/Kane aren't paid so much. I have no idea if 19 and 88 will finish their careers with the Hawks and if I had to put a number on it, I'd say it's about 60% both are gone after their contracts expire. If they wanted to keep one of them, my money would be on Kane.

The Hawks are pretty much stuck in a holding pattern for the next 3 years. I think they'll buy out Seabrook at that point.

 

[JaegerDice]

Kane is still pretty damn good but Toews and Keith certainly aren't the same players they were from 2008-2015.

Kane is still great at all the things he ever was...and driving play was never one of them. Its not a coincidence that as Kane has become the best and most important core player, the team has found increasingly less success. There’s a difference between being an elite player and an elite play driver.

The twin engines that powered the Blackhawks dynasty are burning out. They need replacements, not complementary support players.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

Kane is still great at all the things he ever was...and driving play was never one of them. Its not a coincidence that as Kane has become the best and most important core player, the team has found increasingly less success. There’s a difference between being an elite player and an elite play driver.

The twin engines that powered the Blackhawks dynasty are burning out. They need replacements, not complementary support players.

I don't disagree.
Toews and Keith were elite play drivers and once they declined, so did the team.

You want to know what's crazy? The league's best offensive players are almost never the league's best play drivers. In terms of driving play during their primes, Toews blew Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin away. In terms of play driving, nobody was as good as Datsyuk.

 

[JaegerDice]

I don't disagree.
Toews and Keith were elite play drivers and once they declined, so did the team.

You want to know what's crazy? The league's best offensive players are almost never the league's best play drivers. In terms of driving play during their primes, Toews blew Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin away. In terms of play driving, nobody was as good as Datsyuk.

It’s true, because play driving is not everything. Finishing matters too. There’s no ‘theory of everything’ stat that ties everything together in a neat bow.

I’ve always said, if Bergeron could finish like Crosby, he’s challenge Gretzky’s records, even in a much tougher NHL. Cause he just generated that much more shots and chances relative to opponents. But he didnt have that touch.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

It’s true, because play driving is not everything. Finishing matters too. There’s no ‘theory of everything'

Then what the f*** is GAR then? Completely useless?

 

[JaegerDice]

Then what the f*** is GAR then? Completely useless?

Not nothing, just a first step.

Hockey analytics have been a thing for like 12 years, tops. And not with any significant investment compared to other sports.

When hockey analytics have been iterated on as long, and with as much money as baseball or (more comparably) soccer analytics have, you’ll see more impressive results.

People whine ‘oh, hockey cant be quantified like baseball’... ardent baseball fans believed baseball could never be quantified either.

Humans have quantified FAR more complex things than any sport. Give us enough time, money and effort, rest assured we’ll quantify whacking a puck with a stick into a net.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

Not nothing, just a first step.

Hockey analytics have been a thing for like 12 years, tops. And not with any significant investment compared to other sports.

When hockey analytics have been iterated on as long, and with as much money as baseball or (more comparably) soccer analytics have, you’ll see more impressive results.

People whine ‘oh, hockey cant be quantified like baseball’... ardent baseball fans believed baseball could never be quantified either.

Humans have quantified FAR more complex things than any sport. Give us enough time, money and effort, rest assured we’ll quantify whacking a puck with a stick into a net.

I hope you're right, because it would be far easier for me to understand this game I love to watch if things were quantified better and there were explanations for each stat like there is in baseball.

 

[ChiHawks10]

I hope you're right, because it would be far easier for me to understand this game I love to watch if things were quantified better and there were explanations for each stat like there is in baseball.

It's never going to happen in hockey the way it does in baseball. That's not whining like JD says it is, it's just the facts that he refuses to acknowledge. Hockey will never be as measurable, analytically, as baseball. It just won't. Ever. If JD thinks it will, then he's in denial.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

It's never going to happen in hockey the way it does in baseball. That's not whining like JD says it is, it's just the facts that he refuses to acknowledge. Hockey will never be as measurable, analytically, as baseball. It just won't. Ever. If JD thinks it will, then he's in denial.

They said that about baseball 15 years ago.
You could be right, but it remains to be seen if it's impossible.

 

[RayP]

They said that about baseball 15 years ago.
You could be right, but it remains to be seen if it's impossible.

Nobody ever said that other than 75 year old men.


It’s not possible. The game is played on freaking ice with a bouncing puck. There are too many variable to ever try and turn this shit into baseball.

 

[BobbyJet]

I hope you're right, because it would be far easier for me to understand this game I love to watch if things were quantified better and there were explanations for each stat like there is in baseball.

Trying to learn the game via advanced stats won't work. Just familiarize yourself with the basics and the rules .... and keep watching. You'll soon figure it out.

 

[ChiHawks10]

They said that about baseball 15 years ago.
You could be right, but it remains to be seen if it's impossible.

They never said that about baseball really. There are just too many factors in hockey that are uncontrollable to ever quantify everything with numbers. Too much randomness. Numbers won't ever explain the game the same way it can with baseball. It just won't.