Post-Game Talk: Leafs lose 4-3 in OT

[diceman934]

Under the circumstances, I thought Pickard had a good game. Surprised he's getting so much grief so just thought I'd offer my support.

He was good. Our team not so much. Hainsey never got any grief yet he was one of our worse players with a turn over costing us the game.

 

[Pookie]

Any scout who thinks stats that readily available stats are not being used is a fair tale or they are lying.

I know NHL scouts and I know what they use as assessment tools and they are readily available on sites. They all use their own eye test and skill and skating assessment tools.

Dirk who works for the Leafs developed his own skating and skill assessment tool while working elsewhere was a scout for the Capitals for more then a few years as well a WHL scout prior to being hired by Hunter to work for the Leafs as scout will tell you that the more advance your assessment tools the more likely you will not draft a dud especially in the first round.

You aren't wrong.

Lots of stats like goals, assists, shots, giveaways, takeaways, etc are used all the time and gave been for ages.

I'm sure that some of the CF stuff is considered as well.

As are psychological profiles and health data. Which wouldn't ever be released and that's a good thing.

But let's be clear that if the Leafs think that they found the holy grail(s) of stats that gave them an edge on the competition.... they sure as hell wouldn't go to the press to talk about it.

 

[Drytoast]

Polak was our top goal scorer.

That's probably a great indicator as to what went wrong last night, though I did not watch.

 

[diceman934]

Corsi was first developed by a guy who heard buffalo GM Darcy Regier talking about the importance of shot differential on the radio.

Yes a former NHL goalie Jim. He was also a goalie coach.

 

[FreeBird]

Very satisfied with the PT last evening under the circumstances, to me it was unexpected under the circumstances.

 

[diceman934]

You aren't wrong.

Lots of stats like goals, assists, shots, giveaways, takeaways, etc are used all the time and gave been for ages.

I'm sure that some of the CF stuff is considered as well.

As are psychological profiles and health data. Which wouldn't ever be released and that's a good thing.

But let's be clear that if the Leafs think that they found the holy grail(s) of stats that gave them an edge on the competition.... they sure as hell wouldn't go to the press to talk about it.

Yes but to say that teams are not using stats that are available for public consumption is a bold face lie as that is what this discussion is about. As that is simply not true.

 

[zeke]

Yes a former NHL goalie Jim. He was also a goalie coach.

actually funny story, he didn't develop it.

McKenzie: The real story of how Corsi got its name - Article - TSN

 

[Joey Hoser]

Any scout who thinks stats that readily available stats are not being used is a fair tale or they are lying.

I know NHL scouts and I know what they use as assessment tools and they are readily available on sites. They all use their own eye test and skill and skating assessment tools.

Dirk who works for the Leafs developed his own skating and skill assessment tool while working elsewhere was a scout for the Capitals for more then a few years as well a WHL scout prior to being hired by Hunter to work for the Leafs as scout will tell you that the more advance your assessment tools the more likely you will not draft a dud especially in the first round.

It all works in conjunction.

For example, a scout watches a player several times over the course of a few months, puts together a profile of strength and weakness, etc.

But that might not catch on to a subtle trend over the course of the season. Perhaps the numbers show that player consistently spends a lot of time in their zone, which didn't happen to be initially apparent to the scout, or the player sucks at "insert whatever fancy stat". The scout can then take that information and watch the player more with an emphasis on contextualizing that part of their game, which can help inform you on whether it's something that could be improved on over time, is a problematic hole in their game, or is maybe just a situational thing.

It's not a eye test vs. numbers thing. They work together.

 

[diceman934]

actually funny story, he didn't develop it.

McKenzie: The real story of how Corsi got its name - Article - TSN

Lol... awesome

 

[Nithoniniel]

I tend to think that there is a genuine like for the term as it (falsely) places one who uses them on a pedestal of sorts.

That seems weird considering I only ever see it used by its critics, or people who don't really know anything about the field.

 

[Pookie]

Yes but to say that teams are not using stats that are available for public consumption is a bold face lie as that is what this discussion is about. As that is simply not true.

I think the word he used was rarely and that they focus on more in depth stats and methods.

The only lie I saw was the one admitted to about speaking to a scout.

 

[Pookie]

That seems weird considering I only ever see it used by its critics, or people who don't really know anything about the field.

You've never seen a pro-Corsi person use the term "advanced stats"??

 

[Nithoniniel]

You've never seen a pro-Corsi person use the term "advanced stats"??

Very, very rarely. Most that I follow talk about analytics, statistical analysis, or something more specific.

 

[diceman934]

It all works in conjunction.

For example, a scout watches a player several times over the course of a few months, puts together a profile of strength and weakness, etc.

But that might not catch on to a subtle trend over the course of the season. Perhaps the numbers show that player consistently spends a lot of time in their zone, which didn't happen to be initially apparent to the scout, or the player sucks at "insert whatever fancy stat". The scout can then take that information and watch the player more with an emphasis on contextualizing that part of their game, which can help inform you on whether it's something that could be improved on over time, is a problematic hole in their game, or is maybe just a situational thing.

It's not a eye test vs. numbers thing. They work together.

You are correct they use all tools available to them.

Murray who scouts for Tampa uses the same skating and skill assessment tool that Dirk uses. He is likely the best head scout in the NHL.

skating is the most important assessments tool as it eliminates players immediately or at least it should. If you can not skate at the level you are playing at then the rest of your skill set is useless and will not compensate for that weakness.

Now do not confuse speed with skating as speed is a nice thing to have but it is the players feet that will be the deciding factor and if they are a 3 or less you move away from that player no matter how high the skill set. Bad feet are not fixable as it deals with basic body function. Yet players are drafted every year with bad feet and if they are at a 3 or less the likelihood of them playing in the NHL is very slim in today’s game. Back in the day it happened a lot but then the speed of the game was only a fraction of what it is now.

I have posted in here about feet a lot and when I saw Biggs , Ashton and Finn skate i knew they were not going to be a good prospect as they were all 2.5 on the assessment scale. Percy was a 3.0 and he was on the cusp of being average. The higher the skill of the league the more the affect of the bad feet.

Sorry for the book but it is a passion of mind and this got way off tract.

 

[cannucky]

The only guy worse than Hainsey last night was his partner -2 with a charity assist , gets walked a dozen times , ignores his man leaving him alone in the slot for no reason on at least 2 of the goals . Funny thing is some clown started a thread here asking if the guy is a #1 D now LOL you have to be able to actually defend to be a #1 D . It's Effing Embarrassing .

 

[Menzinger]

I'm sure they do use stats. They always have. That's not really the issue is it?

We are just counting additional things.

So then what’s the disagreement, they’re used (among other things) to help make analysis and that’s exactly what’s been happening in this thread and others.

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

Too bad for Pickard. Could have had a win if he remembered to bribe the officials before the game.

This sport is garbage sometimes with those idiots dictating games.

Not true, didn't had to bribe the officials. Just had to stop the Avs from bribing the officials.

 

[Pookie]

Very, very rarely. Most that I follow talk about analytics, statistical analysis, or something more specific.

You should try google... here are a couple of references to "advanced stats"

TSN - An NHL advanced stats primer - Article - TSN or TSN Hockey Analytics writer Travis Yost breaks down explosion of advanced stats - Article - TSN

The Score - 5 advanced stats to help dominate your Fantasy Hockey league

NHL.com - Hockey Analytics 101: Understanding advanced stats and how they're measured

CBC.ca - NHL teams ready to embrace advanced statistics | Hockey | CBC Sports

 

[weems]

actually funny story, he didn't develop it.

McKenzie: The real story of how Corsi got its name - Article - TSN

What's your opinion on game scores?
I see a few of the good analytics guys posting it on twitter.

Season average

Matthews 1.17
JVR 0.76
Nylander 0.75
Rielly 0.73
Marner 0.72
Marleau 0.63
Hyman 0.55
Bozak 0.55
Gardiner 0.44
Brown 0.36
Hainsey 0.34
Leivo 0.30
Polak 0.29
Moore 0.28
Martin 0.27
Borgman 0.26
Komarov 0.18

 

[cookie]

Regardless of your take on advanced stats, the fact that teams can use them to be proactive in team and personnel assessments gives them value. In monitoring a player's quality of play, things will be overlooked and needlessly emphasized. These stats help take explain and elaborate upon a lot of these decisions that would otherwise be considered made based on feeling and on the eye test.

For instance, I really loved Komarov's exchange this year with Jonas Seigal earlier this season. When Seigal insinuated that Komarov's play had dropped because of his Corsi numbers, he straight up criticized Seigal's method of assessment. And it should make sense--Babcock may have shifted Komarov's role on the team, and as a result, the metrics and numbers used for evaluating him. And speaking of metrics, the team uses in-house numbers which are a little bit more advanced than the stats we're looking at.

 

[Nithoniniel]

You should try google...

I should try google for my impression that people that I follow don't individually use the term 'advanced stats' a lot?

And yes, I'm sure main stream sites and media use the most commonly used term, especially in intro articles.

 

[Pookie]

So then what’s the disagreement, they’re used (among other things) to help make analysis and that’s exactly what’s been happening in this thread and others.

If I'm searching for a FO guy... I'm probably going to look at FO% as a stat and then reaction times in a "combine" setting.

If I'm searching for a shot blocker, I'm going to peak at that stat.

My point was that you can't use them unless you understand the context and what you are measuring. In this thread, the insinuation was that a decline in a Corsi number was a bad thing.

No context given as to whether the data was statistically significant and whether the player has been used differently. His output in December was a point or two shy of that in November. Is that a big deal?

When using it as a rank order to compare our team vs others, we have no context. We make all those assumptions (ie. All teams playing the same system, all the time, every shift, with every talent... ) and conclude that we are either good or bad relative to how we rank on the chart. That's just not reality.

 

[Pookie]

I should try google for my impression that people that I follow don't individually use the term 'advanced stats' a lot?

And yes, I'm sure main stream sites and media use the most commonly used term, especially in intro articles.

Let's move on. My question was clear. Advanced stats as a term is widely used.

Different stats are probably more accurate.

 

[cookie]

Yes but to say that teams are not using stats that are available for public consumption is a bold face lie as that is what this discussion is about. As that is simply not true.

IIRC Babcock has criticized the shot clock numerous times. If the team's compiled data is different than the official data being used in formulating these stats, is the team still using the same publically available stat?

 

[Bluelines]

here's a thought - maybe if you spent less time lazily trying to be an anti-analytics hero, you might not be wrong so often?

Here's a thought I get paid quite well to be an analyst, I'm not anti analytics I actually love analytics, I'm anti stupid fan stats, its people like you use stupid fan stats to perch yourself up as a person of knowledge, people like you who don't fully understand the depth of the stats you drool out, it annoys people like me who have spent decades honing my craft. I actually make a living digging into the weeds to understand what each data point mean. I work with people like you who "think" they understand the metrics but all it does it make my job harder because I have to take valuable time away from useful work to explain that an apple is not always an apple.

If nothing your "analysis" are entertaining, carry on.