They are accurate.
Models don't need to confirm a bias to be right.
I haven't seen you address any actual problems.
But you don't get a + for every type of point, and he played on some horrible rebuilding Colorado teams. There are better ways to say you don't like Barrie defensively than the worst stat in the history of stats.
He's not a defensive defenseman, but his weakness are overblown. Whether you personally like him or the style of defenseman he is is irrelevant. The point is that he was a top 4 defenseman when we acquired him, so that's not "ignoring the defense" like you claimed. It's also not his only move to address the defense.
Yes, I do realize that, but you mentioned the Capitals and said that Trotzs teams play a certain way. Washington was weak defensively in the year they won.
But spending extended periods of time in the defensive zone isn't good defensive structure, so the quote you referenced doesn't make sense. Also, the Islanders are not very good at preventing high quality chances. There are other aspects of defense they are good at, but that's not really one of them.
No, signing 4 goalies for 5m each is not a good move. It has nothing to do with who does it.
That's not addressing actual problems. That's just making vague, unsupported claims. I don't see where you got 80% from, and 80% is pretty good anyway considering it's not supposed to consider the quality of the shooting talent or opposing goalie in any given instance. And over significant samples, these things even out to be relatively insignificant.Theres a problem in the actual data, the assumptions made, and the accuracy of only being 80% reliable in predicting a goal.
It's not really that new. It's been refined and improved over many years, and the evidence for it's usefulness is widely available. It's not my job to pull outdated viewpoints into the future kicking and screaming. I've explained the benefits of utilizing these statistics quite a bit, and regardless of how detailed you believe the stats to be, they are undeniably better than solely utilizing the eye test, or drawing whatever arbitrary conclusions you want about defense/goaltending from goals against.The oneus is on you to convince people with traditional view points on why this new hot product is useful.
Theres a problem in the actual data (check on the seth jones is underrated trend, where people have pointed out that NHL.com shot locations are not always correct), the assumptions made, and the accuracy of only being 80% reliable in predicting a goal. 80% is TERRIBLE; when you consider the marginal difference between good and bad goal scoring/prevention teams.
Analytics is supposed to be and will likely be (with improvements) a disruptive way to look at things. The oneus is on you to convince people with traditional view points on why this new hot product is useful. So far, I don't see its value. Maybe one day when they track goaltender positioning or goaltender line of sight, this stat will be more useful.
No, that's not true. It gives you a plus when you score in certain situations, and a - when you get scored on in certain situations, and it's not very well tied to an individual player or their abilities.You get a + if you’re on the ice when your team scores, and a - when you’re scored on
We needed top 4 defensemen. Period. Regardless of what you think about Barrie, it was undeniably an improvement on our other options going into this year. Defensemen also aren't just "offense" or "defense". Barrie provided elements other than production that we lacked, and had been exploited, like an ability to exit the zone from the right side instead of just endlessly icing it.we needed a top 4 DEFENSIVE defenceman!
But it used to be the Capitals, which you mentioned, and they didn't play that way when they won.I said Trotz’ team plays a certain way, and his team is the Islanders.
His team is alright defensively, but they do give up a decent amount of quality chances. No team wants to spend endless amounts of time in their own zone. That's a horrible strategy.And if you’d listen to his quote, you’d realize his point was that his team is very solid defensively, and will not give up very many quality chances.
I'm really interested in seeing how GPS biometric tracking data will evolve the analytics conversation. I want to see things like:
-Skating stats: total distance traveled, average speed, stops and starts, heart rate etc.
-Collisions.
-Movement vectors, like whether a player attacks the net in straight lines, or avoids heavy traffic, or whatever.
-Time spent in each zone.
Agreed. But it'll take a while for teams to figure out how to properly use it. The teams. Who already have the folks in those analysis roles will have a step ahead.
Early on though there's going to be a lot of inane debates that player X is twice as good as player Y because they skated through the neutral zone. 005 seconds quicker
Lol. Yeah, I'm definitely expecting to see a lot of this.Early on though there's going to be a lot of inane debates that player X is twice as good as player Y because they skated through the neutral zone. 005 seconds quicker
Lol. Yeah, I'm definitely expecting to see a lot of this.
Too bad the Leafs couldn’t do it when they had “three”.Like two superstars on ELCs.
No, that's not true. It gives you a plus when you score in certain situations, and a - when you get scored on in certain situations, and it's not very well tied to an individual player or their abilities.
We needed top 4 defensemen. Period. Regardless of what you think about Barrie, it was undeniably an improvement on our other options going into this year. Defensemen also aren't just "offense" or "defense". Barrie provided elements other than production that we lacked, and had been exploited, like an ability to exit the zone from the right side instead of just endlessly icing it.
But it used to be the Capitals, which you mentioned, and they didn't play that way when they won.
His team is alright defensively, but they do give up a decent amount of quality chances. No team wants to spend endless amounts of time in their own zone. That's a horrible strategy.
..What?Sounds like an inherent bias to pure information.
I wouldn't exactly call Nylander a superstar when he was on his ELC, at least not on the level of the other 4.Too bad the Leafs couldn’t do it when they had “three”.
Too bad the Leafs couldn’t do it when they had “three”.
That's not what you originally said.you get a + if you’re on the ice when your team scores at even strength or while short handed, and a - if it’s the other way.
Not much more than he played on some bad teams.So what does -66 say about Barrie???
He wasn't on the ice "far more often" when the other team scored. Regardless, Barrie is not a defensive wizard, but he brings useful elements and his addition was not "ignoring the defense".And that’s great if he can skate the puck out of our zone, but if he’s on the ice FAR MORE OFTEN when the other team scores, that kind of defeats the purpose, or am I missing something?
For an all offence identity we sure do seem to get shut out and play without much of an attack in a lot of games...
Nah. Just lazy and hungover. But thanks for the info.-He played all 7 in 2012-2013 vs Boston
-He played all 6 in 2016-2017 vs Washington
-He played 4 games against Boston in 2017-2018
The only one where your statement holds true is last season's playoffs. New fan are you?
That's not addressing actual problems. That's just making vague, unsupported claims. I don't see where you got 80% from, and 80% is pretty good anyway considering it's not supposed to consider the quality of the shooting talent or opposing goalie in any given instance. And over significant samples, these things even out to be relatively insignificant.
It's not really that new. It's been refined and improved over many years, and the evidence for it's usefulness is widely available. It's not my job to pull outdated viewpoints into the future kicking and screaming. I've explained the benefits of utilizing these statistics quite a bit, and regardless of how detailed you believe the stats to be, they are undeniably better than solely utilizing the eye test, or drawing whatever arbitrary conclusions you want about defense/goaltending from goals against.
They just beat last years cup winner...Well, not like the Canucks were up against an opponent as strong as Boston or Washington... lol
That's not what you originally said.
Not much more than he played on some bad teams.
He wasn't on the ice "far more often" when the other team scored. Regardless, Barrie is not a defensive wizard, but he brings useful elements and his addition was not "ignoring the defense".
You haven't supported your 80% claim, you haven't explained why that wouldn't be good enough, especially over significant samples that minimize the discrepancies, you haven't addressed any of my responses explaining why it is good enough, and you haven't supported ignoring all data and solely using the eye test being better, so I'm going to continue to utilize the wide array of extremely valuable information that is available to me to best evaluate my team, so that I can more effectively target where the weakness are.80% is not good enough as I have already explained for it to replace the eye test.
I'm really interested in seeing how GPS biometric tracking data will evolve the analytics conversation. I want to see things like:
-Skating stats: total distance traveled, average speed, stops and starts, heart rate etc.
-Collisions.
-Movement vectors, like whether a player attacks the net in straight lines, or avoids heavy traffic, or whatever.
-Time spent in each zone.
I don't know what you're trying to say here.So please tell me what you said I need response to my +/- statement.
I already gave you one. He's a player that's fairly good at zone exits, which were bottom of the league and heavily exploited previously, so that we could more effectively exit our zone and attack instead of endlessly icing pucks like we used to. We also utilized him at times as an effective shooting threat on the PP to open up space. Even with his weaknesses, he was a significant upgrade on the alternatives for that spot in pretty much every way.And please tell me what all these other “useful” elements are that Barrie brings.
I don't know what you're trying to say here.
I already gave you one. He's a player that's fairly good at zone exits, which were bottom of the league and heavily exploited previously, so that we could more effectively exit our zone and attack instead of endlessly icing pucks like we used to. We also utilized him at times as an effective shooting threat on the PP to open up space. Even with his weaknesses, he was a significant upgrade on the alternatives for that spot in pretty much every way.
You haven't supported your 80% claim, you haven't explained why that wouldn't be good enough, especially over significant samples that minimize the discrepancies, you haven't addressed any of my responses explaining why it is good enough, and you haven't supported ignoring all data and solely using the eye test being better, so I'm going to continue to utilize extremely valuable information that is available to me to best evaluate my team, so that I can more effectively target where the weakness are.