NHL Rankings by way of Puck Prospectus/VUKOTA

[MathMan]

How does that sentence make any sense?? Argh

They could have played beyond their ability, or other teams may have improved more than they did, or both.

 

[passive voice]

Yeah, let's compare two different season, and while we're at it, let's take a season which has next to no statistical validity anymore and the reasons for bad performance are known.


BTW, Emery's stats from the preseason. 0.943 SV% and 1.76 GAA. And he looks very very good.

Edit: I calculated Birons for compairon. He only played three preseason games as far as I could find (Emery played five). His stats are 0.846 SV% and 2.39 GAA

Pretty ironic use of the facepalm there, champ. For prediction purposes, the comparison isn't "Emery Now vs Biron Now", it's "Emery Now vs Biron Then". It takes a pretty wild optimism to believe that the safe money is on a historically average goalie with crazy problems (who's been out of the NHL for a year) being better than Biron was last year.

Anyway, I agree with the overall premise that adding 20 goals seems a little extreme. Their own write-up seems to tone that down a bit, implying that it'll be a bit of a wash:

Anything that Philadelphia may gain on defense with the acquisition of Pronger and in the development of Coburn, Carle and Parent, may now be dashed on wrecking the decent goaltending tandem they had in place.

One last thing: I'm guessing part of their high GA prediction is due to the Flyers having the potential to take a comical amount of penalties this year.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Wow - objective numbers really seem to scare some people. Generally, fans don't like any predictions where "their team" is "too low".

This reminds me of the standard complaint template that their sister football site used to have regarding DVOA:

"<team> is clearly ranked <too high/too low> because <reason unrelated to DVOA>. <subjective ranking system> is way better than this. <unrelated team-supporting or -denigrating comment, preferably with poor spelling and/or chat-acceptable spelling>"

 

[TOML]

The rankings might need some updating. For starters, TO was ranked 29th before the Kessel trade... However, i'm not sure if SJ was ranked 8th before or after the Heatley trade. Same with Ottawa's position. Boston should be around the same, though. We'll see.

 

[GordieHoweHatTrick]

Vukota is just an experiment and I doubt it will ever fly like it's counterpart that predicts baseball numbers. The flaw with these computer generated numbers is that mediocre players in top-6 roles will have inflated numbers based on ice-time & it's near impossible for it to predict how players perform in that role. Playing time on offense is not a factor in Baseball and individual numbers are much easier to predict as baseball is a game solely based on numbers and individual match-ups.

 

[Jedrik]

Look, I don't think the Leafs will be a powerhouse. I hope they make the playoffs but it is FAR from a sure thing. But honestly, HONESTLY does anyone think they will finish as low as 29th in the league?!? They finished 7th worst last year, and they have improved on that team...

I'm a Montreal fan and I think they'll be part of the cluster of teams (with the Habs as well) in a dogfight for the last couple of spots. They are clearly a better team than last year.

 

[Viqsi]

Vukota is just an experiment and I doubt it will ever fly like it's counterpart that predicts baseball numbers. The flaw with these computer generated numbers is that mediocre players in top-6 roles will have inflated numbers based on ice-time & it's near impossible for it to predict how players perform in that role. Playing time on offense is not a factor in Baseball and individual numbers are much easier to predict as baseball is a game solely based on numbers and individual match-ups.

Um. You realize, of course, that they could conceivably offset that issue by figuring ice time production into their predictions?

I'm not too crazy about this system either, yet, but I'm not about to write it off forever. I say give it a few years first. Think of it as a "public beta test".

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

I found this while reading some of the team previews from ESPN.

Rankings

As of now, it isn't completed, but some interesting rankings and probably worth some cannon fodder on this board.

There are a number of US collegiate forwards on the reserve list, such as Tyler Bozak, Christian Hanson, Chad Rau and Viktor Stalberg who are all between 21 and 23 years old, but had unimpressive numbers last year. None of them stand out as having a particularly bright future




Thanks for the laugh

 

[Teemu]

What's with the random way they're picking the teams?

Well, we're either top 5 or sixteenth

Blackhawks, Bruins, Penguins, Blues, and Capitals are left for anyone keeping score at home.

 

[chaosof99*]

Pretty ironic use of the facepalm there, champ. For prediction purposes, the comparison isn't "Emery Now vs Biron Now", it's "Emery Now vs Biron Then". It takes a pretty wild optimism to believe that the safe money is on a historically average goalie with crazy problems (who's been out of the NHL for a year) being better than Biron was last year.

The bold part is the entire problem right there. Emery has been out of the league which means neither you, I or the poster I originally responded to has appropriate data and as it appears neither did that prediction system. It's a game of wild guesses with Emery and I don't have a problem admitting that. What I do have a problem is with people who try to make a case for one direction with inappropriate data as the user did that I quoted.

As it is right now this very moment, Emery is playing better than Biron, evident by the numbers I posted. And yes, right now is what counts. What value is a comparison of Biron last season when the question is which goalie performs better right now?



I also strongly disagree with how the article phrased the change in goalies. It's not like the team chose to get rid of Biron. Holmgren actually tried to sign him to an extension. The problem is that Biron and his agent thought they could a lot more than what the Flyers could offer (rumor was that Biron was looking for a $4+ Million dollar per season contract) which is the main reason he fired his agent after he couldn't get signed and went unsigned for multiple weeks after free agency began.

 

[DutchLeafsfan]

There are a number of US collegiate forwards on the reserve list, such as Tyler Bozak, Christian Hanson, Chad Rau and Viktor Stalberg who are all between 21 and 23 years old, but had unimpressive numbers last year. None of them stand out as having a particularly bright future




Thanks for the laugh

Not the only part really...

They could have had Ryan Ellis if they wanted skill, of course, but the same could be said of any team drafting from #3 to #10.

Kinda made me go 'what?'.

Also interesting:

Name P Age GP
Jonas Gustavsson G 25 35.0
Joey MacDonald G 29 36.2
Vesa Toskala G 32 37.4

The Leafs will apparently play 108.6 games this season. Factoring in some OT, that will be one hell of a cup run then

(Interestingly, the Red Wings goalies will only play a total of 47.6 games this year, and if my computations are correct, the Leafs' opponents will score roughly 20 own goals.)

 

[Bear of Bad News]

The Leafs will apparently play 108.6 games this season. Factoring in some OT, that will be one hell of a cup run then

Surely, you realize that:

(1) In some games, more than one goaltender plays.

(2) Sometimes, goaltenders get traded.

 

[Arctic Fox]

(Interestingly, the Red Wings goalies will only play a total of 47.6 games this year, and if my computations are correct, the Leafs' opponents will score roughly 20 own goals.)

The Wings don't really need a goalie -- they are good enough to bench both of their goalies. And 20 own goals by Leafs' opponents is a reasonable number if the author of these rankings is from Toronto. Perspective is everything.

 

[Randall Graves*]

The point projections are pretty conservative, Teemu Selanne will score alot more than 40 points for one.

 

[DutchLeafsfan]

(1) In some games, more than one goaltender plays.

Of course, but they seem to have accounted for that given Toskala's 37.4 games.

(2) Sometimes, goaltenders get traded.

Of course, but I don't see their projections to be accurate or deep enough to predict trades. I mean, there's no mention of Kessel on the Leafs piece, for one

Not to mention a ton of other stats also don't seem to add up overly well, such as projected scoring for a team compared to the projected goal totals per player.

 

[Unstable]

I don't think we can argue goalies based on the preseason. Teams don't load out their full lineups in these games.

 

[zeke]

Not bad rankings, although I'd like to see them re-do Toronto's numbers with Kessel in the mix. That should bump their projected offensive rank up above 22nd.

and of course, they're projecting the Leafs mainly with Toskala in net, which makes their Leafs' defensive rankings make sense as welll....so thank the lord that it's gonna be Gusto most of the year.

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

He didn't factor in Michalek or Cheechoo in his analysis, from what I saw

I guess we're underdogs again...

 

[Teemu]

He didn't factor in Michalek or Cheechoo in his analysis, from what I saw

I guess we're underdogs again...

Were they on the Senators on September 9?

 

[Neely2005]

Gonna get a lot of resistance to anything numbers-based around here.

Puck Prospectus is a sister site to Baseball Prospectus, whose PECOTA Projections have consistently outstripped Pejorative Slur pundits for the past few years. (Please spare us the "hockey's different from baseball!" pleading for now--we know.) I think the big problem with the VUKOTA Projections is that it's a fairly new system. BP has spent several years fine-tuning their shizz...I'm not sure PP is at that point.

Interesting. Thanks for the info. It definitely is an interesting way to look at things.

I guess we just need to Bookmark This Thread and then come back at the end of the season to see how accurate they were.

I'm at hoping that they're at least right about Toronto.

 

[Felix Unger]

Gonna get a lot of resistance to anything numbers-based around here.

Puck Prospectus is a sister site to Baseball Prospectus, whose PECOTA Projections have consistently outstripped Pejorative Slur pundits for the past few years. (Please spare us the "hockey's different from baseball!" pleading for now--we know.) I think the big problem with the VUKOTA Projections is that it's a fairly new system. BP has spent several years fine-tuning their shizz...I'm not sure PP is at that point.

Why should we spare you the "hockey's different from baseball" pleading?

In baseball, there's independent reason to believe that individual success produces (in the causal sense) team success. We get that. Baseball is more like team wrestling, or team track than it is like hockey. In hockey, there's little evidence to see a causal arrow. So, even if you could isolate individual success independently of team success (which standardly kept stats don't do) there would be little reason to take that information to make a prediction of team success. The causal arrow could go the other way 'round. That's just not an issue in baseball.

Looking at these predictions, I just don't see the stats that would 'smell' important to predicting team success. For example, minutes logged of even or plus even strength play vs. the average NHL player. Another: the number of non-offsetting minor penalties, etc. etc.

I'm all for stats. But good predictors are causal antecedents, not causal consequents or coincidences. It's pretty obvious that home runs cause wins in baseball and not the other way around. But in hockey, some goals cause wins, and some wins cause goals. And just when which is which isn't obvious either.

Stats tell us something relative to a clear set of discrete background facts. And with quick line rotations and set-lines, it's even harder to get a handle on individual contribution in hockey than it is in basketball. Even there, stat-fiend gods like Jason Kidd and Shane Battier don't win the big ones like flashy, selfish, "overrated" players like Kobe Bryant.

And why should we care about statistical prediction in hockey? We can tell with our eyes alone that talent bears out. The only really unpredictable champion we've had recently was the Hurricanes, when Cam Ward literally came from nowhere. And I bet hockey is bound to get even more predictable over the next 10 years, as Crosby, Ovechkin, and Malkin continue to dominate the league.

But hell, I like these predictions. They've got my Isles last, but picking up 18 points! But there it is... An 79 point last overall finish?

Cheers,

Dan-o

 

[Iain Fyffe]

There are a number of US collegiate forwards on the reserve list, such as Tyler Bozak, Christian Hanson, Chad Rau and Viktor Stalberg who are all between 21 and 23 years old, but had unimpressive numbers last year. None of them stand out as having a particularly bright future




Thanks for the laugh

You're welcome, but I'm going to have to take a guess at which part is supposed to be amusing, since I'm really not sure.

I'm going to guess it's the "unimpressive numbers" bit. If that's the case, here's a tip: if you're reading something of mine on Puck Prospectus like that, just append "for his age" to the end mentally. 23-year-olds who score a point per game in the NCAA are a dime a dozen.

I doubt it's the "particularly bright future" bit, considering that Hanson and Bozak were undrafted, Stahlberg was 161st and Rua 228th. These are hardly premium prospects here. And "particularly bright" is a rather subjective term.

Remember that the preseason means very little nothing. (As a Habs fan I remember when Mariusz Czerkawski led the NHL in preseason scoring in 2002, and then proceeded to score 14 points in the regular season). Stahlberg may well outdo what his college numbers predict for him, but also bear in mind that piece was written before the preseason started. It is very unlikely that Stahlberg will continue to be a top-flight scorer in the NHL, though it's certainly possible. Much stranger things have happened.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

As for the projections themselves, VUKOTA produces conservative predictions. Everyone, especially goaltenders, are projected to regress towards the mean. That's why the projected standings are so tight. We don't really think the last-place team in the NHL will get 79 points. The spreads will be greater that projected. But this is the first go-around. Improvements will come.

 

[Teemu]

Hawks and Caps are left for #1 and #2 (i.e. tops of their respective conferences)

 

[Ragnar]

And why should we care about statistical prediction in hockey? We can tell with our eyes alone that talent bears out.

This view is naïve, in my opinion. I completely agree that hockey is much more difficult than baseball to make these kinds of statistical predictions for, and in fact, I would go so far as to say that it is probably more difficult than any other major sport. However, this does not mean that such statistical predictions are, as a concept, worthless.

You can make a valid argument that this particular set of predictions made by this particular model is worse than predictions made by knowledgeable hockey experts (though people always seem to complain about those a lot, too). I'd probably be inclined to agree, actually. But the predictions are only going to be as good as a model, and this model is brand new. As it gets refined, it will become closer and closer to being more accurate. How long it will take to surpass expert predictions, as such things apparently have in baseball, I have no idea. A few years? A decade or two? All I can say is that I have little doubt that it will happen eventually. Like it or not, once we can create good models, be they about baseball or economics or whatever, they tend to be better than human experts alone.

For now, take these predictions for what they're worth, which is hardly nothing, even if they're not accurate. If you asked a hundred equally intelligent hockey experts to make predictions for this season, and gave half of them these predictions, I guarantee the ones who got the predictions would do better than the ones who didn't. It's much easier to look at objective information like this and correct for "errors" where you can tell that the model can't handle an unusual player or situation properly than it is to just make stuff up based on your own knowledge.