Toronto Maple Leafs: Team Analytics

[morph]

I fail to understand why everyone is lauding Dubas. He sounds like the average corporate bull****ter to me, bandying around a few charts and and running basic statistical tests.

Does he have any real background in mathematical modelling and statistics?

 

[Pyromaniac3]

I fail to understand why everyone is lauding Dubas. He sounds like the average corporate bull****ter to me, bandying around a few charts and and running basic statistical tests.

Does he have any real background in mathematical modelling and statistics?

They hired Rob Pettapiece, a statistician from baseball I believe.

 

[realgoodleafs]

I fail to understand why everyone is lauding Dubas. He sounds like the average corporate bull****ter to me, bandying around a few charts and and running basic statistical tests.

Does he have any real background in mathematical modelling and statistics?

I think he has a sports management degree from "walk and talk" Brock.

 

[Pookie]

I fail to understand why everyone is lauding Dubas. He sounds like the average corporate bull****ter to me, bandying around a few charts and and running basic statistical tests.

Does he have any real background in mathematical modelling and statistics?

More importantly does mathematical modelling and statistics offer any significant insight into decision making on ice? In the draft room?

Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink" might offer some challenge to that line of thinking.

 

[colchar]

I think he has a sports management degree from "walk and talk" Brock.

Have Brock's standards risen that high?

More importantly does mathematical modelling and statistics offer any significant insight into decision making on ice? In the draft room?

Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink" might offer some challenge to that line of thinking.

Can you offer a brief summary of the book?

 

[leafstilldeath*]

I fail to understand why everyone is lauding Dubas. He sounds like the average corporate bull****ter to me, bandying around a few charts and and running basic statistical tests.

Does he have any real background in mathematical modelling and statistics?

Nobody is lauding Dubas. Stats predicted Leafs will fail when they were winning last season and this season. So people are lauding stats.


In hockey its about identifying variables that define events and have that collection of data over a large sample to quantify a player's worth.

The so called eye-test has led to many mistakes. For example, lets say teams are about to make a trade for player X with a pick and a choice of prospect A, B or C.

Scouts go watch the game. For whatever reason: prospect A and Prospect B have terrible games but Prospect C plays well.

Scouts come back to the GM or AGM that you should go after prospect C; based on just "one" game sample.

On the other hand it is quite possible that over a large sample of games Prospect A and Prospect B have had a better outing than prospect C but just that night Prospect C was better than the other two candidates and scouts think Prospect C is the best.

Dubas also provides another good example of how people that play on Canada under-19 are rated much higher in drafts BUT in a long span it doesn't have much of an impact with majority of the players (exceptions: Crosby, Stamkos etc....)

Bottom Line: Stats Matter! over a large sample Stats have a decent predictable power and adds another dimension (may be the most pertinent one) in a hockey organization's decision making arsenal.

 

[leafstilldeath*]

Dubas reveals Leafs' mindset on Analytics

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...tics-at-sloan/article23238104/?click=sf_globe

“We’ve seen this before,†he added of the Leafs’ struggles. “It’s part of the process. It takes time. It doesn’t happen overnight. When you’re using analytics, people are [insulting] you and they’re saying, ‘Well, I thought this was supposed to change everything? What about your numbers?’ “It’s not magic. It’s really not magic. It’s a process, and it’s hard work, and it’s difficult, and yo have to push your way through it.â€

 

[Menzinger]

Dubas is a smart guy, and I'm very happy he's with the organization. What was perhaps most telling was when he admitted the Leafs had been so horribly outdated when it came to tracking internal metrics - directly contradicting the old management regime who had tried to claim they were actually doing those things.

I fail to understand why everyone is lauding Dubas. He sounds like the average corporate bull****ter to me, bandying around a few charts and and running basic statistical tests.

Does he have any real background in mathematical modelling and statistics?

It's not his math skills which are of significance, it's his intellectual flexibility to be open to new ideas, to try to utilize all available resources to help the team succeed.
The Burke/Nonis era paid no attention to things like advanced stats, all while successful teams like the LA Kings and Hawks were - the leaf's needed to play catchup really fast.

 

[Pookie]

Can you offer a brief summary of the book?

Hard to in a short paragraph but ultimately it highlights that sometimes the best decisions are made based on "instinct" and less on analysis. He uses a number of studies and situational examples to make the point. For example, a famous battle in the civil war where one side had numbers, strategic positioning, a weapons advantage… everything on paper that would predict victory. But the General on the other side didn't act as they expected. He used his judgement and won the "impossible."

From a sports perspective, he noted that stats are great in baseball for some things. For example, in trying to determine who is a better hitter... Ty Cobb or Babe Ruth. Difference in batting averages was 0.030. A scout or anyone would be hard pressed to make that determination based on observation as that is 3 hits out of a 100. So, analysis using stats helps immensely with this question.

However, stats don't measure other factors like motivation, determination, potential, etc. Gladwell's position is that both analysis and "judgement" can exist together and there isn't a right or wrong. However, evidence suggests that one's "gut" or judgement, particularly on complex questions, is more accurate more often than not. In fact, it may be best for complex situations whereas analysis can paralyze decision making for complex situations.

I'm paraphrasing of course based on my understanding of the book.

We see it in hockey all the time.

For example, stats never predicted the rise to power of late round draft picks because they can't measure a player's drive and training habits… or even the environment they were drafted into (ie. playing in Detroit's farm vs Toronto's).

This is where Dubas loses me. When he gives a presentation on “How Analytics has Limited the Impact of Cognitive Bias on Personnel Decisions,” it's as if it's THE path to go… or so I interpret. That your "eyes and mind" are liars.

"Analytics" are used to exclude a "gut feel" or variables that can't be measured like determination, off ice tendencies (go to bed early or out partying?), family situations, etc. And that's just wrong. Those factors are important, if not more important, than what a player has done in his junior career to-date or how much he weighs.

 

[Daisy Jane]

here's some stuff from the Globe

Dubas talking about analytics and what the Leafs are hoping to do.
(I had to laugh at this quote)

“The notion that you can sit behind a computer and find athletes is b---s---,†Burke grumbled during his time on panel with Nate Silver, among others. Later, he added “this is still an eyeballs business.â€

“What analytics taught me is your eyes and your mind are lying sons of B------ in the worst absolute way,†Dubas said earlier in the day, directly refuting Burke’s eyeballs adage.

I'd think ultimately you have to marry the two.

He also talked about everyone buying in - not just 1 person.

it's a very good article, i thought
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...tics-at-sloan/article23238104/?click=sf_globe

 

[Pookie]

My favourite quote from the article is this:

At first, Dubas had to explain the basic principles to people from ownership on down – the importance of possession, the role of luck. In a meeting with Larry Tanenbaum and Dale Lastman – the chairman and a member of the board of Maple Leafs Sports & Entertainment – he talked about PDO.

“Well, what does it mean?” they asked. “What does it represent?”

Dubas explained that PDO wasn’t an acronym, that it was named for a commenter on the Internet. It was a measure of luck, or variance. It was combined shooting and save percentage that tended to revert to 100. If a team is above 100, as the Leafs have been when hot, then that success is likely unsustainable. And vice-versa.

Shanahan challenged Dubas to come up with a better explanation.

“You’re paying your staff millions of dollars,” Dubas said. “You don’t want to hear it’s more influenced by luck. These coaches and these staffers are supposed to have the answers. Luck isn’t a suitable answer to very successful business people. We’re owned by Bell and Rogers. It’s not a real … When you say luck, aren’t you supposed to be able to do the things that take luck out of it?”
​

I said that exact thing in a thread that was shut down. He's lucky Shanahan is backing him or he might have been shown the door real quick.

I get the sense the Dubas is playing corporate politics the hard way. No inside knowledge of course but to say:

“What analytics taught me is your eyes and your mind are lying sons of *****es in the worst absolute way,” Dubas said earlier in the day, directly refuting Burke’s eyeballs adage.
​

…and...

“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.”​

… seems like a difficult way to make friends. Scouts, who for years, have made their reputation on their recommendations. Coaches, who for years, prided themselves on systems and line matches and adjusting to competitive situations. They aren't robots. Their value/credibility is their ability to make decisions.

As difficult as it is to say that their minds and eyeballs are liars, it's also wrong to blatantly discount that aspect of decision making.

For his sake, I hope the team turns around soon or the tide will turn against him with a lot of burning bridges along the way.

 

[7even]

My favourite quote from the article is this:

At first, Dubas had to explain the basic principles to people from ownership on down – the importance of possession, the role of luck. In a meeting with Larry Tanenbaum and Dale Lastman – the chairman and a member of the board of Maple Leafs Sports & Entertainment – he talked about PDO.

“Well, what does it mean?†they asked. “What does it represent?â€

Dubas explained that PDO wasn’t an acronym, that it was named for a commenter on the Internet. It was a measure of luck, or variance. It was combined shooting and save percentage that tended to revert to 100. If a team is above 100, as the Leafs have been when hot, then that success is likely unsustainable. And vice-versa.

Shanahan challenged Dubas to come up with a better explanation.

“You’re paying your staff millions of dollars,†Dubas said. “You don’t want to hear it’s more influenced by luck. These coaches and these staffers are supposed to have the answers. Luck isn’t a suitable answer to very successful business people. We’re owned by Bell and Rogers. It’s not a real … When you say luck, aren’t you supposed to be able to do the things that take luck out of it?â€
​

I said that exact thing in a thread that was shut down. He's lucky Shanahan is backing him or he might have been shown the door real quick.

I get the sense the Dubas is playing corporate politics the hard way. No inside knowledge of course but to say:

“What analytics taught me is your eyes and your mind are lying sons of *****es in the worst absolute way,†Dubas said earlier in the day, directly refuting Burke’s eyeballs adage.
​

…and...

“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€​

… seems like a difficult way to make friends. Scouts, who for years, have made their reputation on their recommendations. Coaches, who for years, prided themselves on systems and line matches and adjusting to competitive situations. They aren't robots. Their value/credibility is their ability to make decisions.

As difficult as it is to say that their minds and eyeballs are liars, it's also wrong to blatantly discount that aspect of decision making.

For his sake, I hope the team turns around soon or the tide will turn against him with a lot of burning bridges along the way.

I like what he's doing. Even if he's getting **** on and even if he's wrong, he's challenging the status quo, which is a good thing. We've been complacent in our thinking for 20 years, and it's clearly not working.

 

[Menzinger]

Dubas isn't saying 'eyeballs' don't matter in decision making. He's just saying they can be misleading - which is absolutely true.

 

[leafstilldeath*]

It is funny to me that stats skeptics choose to ignore "evidence" and fall on the "failed" eye-test.

The post above quoted everything that fits their narrative (although misrepresented what that part of the article was trying to say) and as usual ignore the "evidence"

Some teams have been using analytics for years, like the Chicago Blackhawks and Los Angeles Kings – winners of four of the last five Stanley Cups. Other teams are just getting started. There are different levels of buy-in from team to team.​

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/to...analytics---it-s-not-magic-232145028-nhl.html


More importantly Dubas was hired because his usage of analytics produced results for greyhounds. Hockey is results oriented business the so called "eye-test" as Burke advocates it (yup the same guy that gave away 2 firsts and a second for Kessel, signed Komisarek, Grabo @ 5.5 million etc....) has led to many failures in toronto.

Successful franchises like Hawks and Kings have been using analytics much longer. Heck Sutter even talks about possession numbers etc.....

Stats matter and am glad Dubas is trying to simplify the sophisticated language down for simpletons to understand.

 

[SeenSchenn2]

Dubas isn't saying 'eyeballs' don't matter in decision making. He's just saying they can be misleading - which is absolutely true.

He's actually gone out and said it's an eyeballs business, but that doesn't' mean the analytics are useless.

He's a smart kid and I'm thrilled we have him in the organization.

 

[leafstilldeath*]

The Limits of Observation: Hockey

http://nhlnumbers.com/2015/3/1/the-limits-of-observation

I think this is a brilliant article. Everyone especially the stat skeptics should give it a read.

(this article was done quite long ago FYI)

 

[Pookie]

I like what he's doing. Even if he's getting **** on and even if he's wrong, he's challenging the status quo, which is a good thing. We've been complacent in our thinking for 20 years, and it's clearly not working.

You think the Leafs have been complacent in their thinking?

I'd say they have consistently chased short term fixes. They are not renowned for their development system. They used their cash to overcome those short comings. Compounded by the fact their cupboards were bare at the time of the new salary cap and lowering of the UFA age, they were ill prepared to compete for players after 2005.

Pre 2005, they did ok with some Conference finals and some solid teams.

In any event, the key is spending money on development. Stats are a small part of this.

Funny thing is that the stats they likely are using aren't the "toy/junk" stats of Corsi/Fenwick that we discuss here.

 

[Pookie]

Successful franchises like Hawks and Kings have been using analytics much longer. Heck Sutter even talks about possession numbers etc.....

Weren't the Leafs one of the few franchises NOT to be using "advanced" stats? (Or least have an official stats department)

Let's use critical thinking skills here.

If successful franchises like the Kings and Hawks have been using it, can we estimate that 20-25 less successful franchises have also been using it?

Which sort of dilutes the proclaimed value of it being unique and THE answer doesn't it?