What's the chances Ehlers re-signs in Winnipeg?

[AlphaLackey]

So, I guess you could say that for a good while everyone including scientists thought the earth was flat and use that in this example, but until someone can prove a globe - I'm going to stick with my experience.

Knowledge of a spherical earth, and a measurement of its circumference to within 30km, predates "scientists" by about 1500 years; knowledge of a heliocentric solar system by about 200.

 

[LowLefty]

Knowledge of a spherical earth, and a measurement of its circumference to within 30km, predates "scientists" by about 1500 years; knowledge of a heliocentric solar system by about 200.

Look at the big brain on Alpha!

 

[AlphaLackey]

Look at the big brain on Alpha!

Hey now, this isn't just me trying out for the pub trivia team it's to a point -- long before scientists ever existed, you had smart people who could use logic and reasoning and could put together ideas like "X is / is not evidence of Y". So if I ever see evidence that 'clutch performance' is something that someone has that isn't just random chance, I'll be convinced. Just saying, I'm certainly not taking the pro-magic position in this argument.

Now, if you want to see the real big brained guy who calculated the circumference of the earth with nothing more than a f***in' stick, here's a great video.

 

[Jet]

Analyzed every NHL player in a three year span, over their current and two prior seasons. Past seasons of "clutch" had essentially zero predictive power for future seasons of "clutch". At the end of the day, the only reliable indicator of "how many clutch goals they scored" was "how many goals they scored"

If you want to call that "small sample size magic", that's fine. But I stand by my methodology and my P(Win) curves matched those provided by the best in the business, and it was good enough to get published in print; so if anything, it was used to mildly supported my wallet.

So, you're saying that every player plays the same regardless of circumstance. Cool.

 

[robertocarlos]

Chances are good as long as Ehlers doesn't read this HFJets.

Knowledge of a spherical earth, and a measurement of its circumference to within 30km, predates "scientists" by about 1500 years; knowledge of a heliocentric solar system by about 200.

I read they still don't know if we revolve around the Sun or the Sun revolves around us.

You have to open the box to find out.

 

[jungles]

In my experience the guys that score the clutch goals are usually the ones that score the most non clutch goals. In other words, your best players are the ones that most often come through.

 

[robertocarlos]

In my experience the guys that score the clutch goals are usually the ones that score the most non clutch goals. In other words, your best players are the ones that most often come through.

Does that include EN goals?

 

[AlphaLackey]

So, you're saying that every player plays the same regardless of circumstance. Cool.

Well now, that's not entirely accurate. Just to summarize, you speculated that a "situational scoring" measurement would reveal some players to be consistently clutch performers, and I pointed out I did a pretty exhaustive analysis on that recently and found nothing more than random chance. Or perhaps more succinctly, "there's as much evidence to say that players have an inherent 'luckiness' as to say that they have an inherent improvement in key situations".

Like, do players gain and lose this 'clutch' ability from year to year, washing back and forth like John Druce's tears in the rain, to where it can't be discerned from statistical noise? Obviously I can't disprove that hypothesis.

In the end it's gonna just be like our discussions on momentum, and hot/cold shooters, and so forth -- if we can only measure it in the past tense, it might be fun but it's not much use.

In my experience the guys that score the clutch goals are usually the ones that score the most non clutch goals. In other words, your best players are the ones that most often come through.

One big reason why Kyle Connor will always score more clutch goals than David Gustafsson is because Connor will be out for overtime and Gustafsson will not (RIGHT, Bones?). Connor's (hopefully, right Bones?) not gonna be out there to defend or PK a 1 or 2 goal lead late, situations where a goal for ain't gonna be that much.

I'm sure some people much much better at this than I have already done some P(Win) Adjusted Corsi or xG fancy stat.

 

[Jet]

Well now, that's not entirely accurate. Just to summarize, you speculated that a "situational scoring" measurement would reveal some players to be consistently clutch performers, and I pointed out I did a pretty exhaustive analysis on that recently and found nothing more than random chance. Or perhaps more succinctly, "there's as much evidence to say that players have an inherent 'luckiness' as to say that they have an inherent improvement in key situations".

Like, do players gain and lose this 'clutch' ability from year to year, washing back and forth like John Druce's tears in the rain, to where it can't be discerned from statistical noise? Obviously I can't disprove that hypothesis.

In the end it's gonna just be like our discussions on momentum, and hot/cold shooters, and so forth -- if we can only measure it in the past tense, it might be fun but it's not much use.



One big reason why Kyle Connor will always score more clutch goals than David Gustafsson is because Connor will be out for overtime and Gustafsson will not (RIGHT, Bones?). Connor's (hopefully, right Bones?) not gonna be out there to defend or PK a 1 or 2 goal lead late, situations where a goal for ain't gonna be that much.

I'm sure some people much much better at this than I have already done some P(Win) Adjusted Corsi or xG fancy stat.

I appreciate your exhaustive research on this, and I am not saying that your data is wrong (though I will say since I don't understand the methodologies and don't know if they are scientifically sound, I can't comment being that).

The main point that I am trying to make and that I stand by is that all players are on a scale of how they typically perform under certain circumstances. That's not only players who love and thrive in high stakes situations, but those who shrink from them. This can also be applied to players who perform poorly when not motivated (in games and situations with low stakes).

I already know you are very suspect on how psychology impacts players in sport. Momentum, confidence, and, yes, situational performance are all real and undeniable.

I don't have the time or honestly the methodology to measure this.

I do know this to be true, I've seen it, I've experienced it myself, I've talked to other athletes about it. Whether you believe it or not is up to you.

People often try to explain hockey and predict it with statistics. I think hockey isn't well suited to that simply due to the unpredictable in the game itself.

Just because a player thrives in high stakes situations, doesn't mean that will always = productive metrics, just as a team that dominates another doesn’t always win on a given night.

You're also of course, correct. Some players will outproduce simply die to opportunity (ice time, line mates, matchups).

 

[bumblebeeman]

Hey now, this isn't just me trying out for the pub trivia team it's to a point -- long before scientists ever existed, you had smart people who could use logic and reasoning and could put together ideas like "X is / is not evidence of Y". So if I ever see evidence that 'clutch performance' is something that someone has that isn't just random chance, I'll be convinced. Just saying, I'm certainly not taking the pro-magic position in this argument.

Now, if you want to see the real big brained guy who calculated the circumference of the earth with nothing more than a f***in' stick, here's a great video.

Isn't this guy just a scientist then? Doing science = being a scientist?

 

[Gm0ney]

Speaking of clutch, who would you call clutch:

• A guy who scores the most goals when tied?
• A guy who scores the most goals when the Jets are down by a goal?
• A guy who scores the most points when tied or down?

Are any or some or all these things clutch?