Toggle sidebar

Advanced Stats

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Thirty One

Thirty One

Safe is safe.
Dec 28, 2003
28,981
24,357
Bardof425 said:
The basic premise that shots on goal is the end all event is a problem. Shots come in all shapes and sizes. Often allowing a shot from the boards is an effective play as opposed to letting the player move behind the net for a potential dish. And there are hordes of other "real game" scenerios where the "shot on goal" is misleading as a measure of on ice success or failure.
Click to expand...
Shots come in all shapes and sizes, agreed.

Shots while McDonagh is on the ice come in all shapes and sizes. Shots while John Moore is on the ice come in all shapes and sizes. Given a sample large enough, both collections of shots will be pretty similar.

Don't believe me? Here's a list of the Rangers' defenseman from 2012-13 listed in order of on-ice save percentage:

onicesv.jpg


Does that look more like a list of the Rangers’ best defensive defensemen listed from top to bottom, or like a list of Rangers’ defensemen put in random order?

Bardof425 said:
btw, did you notice how many times Boyle fell down last night? It was alot.
Click to expand...
I actually did. :laugh:
Click to read more...
 
Mint said:
How do you rate baseball players?
Click to expand...

I'm against advanced stats for baseball as well but I have recently started to embrace it a little more.

TBH advanced stats has basically ruined baseball for me. It has made me realize how random baseball really is.. snowballing to making me realize how pointless each individual baseball game really is. Who cares if you win a random game in May?

Now with the adding of the extra playoff team it just makes everything more random. Going off topic here but baseball really is terrible and I used to be a major fan.
 
So we should have played Eminger and DZ more? I knew it! Damn you Torts, what were you thinking putting McD out there late in games?????
 
ugh, i don't want to go off topic either, but are the nhl playoffs better?
more than half the league gets into the playoffs.
 
From the other thread:

-31- said:
By same conditions, I mean same Quality of Teammates/Competition and Zone Starts those are all factors that can be measured and accounted for.
Click to expand...

When are conditions ever the same? The system in question is pretty nondeterministic, even when comparing two players on the same team under similar conditions, i.e. one player replacing another in the same role.

How then can you compare a player on one team playing sheltered minutes to a player on another team playing significantly more difficult minutes with a completely different supporting cast?

You say the factors are measure and accounted for, but where does that show up in CR%? Is there a superseding rubric that hasn't been mentioned?

-31- said:
Defenders have been shown to have little impact on shot quality.
Click to expand...

Just read your analysis in the OP.

How does it measure quality of shots relative to quality of competition? It's not assumed that line-matching evens everything out over time?

A top defensive unit giving up a quality scoring chance against a top line is not the same as a sheltered third pair giving up a quality chance against a bottom six line.

Logically you have two sets of quality chances but the former is more understanding and probably ultimately harder for the goalie to stop.

So you have weaker defensemen playing poorer defense with a higher save percentage.
 
ugh, i don't want to go off topic either, but are the nhl playoffs better?
more than half the league gets into the playoffs.
Click to expand...
At least all the series are best of 7. Baseball is ridiculous with a 1-game and 5 game playoff.
 
McRanger said:
From the other thread:



When are conditions ever the same? The system in question is pretty nondeterministic, even when comparing two players on the same team under similar conditions, i.e. one player replacing another in the same role.

How then can you compare a player on one team playing sheltered minutes to a player on another team playing significantly more difficult minutes with a completely different supporting cast?

You say the factors are measure and accounted for, but where does that show up in CR%? Is there a superseding rubric that hasn't been mentioned?
Click to expand...
I'm sure there has been work done to provide a conversion factor for Corsi based on player usage, but I'm not aware of it.

I look at each factor individually and form an opinion from there.

McRanger said:
Just read your analysis in the OP.

How does it measure quality of shots relative to quality of competition? It's not assumed that line-matching evens everything out over time?

A top defensive unit giving up a quality scoring chance against a top line is not the same as a sheltered third pair giving up a quality chance against a bottom six line.

Logically you have two sets of quality chances but the former is more understanding and probably ultimately harder for the goalie to stop.

So you have weaker defensemen playing poorer defense with a higher save percentage.
Click to expand...
Eminger and Gilroy are at the top of the list. Hamrlik and Bickel are at the bottom. I'm sorry, but random is the only answer I will accept here.
 
Fire Sather said:
I rate hockey players by watching them play.

I don't need advanced stats.
Click to expand...

I'm more partial to the eye test as well, but any criteria for judgement is much less relevant when solely relied upon. i.e. You shouldn't rely only on stats, or advanced stats, or the eye tests, or whatever, but some combination of them all, or at least more than one.
 
-31- said:
Or more frequently, tend to remember the events they want to, and forget the ones that don't fit what they want to believe.
Click to expand...

True. That should be called the Lundqvist Rule. Remember the "soft goal" he gave up and forget about the 3 or 4 great saves proceeding it.
 
People who disregard advanced stats usually do so because their beliefs on how the game should be played are wrong, and it shows up clearly in the advanced stats.
 
I can understand advanced stats with baseball because it's just so much easier to separate the individual from the team. ABs are individual accomplishments. Having said that, stats like WAR are incredibly unreliable and always being changed. I can get on board with wOBA but it's basically just looking at players singles, doubles, triples, hrs, and walks, and putting it all together in a neat little package. It's not very "advanced".

Sports like football and hockey are just so much harder to quantify.
 
Not to mention the idea of being able to see every single thing happening on the ice at any given moment, AND recall it in flawless detail in a game as fast as hockey is a hilarious notion. Add on top if it fan bias, and emotional investment during the heat of gameplay and you have probably one of the worst possible conditions for trying to objectively judge what you are "seeing."
 
I don't think that most fans think the stats are useless. People just say that they're not the be all end all. Yet the advanced stat guys tend to SAY the same thing, yet every argument they have is "CORSI brah".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom