Anyone else annoyed by the way stats are used?

[Hockey Team]

They constantly bring up stats from the past, like what the teams series records are in the past, and in cases actually imply that they mean something!

If the team lost a series, or 10 series to someone else 20 years ago, none of those players are on the current team, if it's even further back, a lot of those players are dead already, how do any of those stats have any relevance to what's going on now? Even recent history that's more then a few years back is hardly relevant due to so many personnel changes.

Click to read more...

 

[Thirty One]

Yes.

Even the current year's matchup records aren't that useful because it's such a small sample.

Not just hockey either. I don't need to know if a batter is 2-3 with a walk off a certain pitcher.

 

[aufheben]

Yes. My favorite example in recent memory: "NYR are 1-10 in last 11 games @ WSH, they will lose Game 7" - proceed to win Game 7 in WSH.

 

[The Gloaming]

Yes.

Except for Montreal. Those stats are real.

 

[Thirty One]

And on the whole Game 7 on the road stat, they lost one in Washington in 2009. When was the last one before that? I went back to 1981 and haven't found one yet.

 

[Riverdale]

Yes.

Except for Montreal. Those stats are real.

Horribly, horribly real.

 

[Hockey Team]

They just did it in the kings game.

"First home game one playoff game won since XXX"

WHO CARES? The date was more then 20 years ago, none of those players even play anymore.

 

[robwrx04]

I remember hearing Brad Richards has never lost in his last 5 game 7s?

Saying things like that is one thing, but someone actually did the research.

 

[Hockey Team]

I remember hearing Brad Richards has never lost in his last 5 game 7s?

Saying things like that is one thing, but someone actually did the research.

NBC/MSG people have access to some databases filled with tons of stats. And they probably have people working who do nothing but pull stats out of their ass (or the database.. as the case may be..) all game to feed to the announcers to use.

 

[EasyKreider NYR]

You have to remember there's a lot of airtime to fill. especially with these hour long pre-games.

 

[DudMan28]

I heard that the Rangers are 5-1 all time on thursday night game ones following a Knicks loss to the Pacers in round 2 of the playoffs since 1945. Should be in for a good one.

 

[NYSportsfan87]

I heard that the Rangers are 5-1 all time on thursday night game ones following a Knicks loss to the Pacers in round 2 of the playoffs since 1945. Should be in for a good one.

You also heard too? Bob Sacamano told me

 

[Ail]

I think it depends on the stat. Trends are useful under certain circumstances, and yes in sports they are relatively difficult to quantify given the fact that teams change completely over the years.

However a statistic like, "The away team has won game 7 only x amount of times out of y game 7s." can be somewhat telling if there is a huge disparity in the amount of wins versus the amount of game 7s. You then have to determine if there is a logical reason for that given the constants. Maybe the pressure for the away team is very high. Maybe the home ice advantage is more noticeable. Maybe playing in front of the home crowd is a scale tipper. Maybe all of the reasons being the away team would normally put you at a disadvantage is magnified during the playoffs. What about the fact that the away team in a game 7 is always the lower seed, and possibly lesser skilled team?

The fact that the Rangers never won an away game 7 until this season, but won all their home game 7s isn't really about the Rangers as much as it is about the disadvantage of the away team in general, and vice versa.

Montreal, and the powerplay are just curses. There are very little constants yet the trends continue.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

You have to remember there's a lot of airtime to fill. especially with these hour long pre-games.

This. It's obnoxious when people cite them to say "history isn't on the side of x" and things like that, but they're interesting nuggets of info from announcers I have no problem with.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I was going to mention this during the game but the game was so going on and it was tough to write. Didn't feel like making a big deal out of it after the game but this thread is perfect for it.

Joe said one of the dumbest things I've ever heard an announcer say. He brought up a bad historic stat. I think it was that the Caps are under .500 in series where they have had a 2-0 lead at some point. Then he's like "no wonder the players are nervous". Yeah I'm sure that's the players are thinking during game 7. "The Washington Capitals blew a bunch of 2-0 leads in the 80s and 90s". I know they blew one to the Pens 4 years ago. Before that I don't think any of these players or coaches were on the team. I can't figure out if Joe was joking, he actually believed this garbage, or he thinks his audience is so stupid that they'd just buy anything he says.

 

[nyr2k2]

I think they're interesting just to provide historical perspective. Take them for what they are, though: numbers. Numbers that have no bearing on the events unfolding before your eyes. It's just fodder for discussion during a two hour hockey game.

 

[bobbop]

Oh yes!! So many "experts" now are in and around the game we have more useless information than ever.

My favorite is "primary" assist. Absolutely useless stat (i.e. Dorsett getting the primary assist on Pyatt's goal on Monday night) I worked in hockey and have followed the game for over 50 years and never heard that phrase until 2-3 years ago.

Watch the damn game!

 

[broadwayblue]

I think it depends on the stat. Trends are useful under certain circumstances, and yes in sports they are relatively difficult to quantify given the fact that teams change completely over the years.

Exactly, it all depends on the stat. I think it's reasonable to say that when the home team goes up 2-0 there is an 88% chance they will win the series. That's a stat based on hundreds of data points. To say a team has never won their first home game on a Tuesday in May when they are 0-3 historically is a different story.

 

[Oak]

It's annoying but every sport does it.

You just have to take it all with a grain of salt. It adds another thing to think about for people who like to acquire as much information as possible about their favorite team/sport.

 

[Chief]

I think what you take away from all this is how lame many broadcasters are. If a broadcaster knows his stuff, he won't just parrot a stat because it was given to him/her.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

Oh yes!! So many "experts" now are in and around the game we have more useless information than ever.

My favorite is "primary" assist. Absolutely useless stat (i.e. Dorsett getting the primary assist on Pyatt's goal on Monday night) I worked in hockey and have followed the game for over 50 years and never heard that phrase until 2-3 years ago.

Watch the damn game!

I never understood this. People always act as if secondary assists don't mean anything, but just as often the guy who gets the secondary assist makes a better play than the primary assist and vice versa(or hell, even the guy who didn't get a point on the play.)

 

[Greg02]

 

[Kreider Typical]

meh we're a team with a lot of history. i have no problem with them reminding us of that. might not always be relevant, but no harm done.

 

[Kakko]

Well, stats about the Bruins are useless, unless we're talking about Orr, Esposito, Ratelle, and Gilbert

 

[tailgunner]

And on the whole Game 7 on the road stat, they lost one in Washington in 2009. When was the last one before that? I went back to 1981 and haven't found one yet.

Rangers game 7 losses on the road
1939 vs bruins
1950 vs detroit stanley cup final double OT
1971 vs chicago
1974 vs flyers
2009 vs washington