Player Discussion: Hickey

[wingnutks]

I would bet the fact that Hickeys on ice SV% is good because he gives up less breakaway/partial breakaway goals than most of our other dmen. When I think of dmen that are on ice for break away goals, I think of Nick Leddy. Can anyone find Nick Leddy's on ice SV% for me?

Also, someone called Hickey soft? He is probably the least soft player on the team. The guy will ALWAYS take the hit to make the play, and will always go into the corners when needed. I like Pulock and Leddy, but both of those guys are so much softer than Hickey its not even remotely funny.

 

[Instant]

Unless:
-Snow fired
-Real GM hired
-At least one top tier D is obtained
-JT signs, but
-JT signs for 10 per, max
-Top tier goalie is somehow obtained

Unfortunately, I'm not sure any of these happen.

You forgot about changing coaching staff.

The one problem I see is that no top player would want to play on this team. We don't have much hope that Tavares, the guy that bleeds orange and blue and has been an Islander for 9 years, our captain, will stay. So what's the hope that TWO top players will come and play here? (Without needing to seriously overpay them of course...)

 

[wingnutks]

someone mentioned, and i have no way of knowing, that Hickey seemed to always be on the ice with JT's line. is it possible? one thing i have been wondering, is there any stats that show GA and GF when on PK? seems like Hickey is on for a lot of PK goals against. maybe it's because i don't think he should be PK'ing, that i have a biased view?

This is wrong... LATELY he has been bad on the PK, but he still is better than average on the team as far as GA/60 while on the PK. Up until a month ago, he was one of the BEST GA/60 on the PK on the entire team.
BTW, if Hickey is always on the ice against JT, that is just bolstering JT, because his GA/60 is one of the worst on the team.

 

[wingnutks]

And more of this "luck" stuff.... Team shooting percentage when player is on the ice....
1)Ross Johnston(limited data)
2)CDH
3)Tavares
4)Bailey
5)Lee
6)
7)Barzal

Guess who #6 is?

Also, taking a look at 5v5 PDO... maybe it is just a coincidence to me that the highest PDO players on the team are the ones that play the "smartest" not necessarily the "best".
At the top you have guys like Hickey, Johnston(limited data), Ladd(very lazy lately but still a smart player), CDH, Bailey. On the bottom... Chimera, Fritz, Leddy, Prince, Ho-Sang, Lee.

Leddy has amazing wheels, however he is likely the worst cerebral dman on the team. I was really cheering this guy on in the beginning of the season, but as this season has shown he is not a good dman. If his play continues he is nothing more than a #4/#5 dman... once Leddy realizes he is not good enough to not hustle 100% of the time he can be a good #2/#3 guy.

 

[Seph]

Look at his dreadful on ice Sv% last season - how can you get unlucky for that many games? Hickey clearly sucks. Goaltending luck is one of the many flaws of plus minus.

There's a huge deal of randomness in hockey, in a given season some players are luckier than other, isn't that natural? Read the article I linked, it has a nice analogy at the end.

The problem with chalking up ice sv/sh percentages and PDO up to solely luck is that it assumes the play on the ice in front of the goaltender has no effect on the goaltender's ability to make a save on a given shot In order to accept the luck argument fully, we have to assume that on average, each shot that every player in the league gives up on average the exact same quality of scoring chances for and against. I personally don't think that's the case, as good defensive players are able to on average force worse scoring chances and good offensive players are able to help create on average better scoring chances, and the opposite is true for bad players. Not saying that luck doesn't play a part and that these numbers are useless, I just don't agree that they can be fully explained as luck.

You do bring up a fair enough point on sample size with your argument, so I pulled the numbers for the past 5 years at 5 on 5. GF% below is based on the raw data, and the on ice Sh/Sv %s and PDO are normalized by TOI.

Year	GF%	Sh%	Sv%	PDO
2013-14	50.98%	7.90	91.96	0.999
2014-15	43.10%	7.50	89.16	0.967
2015-16	57.58%	9.50	93.68	1.032
2016-17	46.15%	8.48	90.43	0.989
2017-18	59.42%	9.72	94.29	1.040
Average	50.11%	8.46	91.27	1.003

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The GF vs GA came out to literally one more goal for than against while he was on the ice, and the PDO came out to pretty much exactly average "luck". At the end of the day, it still seems he isn't hurting us on the ice. He may not be helping us either, don't get me wrong, but considering how much of this time he's spent playing above his head due to injuries, coming out with perfectly average numbers is about as good as you can hope for in regards to a bottom pairing dman.

The bad news is the trend alternates, so he's due for a bad GF% next season

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

The problem with chalking up ice sv/sh percentages and PDO up to solely luck is that it assumes the play on the ice in front of the goaltender has no effect on the goaltender's ability to make a save on a given shot In order to accept the luck argument fully, we have to assume that on average, each shot that every player in the league gives up on average the exact same quality of scoring chances for and against. I personally don't think that's the case, as good defensive players are able to on average force worse scoring chances and good offensive players are able to help create on average better scoring chances, and the opposite is true for bad players. Not saying that luck doesn't play a part and that these numbers are useless, I just don't agree that they can be fully explained as luck.

You do bring up a fair enough point on sample size with your argument, so I pulled the numbers for the past 5 years at 5 on 5. GF% below is based on the raw data, and the on ice Sh/Sv %s and PDO are normalized by TOI.

Year	GF%	Sh%	Sv%	PDO
2013-14	50.98%	7.90	91.96	0.999
2014-15	43.10%	7.50	89.16	0.967
2015-16	57.58%	9.50	93.68	1.032
2016-17	46.15%	8.48	90.43	0.989
2017-18	59.42%	9.72	94.29	1.040
Average	50.11%	8.46	91.27	1.003

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The GF vs GA came out to literally one more goal for than against while he was on the ice, and the PDO came out to pretty much perfect "luck". At the end of the day, it still seems he isn't hurting us on the ice. He may not be helping us either, don't get me wrong, but considering how much of this time he's spent playing above his head due to injuries, these numbers are about as good as you can hope for in regards to a bottom pairing dman.

It's kind of weird that the years he had his most "luck" he also had his *worst* GF%, and the years he had his least "luck", he had his *best* GF%.

From a statistical standpoint, you'd think it would be the opposite.

 

[Seph]

It's kind of weird that the years he had his most "luck" he also had his *worst* GF%, and the years he had his least "luck", he had his *best* GF%.

From a statistical standpoint, you'd think it would be the opposite.

Sorry, I accidentally had his GF%s reversed when I first posted this. It has since been corrected (funnily enough, was corrected in the quote even), but my bad on that.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Sorry, I accidentally had his GF%s reversed when I first posted this. It has since been corrected (funnily enough, was corrected in the quote even), but my bad on that.

Oh sure, make my quote look silly!

 

[Seph]

Oh sure, make my quote look silly!

Haha, you know it, I am very sneaky like that.

Or just bad at labeling my spreadsheet accurately (had my GA and GF labels flipped, so all the GF%s came out inverted).

 

[Spybot]

I just don't agree that they can be fully explained as luck

Probably not fully. Some of my previous posts really aren't phrased in the best way possible I guess. I agree that it's likely there are players who can influence on ice Sv% positively, but I haven't seen any numbers that would be able to identify them (and it is my understanding nobody has). Seems like for any meaningful sample size factors out of the players' control (like goaltending skill) play a much bigger role. I defnitely don't buy that Hickey's pure defensive ability could have boosted his Sv% so much compared to his team this season (or any other season).

At the end of the day, it still seems he isn't hurting us on the ice.

I'd say so. What I really meant to criticize in this thread is the usage of +-, not Hickey. By all statistical accounts he seems like an adequate bottom pairing defenseman, his current fortunate Sv% notwithstanding.

 

[Seph]

Probably not fully. Some of my previous posts really aren't phrased in the best way possible I guess. I agree that it's likely there are players who can influence on ice Sv% positively, but I haven't seen any numbers that would be able to identify them (and it is my understanding nobody has). Seems like for any meaningful sample size factors out of the players' control (like goaltending skill) play a much bigger role. I defnitely don't buy that Hickey's pure defensive ability could have boosted his Sv% so much compared to his team this season (or any other season).

I'd say so. What I really meant to criticize in this thread is the usage of +-, not Hickey. By all statistical accounts he seems like an adequate bottom pairing defenseman, his current fortunate Sv% notwhistanding.

Agreed on all points -- though I do think if a player has a particularly high +/- relative to the rest of his team, you can at least safely say that he's not hurting the team on the ice, or that he is not the culprit to a poor season, so a +/- has at least one use.

 

[Spybot]

we can agree that talking advanced stats on this board is futile and pointless.

I don't agree or disagree with the article. Just because someone writes something on the internet doesn't make it factual or relevant.

The content makes an article factual and relevant, not the fact that someone writes it. The content of that article is very relevant to this discussion.

If there's statistics that don't correlate individual player impact on goalie save percentage then fine - but not sure who's that's trying to correct or who's even disputing that.

A couple people directly above you.

What advanced stat could be used to project William Karlsson's performance on Vegas?

If there's any prediction to be made about Karlsson, it's that his ridiculous Sh% which is I think double his career Sh% is bound to come down to Earth next season. Or maybe he's an elite scorer, one of the best all-time, I can't know that for sure admittedly. If you're looking for successful predictions of player performance one of the recent cases is Jonathan Marchessault who had strong underlying numbers in Tampa. To many people his current play is not shocking.

Would he have produced the same in Columbus with similar linemates? time on ice?

No clue. It's funny though that on one hand you demand impossibly detailed predictions out of some stats and on the other you're perfectly content using plus minus which could never hope to reliably predict anything meaningful. I don't know what's up with that.

Who's the best and worst Isles defenseman this year based on the best metrics available? If you have any suggestions on where I can find this info, would be happy to do the research.

You'd have to define the qualities a great defenseman should have and then, well, look for them. I don't know what "the best" means in your mind. Some combination of points/shots for/shots against/shot quality surely all of which can be looked up. A site like this
Hickey NYI 1718
shows you the shot location with player on/off ice and other info.

If I sort the top plus/minus players of all time, I see players like Orr, Robinson, Lidstrom, Gretzky - it kinda passes the sniff test on who I'd expect to see there. Is there a source you'd recommend?

If you're content that a handful of players out of several thousand passes your test then good for you, but that's not a rational way of going about things. Not sure what source you're referring to here.

For example, here are older articles on the best CORSI players:
Corsi Stats, the NHL and Advanced Numbers

Here are the relative Corsi leaders for the 2010-11 regular season (who played a minimum of 50 games), in five-on-five situations. All statistics are courtesy of behindthenet.ca.
1. Mikhail Grabovski (TOR): 21.3
2. Dustin Byfuglien (WIN): 20.7
3. Clarke MacArthur (TOR): 19.3
4. Ryan Kesler (VAN): 18.2
5. Mason Raymond (VAN): 17.5

No clue what you mean to accomplish by this. Are you trying to prove that corsiRel isn't a surefire way to identify the best players in the league? Agreed. At best this tells me that these players, in the roles they were deployed in, performed exceptionally well compared to their teammates and their respective roles. What conclusions you can draw from that I don't know, we would have to look at their teams and their roles.

I understand the advanced stats better than most. I've done my research, read dozens of articles on various sites, have a good enough understanding but frankly, I don't see any way to use them to evaluate players based on who's good or who's not, at whatever position.
There are simply too many variables that make any conclusions impossible.
I'd love to hear from someone with a masters/PHD in statistics who also understands the game to explain how metrics can be used to evaluate players. And also explain variances in the data, whether any conclusions are transferable from one team to the next, what decisions can be made on players. That's the one thing that lacks.

I think you could read about a dozen more articles. You can start with hockey-graphs.com where you can find plenty of articles written by, yes, people with statistics degrees. Who by the way completely disagree with your lofty absolutist opinion that drawing meaningful conclusions from these stats is JUST impossible.

Is there a source that ranks the best "undervalued" players based on metrics from 1-3-5 years ago so we can see whether there was any predictive value in the metric?

Not to my knowledge. If you're looking for a catch all statistic to see which player/team is under/over achieving, expected goals would be the best to look into I guess. Here's a simple article from 5 months ago where the writer used xGF to predict which teams would do well this year (and not so well).
NHL: Using Expected Goals to find regression candidates for 2017-18

 

[buud]

NHL: Using Expected Goals to find regression candidates for 2017-18

wow. i am impressed! they certainly made a case for their validity with this article.

 

[buud]

This is wrong... LATELY he has been bad on the PK, but he still is better than average on the team as far as GA/60 while on the PK. Up until a month ago, he was one of the BEST GA/60 on the PK on the entire team.
BTW, if Hickey is always on the ice against JT, that is just bolstering JT, because his GA/60 is one of the worst on the team.

there is no way of knowing if what i heard was wrong, as far as i can tell. good point about JT's GA/60. i suspected that he was no very good defensively, and this is damning for him.

one thing i think we all agree to, is that ALL of our D have been put in positions in which they were required to play over their head, due to the fact that Snow had not replaced Hamonic or De Haan.

re: CF% on the 4vs5 PK -

-Boychuk (8.3) fared worse, and my guess is that it is because he is usually on the 1st PK unit, facing the opposing team's top PP.
-Mayfield (8.63) was bad, but was certainly a victim of being asked to do too much (inexperienced)
-Hickey next (9.67) bad as well, but also a victim of being asked to do too much (PK not his strength)
-Seidenberg (9.73) bad as well, due to age/mobility, IMO.
-Pelech (10.16) see Mayfield. has 2nd most TOI/game, after Boychuk, meaning that he faced 1st PP unit.
-De Haan (10.84) we miss him in this capacity.
-Pulock (12.5) pretty good numbers, but low sampling (5:24 TOI) makes this stat inaccurate.
-Davidson (13.71) *EDM #'s. should certainly be on 2nd unit, rotating with Hickey/Pelech/Pulock
-Leddy (13.89) best on team, but low sampling as well (48:40 TOI), but begs the question... why isn't Doug using him more? he's not very physical, but his speed could be a real asset on the PK.

maybe Weight should try keeping Boychuk and Leddy together for 1st PK ?

we are just too weak defensively to go anywhere this year, but i am still cheering for them. Weight said that the young guys are getting valuable experience, which is true, but at the expense of the season? shame on you Garth! maybe Davidson at the deadline was the best value that Snow could get, but this (actually team defence/system was more of an issue, IMO) seems like Weight not utilising metrics very well. is he old school, anyone know?

 

[redbull]

No clue. It's funny though that on one hand you demand impossibly detailed predictions out of some stats and on the other you're perfectly content using plus minus which could never hope to reliably predict anything meaningful. I don't know what's up with that.

Why are you so focused on the fact that I used plus/minus. Hickey's plus/minus is the best on the team and 35-40 pts better than Leddy. I don't think Hickey's a better defenseman than Leddy - I'm defending Hickey with plus/minus and some CF or "advanced stats" that MANY HERE treat as bible - and maybe that was my mistake.

I'll leave it at this. Hickey's a very good bottom pair defenseman, regardless of all the hate he gets.

If you feel there's a metric that shows that Hickey is NOT a good defenseman compared to his Islander teammates, aside from plus minus, then please point me to a place where I can see what metrics you use to evaluate that better than me watching him play every game.

You'd have to define the qualities a great defenseman should have and then, well, look for them. I don't know what "the best" means in your mind. Some combination of points/shots for/shots against/shot quality surely all of which can be looked up. A site like this
Hickey NYI 1718
shows you the shot location with player on/off ice and other info.

This is just shaded areas of the ice in a cool photo. Just because you can measure something doesn't make it valuable. How is this useful? How does this possibly isolate Hickey's performance relative to other players when he's on the ice with nine other players (different players) at every other point in time throughout every shift?

I think you could read about a dozen more articles. You can start with hockey-graphs.com where you can find plenty of articles written by, yes, people with statistics degrees. Who by the way completely disagree with your lofty absolutist opinion that drawing meaningful conclusions from these stats is JUST impossible.

Lofty absolutist opinion?

Besides reading articles that show charts and correlations, give me the big takeaway that you've learned from all this advanced metrics? Not trolling, serious question. Because I sense an elitism approach to "you need to read these articles and don't use archaic metrics" but what I don't see is any meaningful insights into performance.

I often hear that his "underlying numbers indicate....." but find that there's never a consistency on what that number is? i.e. is it valid? Can that same number be used across the whole team? the league? Is that an incidental number OR is it reflective of that player's ability? does that number change if he changes teams? by how much?

If the data is NOT repeatable or consistent and cannot be applied to other scenarios, then please explain why it's valuable at all?

I'm really trying to understand your point. What is it that you feel evaluates Thomas Hickey's value to this team and how wrong my use of the plus-minus stat was. Show me better metrics for defensemen or just Isles defensemen. Because just by watching, it's clear he's a good defenseman (not just this year).

 

[redbull]

there is no way of knowing if what i heard was wrong, as far as i can tell. good point about JT's GA/60. i suspected that he was no very good defensively, and this is damning for him.

one thing i think we all agree to, is that ALL of our D have been put in positions in which they were required to play over their head, due to the fact that Snow had not replaced Hamonic or De Haan.

re: CF% on the 4vs5 PK -

-Boychuk (8.3) fared worse, and my guess is that it is because he is usually on the 1st PK unit, facing the opposing team's top PP.
-Mayfield (8.63) was bad, but was certainly a victim of being asked to do too much (inexperienced)
-Hickey next (9.67) bad as well, but also a victim of being asked to do too much (PK not his strength)
-Seidenberg (9.73) bad as well, due to age/mobility, IMO.
-Pelech (10.16) see Mayfield. has 2nd most TOI/game, after Boychuk, meaning that he faced 1st PP unit.
-De Haan (10.84) we miss him in this capacity.
-Pulock (12.5) pretty good numbers, but low sampling (5:24 TOI) makes this stat inaccurate.
-Davidson (13.71) *EDM #'s. should certainly be on 2nd unit, rotating with Hickey/Pelech/Pulock
-Leddy (13.89) best on team, but low sampling as well (48:40 TOI), but begs the question... why isn't Doug using him more? he's not very physical, but his speed could be a real asset on the PK.

maybe Weight should try keeping Boychuk and Leddy together for 1st PK ?

we are just too weak defensively to go anywhere this year, but i am still cheering for them. Weight said that the young guys are getting valuable experience, which is true, but at the expense of the season? shame on you Garth! maybe Davidson at the deadline was the best value that Snow could get, but this (actually team defence/system was more of an issue, IMO) seems like Weight not utilising metrics very well. is he old school, anyone know?

where are you getting these stats from?

 

[buud]

where are you getting these stats from?

where are you getting these stats from?

Player Season Totals - Natural Stat Trick

 

[bigd]

where are you getting these stats from?

Give it up Redbull, I've had these arguments with other stat geeks and it's a no win situation. They are taught to believe that these analytics are facts that can't be disputed. I've asked many of them if they ever played the game at a high level and most of them don't answer.
They think that playing the game at a high level doesn't give you any more insight than studying statistics. I understand the fan attraction to stats. It gives power to fans that don't really have a clue otherwise. They feel they have the power to argue because they can pull up statistics to back up their argument. It brings in more fans than just the kids that have played the game. The bottom line is bringing in more fans brings in more $$$$$$.
There is a place for statistics but, IMO, reducing the game to just stats makes it unwatchable.

 

[beach]

Give it up Redbull, I've had these arguments with other stat geeks and it's a no win situation. They are taught to believe that these analytics are facts that can't be disputed. I've asked many of them if they ever played the game at a high level and most of them don't answer.

This is why ARI sucks. Chayka is just a stats geek and look where that has gotten them.....

 

[bigd]

This is why ARI sucks. Chayka is just a stats geek and look where that has gotten them.....

I think the jury is still out on Chayka. He's in a situation with a club that doesn't have any money to spend so he's trying to find ways to fill a roster on the cheap. I'm not sure anyone could do any better with those constraints. That club isn't going to win anything no matter who's in charge. They need to relocate.
I am impressed with Vegas though. They put together a great group on a limited budget.

 

[Spybot]

I'll leave it at this. Hickey's a very good bottom pair defenseman, regardless of all the hate he gets.
If you feel there's a metric that shows that Hickey is NOT a good defenseman compared to his Islander teammates, aside from plus minus, then please point me to a place where I can see what metrics you use to evaluate that better than me watching him play every game.

I called Hickey "completely fine" in my very first post (then repeated it at least once more), so you're really wasting your time if you're trying to convince me he's a good defenseman.

Why are you so focused on the fact that I used plus/minus.

Because of your continuous insistence that advanced stats should give you perfect detailed predictions. Judge plus minus by the same standards.

This is just shaded areas of the ice in a cool photo. Just because you can measure something doesn't make it valuable. How is this useful? How does this possibly isolate Hickey's performance relative to other players when he's on the ice with nine other players (different players) at every other point in time throughout every shift?

If there's a notable difference between the team's play (where their and the opponent's shots are coming from) when the player is on the ice vs. not on the ice it may have something to do with the player and may be worth looking into. Seems like a pretty natural concept. You could also use these chart to identify which defensemen focus on defending the slot/circles and how successful they are at it. Comparing teams would even give you insight into the systems teams use - where they tend to shoot from and which areas they defend the most - just some ideas. Maybe it's just me, but that sounds like it could be useful for something. All this however takes a minute of your time, you can't "sort by it".
Anyway, if you can't decide for yourself exactly what a good defenseman is supposed to look like, if you expect a magical stat you can sort by that spits out who the "best" players are, then at least *I* definitely can't help you.

Besides reading articles that show charts and correlations, give me the big takeaway that you've learned from all this advanced metrics? Not trolling, serious question. Because I sense an elitism approach to "you need to read these articles and don't use archaic metrics" but what I don't see is any meaningful insights into performance.

The big takeaway would be that shot based metrics predict future scoring better than goal based ones.
The hint of an elitist approach is caused by you claiming you know these stats better then most then pulling out a random out of context article with some even more random stats and you don't even tell me what it is you're trying to demonstrate. Don't know what to make of all that.
You also did tell me you want to know what people with statistics degrees think. Well they're out there and their opinions are freely available, for example on hockey-graphs.com. Of course if you refuse to read or to learn you won't get anywhere.

I often hear that his "underlying numbers indicate....." but find that there's never a consistency on what that number is?

I think it's usually some type of a shot metric, corsi or xGF. If it shows that the player is skilled and smart enough to keep the puck in the right zone, it's possible that as he gets more experience, he can convert all this to points - which was the case with Marchessault who should continue being a really useful player going forward.

Is that an incidental number OR is it reflective of that player's ability?

If it's shown to be repeatable, it's probably reflective of the player's ability.

does that number change if he changes teams? by how much?

Yes? What doesn't change if a player changes teams? Are Taveres' points a useless statistic, because he'd have a different amount on a different team, in a different system? This is another ludicrous complaint. No, nobody can use any stats to completely predict the future.

If the data is NOT repeatable or consistent and cannot be applied to other scenarios, then please explain why it's valuable at all?

It's valuable if it gives valuable predictions. Developing a system that predicts future scoring seems valuable to me. I guess points and goals are useless data, because they aren't consistent (players over and under achieve constantly) and cannot be fully applied to other scenarios (players changing teams).

I'm really trying to understand your point. What is it that you feel evaluates Thomas Hickey's value to this team and how wrong my use of the plus-minus stat was.

My point is, and has always been, that using +- to show what a great defenseman he is, is faulty. I also wanted to explain why his +- is so amazingly high.

Show me better metrics for defensemen or just Isles defensemen.

Corsi/xGF. But if you refuse to read articles that explain why they're more useful than +-, then no man on Earth can help you with this. I've already done (attempted to) way too much explaining as it is.

 

[redbull]

I called Hickey "completely fine" in my very first post (then repeated it at least once more), so you're really wasting your time if you're trying to convince me he's a good defenseman.

Because of your continuous insistence that advanced stats should give you perfect detailed predictions. Judge plus minus by the same standards.

If there's a notable difference between the team's play (where their and the opponent's shots are coming from) when the player is on the ice vs. not on the ice it may have something to do with the player and may be worth looking into. Seems like a pretty natural concept. You could also use these chart to identify which defensemen focus on defending the slot/circles and how successful they are at it. Comparing teams would even give you insight into the systems teams use - where they tend to shoot from and which areas they defend the most - just some ideas. Maybe it's just me, but that sounds like it could be useful for something. All this however takes a minute of your time, you can't "sort by it".
Anyway, if you can't decide for yourself exactly what a good defenseman is supposed to look like, if you expect a magical stat you can sort by that spits out who the "best" players are, then at least *I* definitely can't help you.

The big takeaway would be that shot based metrics predict future scoring better than goal based ones.
The hint of an elitist approach is caused by you claiming you know these stats better then most then pulling out a random out of context article with some even more random stats and you don't even tell me what it is you're trying to demonstrate. Don't know what to make of all that.
You also did tell me you want to know what people with statistics degrees think. Well they're out there and their opinions are freely available, for example on hockey-graphs.com. Of course if you refuse to read or to learn you won't get anywhere.

I think it's usually some type of a shot metric, corsi or xGF. If it shows that the player is skilled and smart enough to keep the puck in the right zone, it's possible that as he gets more experience, he can convert all this to points - which was the case with Marchessault who should continue being a really useful player going forward.

If it's shown to be repeatable, it's probably reflective of the player's ability.

Yes? What doesn't change if a player changes teams? Are Taveres' points a useless statistic, because he'd have a different amount on a different team, in a different system? This is another ludicrous complaint. No, nobody can use any stats to completely predict the future.

In your Hickey example, maybe his value isn't in allowing shots from x-distance. Maybe he's in the lineup because his value is when he has the puck and his role in generating offense - hence why he's a +14. Maybe he's deployed in a role that's different than other defensemen and maybe he's just better at it.

You criticize and judge but don't provide any guidance. Please do so.

In one sentence, what's the value from advanced stats specifically? what's the AHA that's better than an eye test or tracking scoring chances that teams do (what Babcock talks about all the time). Isolating specific mistakes that lead to high quality scoring chances and coaching that 1on1 or in a system.

What's the AHA?

All I see are correlations, not causation. And no "this is the metric that's better or best" - why is that so difficult to produce?

It's valuable if it gives valuable predictions. Developing a system that predicts future scoring seems valuable to me. I guess points and goals are useless data, because they aren't consistent (players over and under achieve constantly) and cannot be fully applied to other scenarios (players changing teams).

My point is, and has always been, that using +- to show what a great defenseman he is, is faulty. I also wanted to explain why his +- is so amazingly high.

Corsi/xGF. But if you refuse to read articles that explain why they're more useful than +-, then no man on Earth can help you with this. I've already done (attempted to) way too much explaining as it is.

As usual this ends with you pointing out articles to read and diminishing my opinion on a player because your opinion is based on a stat that isn't proven or repeatable. Please provide an example that shows why another NYI defenseman is better than Hickey. If my hypothesis is that Hickey is the best defenseman because when he's on the ice 5on5, the Islanders have scored 14 more goals than their opponent.

The issue is that you've not been able to provide an example of a metric to disprove that.
Please recommend a metric or provide an insight and I'd be happy to investigate it myself. I'm genuinely curious but there's no "so what" to these metrics.

 

[Willoc94]

Also, someone called Hickey soft? He is probably the least soft player on the team. The guy will ALWAYS take the hit to make the play, and will always go into the corners when needed. I like Pulock and Leddy, but both of those guys are so much softer than Hickey its not even remotely funny.

THIS! Anytime I hear the Hickey discussion, someone predictably gives the lazy argument that he's a soft player just because he's undersized. I look at whether a player is soft or not on their willingness to take a hit to make a play and you nailed it. This guy always takes the hit to make the play. He gets clobbered sometimes to make a play and gets right back up.

Also, Hickey's thrown some of the more devastating body checks over the last few seasons. Size can be valuable in playing physically but the desire/willingness to play the game physically is infinitely more important. Some guys have it, some guys do not. Hickey could be 5 inches shorter and would still be more physical than Brock Nelson will ever be.

His even strength points per 60 is surrounded by names like Burns, Josi, Hedman, Barrie, McAvoy, Gostisbehere (14th in the league for dmen with a minimum of 30 games). Would love an explanation on how this is a bad thing or how its some luck the hockey gods have bestowed upon #14

 

[Spybot]

In your Hickey example, maybe his value isn't in allowing shots from x-distance. Maybe he's in the lineup because his value is when he has the puck and his role in generating offense - hence why he's a +14. Maybe he's deployed in a role that's different than other defensemen and maybe he's just better at it.

You criticize and judge but don't provide any guidance. Please do so.

I've provided plenty of material and guidance you have completely ignored. Links to sites/articles. I'm not going to be your personal stats analyst if you refuse to do even minimal work yourself.

In one sentence, what's the value from advanced stats specifically?

Blatantly repeating myself here, I've already said that -

The big takeaway would be that shot based metrics predict future scoring better than goal based ones.

Plus minus is practically useless for this purpose (predicting future scoring).

what's the AHA that's better than an eye test or tracking scoring chances that teams do (what Babcock talks about all the time). Isolating specific mistakes that lead to high quality scoring chances and coaching that 1on1 or in a system.

1, There's no such thing as an eye test. An eye test is just my or your personal opinion on the player you gain by watching him. Everybody has their own "eye test".
2, I'd expect the team-tracked stats to be superior to what's publicly available. Then again they AREN'T publicly available so I don't understand what relevance this has on what we're talking about here, why are you suddenly comparing public stats to what teams have available?

All I see are correlations, not causation. And no "this is the metric that's better or best" - why is that so difficult to produce?

Mostly because you've stopped reading my posts -

The big takeaway would be that shot based metrics predict future scoring better than goal based ones.

xGF is the metric that's better at predicting future scoring than corsi, better than plus minus (goal differential). That's its point, that's the reason why it's being used, worked on and further improved.
And I have no idea what causation you're talking about here. That's not a word you can just casually use in the middle of a sentence. What is supposed to cause what?

As usual this ends with you pointing out articles to read and diminishing my opinion on a player because your opinion is based on a stat that isn't proven or repeatable.

As usual this ends with you not responding to even a half of my post, even though I painstakingly make an effort to reply to everything you write. Did you mean to write "my" opinion is based on a stat that isn't proven or repeatable? Because that's plus minus. *I* haven't really made a judgement on Hickey using corsi/xGF, but they are most certainly repeatable - that's the whole point.

Please provide an example that shows why another NYI defenseman is better than Hickey.

What does "better" mean? I'm probably asking this for the fourth time, you've ignored me every single time. If your idea of best is to have the highest plus minus, then Hickey is the best.

If my hypothesis is that Hickey is the best defenseman because when he's on the ice 5on5, the Islanders have scored 14 more goals than their opponent.

Your hypothesis is reliant on the premise that it's thanks to Hickey's skill alone that the Islanders have scored 14 more goals than their opponents with him on the ice and therefore he solely should get the credit. You provide no proof of this anywhere, in fact I've shown that Hickey has been the beneficiary of extraordinary goltending luck this season and then provided a link to an article where using high school statistics they show the players don't have a significant impact on the on ice save percentage. You refused to read it/understand it/react to it and called it not relevant.

The issue is that you've not been able to provide an example of a metric to disprove that.

Blatantly false, read from the start.

Please recommend a metric or provide an insight and I'd be happy to investigate it myself. I'm genuinely curious but there's no "so what" to these metrics.

Considering how many times I've had to repeat myself, I'm starting to seriously doubt your genuine curiousity and willingness to investigate yourself.

I also started to doubt the value of this discussion about two posts back. If you're interested in continuing, read from the start, read the article (written by a person with a statistics degree), Hockey Talk: On player control over save percentage

and tell me what is wrong with it or how it doesn't help explain why Hickey has such a high +-. Otherwise I don't have any interest in having to repeat myself for the 5th time.

 

[beach]

I've provided plenty of material and guidance you have completely ignored. Links to sites/articles. I'm not going to be your personal stats analyst if you refuse to do even minimal work yourself.


Blatantly repeating myself here, I've already said that -

Plus minus is practically useless for this purpose (predicting future scoring).


1, There's no such thing as an eye test. An eye test is just my or your personal opinion on the player you gain by watching him. Everybody has their own "eye test".
2, I'd expect the team-tracked stats to be superior to what's publicly available. Then again they AREN'T publicly available so I don't udnerstand what relevance this has on what we're talking about here, why are you suddenly comparing public stats to what teams have available?



Mostly because you've stopped reading my posts -
xGF is the metric that's better at predicting future scoring than corsi, better than plus minus (goal differential). That's its point, that's the reason why it's being used, worked on and further improved.
And I have no idea what causation you're talking about here. That's not a word you can just casually use in the middle of a sentence. What is supposed to cause what?


As usual this ends with you not responding to even a half of my post, even though I painstakingly make an effort to reply to everything you write. Did you mean to write "my" opinion is based on a stat that isn't proven or repeatable? Because that's plus minus. *I* haven't really made a judgement on Hickey using corsi/xGF, but they are most certainly repeatable - that's the whole point.



What does "better" mean? I'm probably asking this for the fourth time, you've ignored me every single time. If your idea of best is to have the highest plus minus, then Hickey is the best.


Your hypothesis is reliant on the premise that it's thanks to Hickey's skill alone that the Islanders have scored 14 more goals than their opponents with him on the ice and therefore he solely should get the credit. You provide no proof of this anywhere, in fact I've shown that Hickey has been the beneficiary of extraordinary goltending luck this season and then provided a link to an article where using high school statistics they show the players don't have a significant impact on the on ice save percentage. You refused to read it/understand it/react to it and called it not relevant.


Blatantly false, read from the start.


Considering how many times I've had to repeat myself, I'm starting to seriously doubt your genuine curiousity and willingness to investigate yourself.

I also started to doubt the value of this discussion about two posts back. If you're interested in continuing, read from the start, read the article (written by a person with a statistics degree), Hockey Talk: On player control over save percentage

tell me what is wrong with it or how it doesn't help explain why Hickey has such a high +-. Otherwise I don't have any interest in having to repeat myself for the 5th time.

I read this and do not see a direct correlation to +/- at all.