The Advanced Stats Thread Episode IX

[FireGerardGallant]

So a middle-6 forward who is temporary put to be 1C on rebuilding team has been scoring a ppg and that’s a bad thing? Did I mention that no one projects Strome as 1C long term going forward and no one expects the Rangers to pay him as such?

I mean its true he's just temporary in his role and is a middle six forward but if they can get a good offer at the deadline why wouldn’t we move him? We’re still rebuilding

 

[Richard Banger]

Yes, because he's worrying about doing his own job. That's why you rarely see superstars have success as coaches.

Players are good at evaluating players.

 

[Machinehead]

Players are good at evaluating players.

We have evidence to suggest that's not true and although it is in some cases, it's ridiculous to just make a blanket assumption that all players are good at it.

Breaking news: some NHL players have the IQ of a f***ing cactus.

 

[Richard Banger]

We have evidence to suggest that's not true and although it is in some cases, it's ridiculous to just make a blanket assumption that all players are good at it.

Breaking news: some NHL players have the IQ of a ****ing cactus.

That's true but If I had to choose between a player and a chart. I'll choose the player.

 

[Machinehead]

That's true but If I had to choose between a player and a chart. I'll choose the player.

If we're going to continue characterizing it as just "charts" then the agenda is clear.

 

[Richard Banger]

If we're going to continue characterizing it as just "charts" then the agenda is clear.

No agenda. And I call them charts for the sake of discussion.

 

[FireGerardGallant]

If we're going to continue characterizing it as just "charts" then the agenda is clear.

Like the people making these charts don't study and analyze the games

 

[SnowblindNYR]

There's a strong anti-intellectual bias with some hockey fans. It's not so much the skepticism over advanced stats. Many people have very well thought out arguments about their limitations. It's the scoffing at anything that is way of analyzing the game that wasn't around 20 years ago and scoffing at anything math-related.

 

[Richard Banger]

Like the people making these charts don't study and analyze the games

They do but they aren't paid millions to do so. They also don't live eat and breath hockey like the players do.

 

[Richard Banger]

There's a strong anti-intellectual bias with some hockey fans. It's not so much the skepticism over advanced stats. Many people have very well thought out arguments about their limitations. It's the scoffing at anything that is way of analyzing the game that wasn't around 20 years ago and scoffing at anything math-related.

Yeah like I said I'm not anti analytical. But at the end of the day I still rather differ to the pros. I think it's best if people had a balanced view. But thats never the case. It's always radically one side or the other

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Yeah like I said I'm not anti analytical. But at the end of the day I still rather differ to the pros. I think it's best if people had a balanced view. But thats never the case. It's always radically one side or the other

But there are things that the eye test even by experts (i.e. hockey players) don't catch that stats do.

 

[Machinehead]

They do but they aren't paid millions to do so. They also don't live eat and breath hockey like the players do.

Who eats lives and breathes hockey: the people being paid millions to do it or the people making peanuts running a hockey twitter account when they could make much better livings in data analytics?

The characterization of the hockey analytics community as non-fans is ludicrous.

 

[mas0764]

They do but they aren't paid millions to do so. They also don't live eat and breath hockey like the players do.

That’s obviously untrue.

 

[mas0764]

Hockey front offices have analytics departments, and yes, they do know better than Tony D.

 

[Richard Banger]

But there are things that the eye test even by experts (i.e. hockey players) don't catch that stats do.

Stats also don't factor in the imperfect human effect. Which is why they shouldn't be looked at as the be all end all.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Stats also don't factor in the imperfect human effect. Which is why they shouldn't be looked at as the be all end all.

Yes, stats don't factor everything in and aren't perfect but you're arguing about whether some random player's opinion has so much weight. I will say if someone uses enough data and knows what he's doing he can put together a better analysis than what some random hockey player comes up with. Now, is the hockey player's analysis better than mine? Of course.

 

[mas0764]

Stats also don't factor in the imperfect human effect. Which is why they shouldn't be looked at as the be all end all.

I agree, but this is clearly a situation where DeAngelo is sticking up for a teammate, who, in fairness, has been playing well, but he’s not doing any true “analysis.”

Strome has clearly been hot since he’s gotten to NY, but the stats simply aren’t sustainable. If he was to duplicate them for the next 5-10 years here then he goes down as an all time Hall of Famer based on his shooting percentage. I dunno when it will run out but it’s just very likely that it will eventually. I threw out Grabner as another example - that guy had a tremendous run here but eventually cooled off.

Strome has value and he may very well be playing like one of our better players right now, but he’s not gonna end up as one of our better players eventually. I think an absolute revelation for him would be second line center, but his poor defense probably even limits him in that regard.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

We have evidence to suggest that's not true and although it is in some cases, it's ridiculous to just make a blanket assumption that all players are good at it.

Breaking news: some NHL players have the IQ of a ****ing cactus.

Some HF posters do too but we still read the posts.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

Analytics are one tool in a tool box. You wouldn't build a house with just a hammer, so if you go all in on analytics without anything else you are missing a ton of stuff. There hasnt been an analytic driven successful team in the NHL to my knowledge. The Leafs are the closest thing to it.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Analytics are one tool in a tool box. You wouldn't build a house with just a hammer, so if you go all in on analytics without anything else you are missing a ton of stuff. There hasnt been an analytic driven successful team in the NHL to my knowledge. The Leafs are the closest thing to it.

No one's saying it's everything. Some people just trivialize it because they prefer to be cool jocks rather than lame nerds.

 

[kovazub94]

I mean its true he's just temporary in his role and is a middle six forward but if they can get a good offer at the deadline why wouldn’t we move him? We’re still rebuilding

Of course, but if he’s willing to accept a contract that’s acceptable to the team (including in terms of his future role on this team behind Zibanejad and Chytil) why not consider it?

 

[kovazub94]

So you're telling me that DeAngelo, in the middle of taking his own shifts, is analyzing how Ryan Strome is playing intricately enough to render an opinion that's the opposite what the metrics say?

It’s ironic that you arguing that Strome is bad defensively essentially against someone who’s financial well-being is dependent on Strome being good defensively as a teammate and who explicitly said that Strome is a good player.

 

[kovazub94]

But there are things that the eye test even by experts (i.e. hockey players) don't catch that stats do.

But it goes both ways, no?

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

It’s ironic that you arguing that Strome is bad defensively essentially against someone who’s financial well-being is dependent on Strome being good defensively as a teammate and who explicitly said that Strome is a good player.

You don’t think there’s a bias there just from being team mates? Plus, DeAngelo and Strome have become pretty tight, so I’m not surprised that he’d react this way

 

[SnowblindNYR]

But it goes both ways, no?

Yes. But data has fewer cognitive biases, although it has its own problems.