08-26-2013, 09:43 AM
|
#61
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
There are definitely differences from rink to rink.
I like the suggestion of only keeping the stats for road teams - that would normalize things quite a bit.
But at the end of the day, they are secondary stats and fans should be aware that there are discrepancies in the administration of them.
|
for such arbitrary and secondary stats they certainly gave what appear to be valid results.
Is there any argument that Cammalleri, Hudler, Cervenka and Tanguay, Eberle, Hall, Gagner, Hemsky, Horcoff and Justin Schultz are not non-physical players?
There are a few things that it might be pointing out.... Butler hitting more guys than Glencross for instance... Now that I see that stat I might watch the game differently and see how Butler at least bumps into guys on a regular basis and blocks shots.
The same can be said for keeping track of points..... Who would guess from watching that Glencross is one of the top scoring LW's in the league?
As for the correlation and causation my hypothesis is simple. You don't win enough hockey games with 4+ soft hockey players.
Is that too simple to comprehend?
Show me a team with 4+ soft players and I will show you a team that is not in the playoffs.
Last edited by ricardodw; 08-26-2013 at 09:45 AM.
|
|
|
08-26-2013, 09:55 AM
|
#62
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
for such arbitrary and secondary stats they certainly gave what appear to be valid results.
Is there any argument that Cammalleri, Hudler, Cervenka and Tanguay, Eberle, Hall, Gagner, Hemsky, Horcoff and Justin Schultz are not non-physical players?
There are a few things that it might be pointing out.... Butler hitting more guys than Glencross for instance... Now that I see that stat I might watch the game differently and see how Butler at least bumps into guys on a regular basis and blocks shots.
The same can be said for keeping track of points..... Who would guess from watching that Glencross is one of the top scoring LW's in the league?
As for the correlation and causation my hypothesis is simple. You don't win enough hockey games with 4+ soft hockey players.
Is that too simple to comprehend?
Show me a team with 4+ soft players and I will show you a team that is not in the playoffs.
|
Are you trying to suggest that points are awarded somewhat arbitrarily?
Sure, some second assists are borderline, but not enough to cast any kind of significant shadow on the stats. And they are reviewed by the league so I am pretty comfortable with them as a consistent and reliable stat.
However, if you look at the number of hits awarded in a game (for example), there is little doubt that more are awarded in some rinks than in others.
Any attempt to argue that hits or giveaways/takeaways are even remotely close to points for consistency and accuracy of implementation would be foolish.
|
|
|
08-26-2013, 09:58 AM
|
#63
|
Fearmongerer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Azevedo
unfortunate for you that you messed up this sad attempt at libel by not realizing that i've only been affiliated with flamesnation for the past year and a bit.
but please, feel free to prove that i've ever done this.
otherwise, lol. thanks for coming out.
|
lol!!
uhhhh....i think you sould familiarize yourself with what libel means. There is nothing defamatory in what was said.
__________________
|
|
|
08-26-2013, 10:19 AM
|
#64
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
As for the correlation and causation my hypothesis is simple. You don't win enough hockey games with 4+ soft hockey players.
|
I don't think your index shows anything, but I can agree with your main point. I think it's not just grit, you can only have so many undersized players in the top 6, otherwise it's hard to win in the playoffs.
|
|
|
08-26-2013, 12:52 PM
|
#65
|
Draft Pick
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
lol!!
uhhhh....i think you sould familiarize yourself with what libel means. There is nothing defamatory in what was said.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Libel
he assaulted my character, he did not present anything to say the statement was true and thus did not research his claim correctly.
if you're going to try and "correct" me because you don't like the way I think, you should probably be sure you're not the one that's actually wrong.
|
|
|
08-26-2013, 12:53 PM
|
#66
|
Draft Pick
|
one more thing: what is fighting's role in this index? ostensibly it is more "gritty" to fight someone than it is to get 2.5 high sticking penalties.
|
|
|
08-26-2013, 04:51 PM
|
#67
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
As for the correlation and causation my hypothesis is simple. You don't win enough hockey games with 4+ soft hockey players.
Is that too simple to comprehend?
Show me a team with 4+ soft players and I will show you a team that is not in the playoffs.
|
Frankly, your posts reek of confirmation bias. What I mean is—
Show you a team that is in the playoffs, and you will move heaven and earth to prove that its players are not 'soft'. Since 'softness' is largely in the eye of the beholder, this is easy enough to do. But it doesn't yield any meaningful information about how teams win.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-26-2013, 05:34 PM
|
#68
|
tromboner
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
You're never going to come up with one stat to tell the definitive story of how good a team is (outside of points).
|
Goal differential is better than points.
|
|
|
08-26-2013, 10:18 PM
|
#69
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
Goal differential is better than points.
|
Fenwick Close or you're a know-nothing pleb.
EDIT: Just going to add this here because I think it's pretty relevant to the discussion. It's an article from a Canes blog earlier this month about whether "team toughness" actually helps win games. I pretty much agree with it, team toughness is so overrated. Tough players are good, but only if they're actually contributing on the ice. Does anyone seriously think the the Blackhawks would be worse if they had MORE Patrick Kanes and Duncan Keiths?
http://www.shutdownline.com/hurrican...g-tougher.html
Last edited by theinfinitejar; 08-27-2013 at 12:21 AM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to theinfinitejar For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-27-2013, 12:33 AM
|
#70
|
tromboner
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by theinfinitejar
Fenwick Close or you're a know-nothing pleb.
|
Hrm.
NJD 2012-2013: 3rd in Fenwick Close, 24th in goal diff, 22nd in points.
|
|
|
08-27-2013, 04:11 AM
|
#71
|
Acerbic Cyberbully
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: back in Chilliwack
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
...As for the correlation and causation my hypothesis is simple. You don't win enough hockey games with 4+ soft hockey players.
Is that too simple to comprehend?
|
Can you explain how you arrived at +1.0 in your index as the breaking-point between "soft" and "gritty" players?
It appears at a glance that this number was selected because it conforms to your own preconceptions. As I understand the index, you are basically arguing that no successful team will have more than four players who fail to average +1 hits, takeaways, or blocked shots than giveaways per game. With how subjective all of these statistics are, and with how much variance there is between their interpretation from one building to another, it seems to me that a difference of ±1/game is fairly negligible, and in the end doesn't really translate into anything particularly useful.
Something that does seem to contradict your hypothesis is the primarily inverse relationship between individual point production and "grittiness". 3/4 of the Flames forwards who scored -1.0 on your index ALL scored at a +.64 point/game pace, and are among the top-five scorers. Five of the top seven Flames forwards according to your index scored at under a 0.2 point/game pace, and were among the lowest scoring players on the team. Similarly, the top five most productive forwards in Chicago are the bottom-five forwards according to your index, and the only three (!) forwards to register below 0.2 points/game are the top-three players according to your index.
I would expect if your index were to accurately reflect the relationship between "grittiness" and team success, then the distribution of highly productive and less productive players would be much more even. Afterall, since the object of the game is to outscore the opposition, should we not expect SOME correlation between individual player "grittiness" and productivity IF "grittiness" contributes to team success?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
Show me a team with 4+ soft players and I will show you a team that is not in the playoffs.
|
Have you performed this evaluation for all 30 teams?
Last edited by Textcritic; 08-27-2013 at 05:41 AM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Textcritic For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-27-2013, 08:19 AM
|
#72
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by theinfinitejar
Fenwick Close or you're a know-nothing pleb.
Does anyone seriously think the the Blackhawks would be worse if they had MORE Patrick Kanes and Duncan Keiths?
[/URL]
|
They can add one or maybe 2 more soft players but after that there is a tipping point where their team success will fall off. They basically become the Oilers.
The Flames are counting on Monahan as a major piece in the turn around... He was never ever considered to be a #1 pick overall. Edmonton has 3 #1 picks overall ... Plus #6 overall Gagner, Plus #22 overall Eberle (who Flames fans hope that Baertschi will be able to match). They are all soft or marginally soft. I don't think Lowe and McTavish are wrong in that in a player for player deals they could realistically trade their current roster for any line - up in the NHL.
Patrick Kane and Duncan Keith would not have gotten the 2012-13 Flames into the playoffs. .... well they may have as the Flames if the Flames would have dumped Bouwmeester, Cervenka, Hulder and one of Tanguay or Cammalleri to fit them into the roster.
|
|
|
08-27-2013, 10:04 AM
|
#73
|
Acerbic Cyberbully
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: back in Chilliwack
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
They can add one or maybe 2 more soft players but after that there is a tipping point where their team success will fall off. They basically become the Oilers...
|
Prove it.
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Textcritic For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-27-2013, 10:44 AM
|
#74
|
Crash and Bang Winger
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Three Hills
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Have you performed this evaluation for all 30 teams?
|
This. I would be interested to see the results, particularly for a team like Detroit, even more so before Lidstrom retired.
|
|
|
08-27-2013, 10:56 AM
|
#75
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
Hrm.
NJD 2012-2013: 3rd in Fenwick Close, 24th in goal diff, 22nd in points.
|
Your results may vary in a 48 game season when you have near bottom of the league 5v5 Sv%.
|
|
|
08-27-2013, 11:50 AM
|
#76
|
Truculent!
|
RGI is the most nonsensical, ridiculous and confirmation bias related stat created in the history of terrible, made up stats.
I counter RGI with this article by Travis Yost, who is actually great at what he does and thinks his his theories through before presenting them as "fact" and can't be demolished by anyone with half a brain.
http://nhlnumbers.com/2013/8/20/tough-to-play-against
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Wastedyouth For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-27-2013, 12:11 PM
|
#77
|
Franchise Player
|
The Oilers need more Ben Eagers and less Taylor Halls.
|
|
|
08-27-2013, 12:16 PM
|
#78
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by V
The Oilers need more Ben Eagers and less Taylor Halls.
|
As long as they continue to think this, everything will be fine.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to DeluxeMoustache For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-27-2013, 05:31 PM
|
#80
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
I came up with Ricardo’s Grit Index (RGI). I take the plays which require grit and physical sacrifice (hits, blocked shots and Take-aways) and subtract Give-aways to get a raw grit score.
I then do a simple grit / games played . This does not show how gritty a player is relative to his peers. Someone like Bouwmeester playing 25 minutes/game has over twice the opportunity to make gritty plays than Jackman. So I took the TOI and normalized it to regular games. A average forward should get 15 min/game of ice time (12 forwards dressed) and an average D-man should get 20 min/game of ice time. The Total TOI /15 for forwards and Total TOI/20 gives something I call regular games played.
|
I've got a bit of an issue with this. If I'm reading this right, your equation is
RGI=[(hits+blocks+takes-gives)/games](Normalized TOI)
Where Normalized TOI= Total ice time of a player/(15 or 20; depending on what position he plays.)
First of all, your formula needs some work mathematically. The RGI is fine but it should simply be divided by a players TOI. No need to spice it up. If a player makes a gritty play per minute then that's an RGI/min of one. Simple.
Now, what is grit? Is it "heart and soul" or is it the ability to beat and grind the other team down? Why does possession apparently play into it. If J.J. Watt put on some skates and just smashed into players would he not be gritty? Would he be a soft player? No. Giveaways are a possession stat, they have no place here. As for blocked shots, that's a "heart and soul" stat, it may have a place here, but only because it's not really clear at all what you're actually trying to measure.
I'd like to add that fighting should be factored in either way, since it's both a "heart and soul" action and it also wears down the other team. I'd say that it should be given a higher weight in the equation too.
So, refined "heart and soul grit" RGI should be something like
RGI=(Hits+Blocked Shots+(5)Fights)/TOI= Gritty actions/minute
While "Grinding grit" should be something like
RGI=(Hits+(5)Fights)/TOI= Gritty actions/minute
That stat really doesn't say too much.
__________________
Always Earned, Never Given
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:20 PM.
|
|