Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe
I will start off by saying that I believe advanced stats and metrics are very useful. It helps remove bias, and helps managers and scouting staff more accurately analyze players.
What it DOES NOT do, however, is analyze anything 'subjective' that Kent looks to have just brushed aside in this article.
Why were the '04 Flames so dominant in the playoffs? How did that team manage to topple 3 divisional champs on their road, and come within one phantom goal of the 4th divisional champ, and the cup (a feat that I believe would have been a first in the NHL)?
They had chemistry and swagger. Advanced metrics will never tell you how a player is feeling. What a team needs to 'get over the hump'. Never shows who is a good leader.
If the players on the team feel like they are 2 inches taller and more confident out there knowing a guy like McGrattan is sitting on the bench watching their backs - even if he has ZERO impact on that game - then I saw let's acquire another guy and see if they will play like they are 4 inches taller. (ok, I am not really saying this - exaggeration for effect here).
Where advanced stats fails is the same reason that pre-cap era, Rangers would fail when they go out and sign all the big name free agents and put together a superstar roster. Why didn't they win cup after cup there?
Darryl Sutter was a FANTASTIC GM. He took over as GM while he was the head coach. He had a thorough understanding and made the moves necessary to get confidence and swagger into that team. He didn't (and couldn't due to the cost structure of the team) go out and sign players that lit up stat sheets. He went out and acquired pieces like Oliwa and Simon. There was no team in the NHL that could intimidate the Flames in any way. You just can't measure that in any way.
The game has changed since then, but it is also coming back to that again. Teams are getting bigger and tougher again. Orr and McLaren actually seemed to give that team a bit of swagger.
I think it is overdone at times. You simply can't go out and acquire tough guys and expect success. You need to know what your room needs, and adjust the chemistry to it. Just pointing out here that though you want 'team toughness', having one or two of these guys can positively impact your team in ways you just can't measure. Just because it is subjective, doesn't mean it isn't important. That is what chemistry and confidence are - subjective things.
You can't just go add a bunch of goons and expect massive change (or any change, actually). You have to listen to your players, and get a feel for what that your players, your room, and your on-ice product really need. If they say they feel better with someone out there watching their back - even if it has zero measurable impact in the game - why would you just disregard that? Let your players on the ice with 'x' amount more confidence and composure, and hopefully they will end up having 'y' more success. Just because you can't measure 'x', doesn't mean it isn't important or that it can affect 'y'.
|
I'm a big fan of 'advanced stats' (which are not in any way advanced), and have been beating that drum for years and years.
But seriously, the obsession with shot counting at the nations network get really, REALLY old very quickly.
Yes. I get it. Shot differential. It's a thing.
Do you know what else is a thing? Just as an example, a goon who has a bad corsi for 4 minutes per night, but allows Jarome Iginla to play 82 games a season because he doesn't have to fight every week.
But, wait, you said that goon has a poor Corsi? ... (*Kent Wilson's head explodes from the notion that something other than a player's on-ice shot differential might matter*)
Do you know why Burke got this guy? I can sum it up in one sentance:
Big and skilled is ideal but expensive to get, however you can get a big player for free, so that's what Burke did.
Simple.