Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
The interweb can be your friend if you use it properly (get a clue). How can you present a cogent argument or participate in worthwhile discussions when you lack the most basic understanding of the terms and metrics..
Giveaway
A form of turnover in which the player makes an
unforced error that results in giving the puck up to
the opposition. They can be unreliable as a statistic
since the definition is subjective and individual rink
scorers show significant differences in the way they
record them.
Takeaway
A form of turnover in which the player takes the
puck from the opposition, rather than gaining possession
through opposition error. It can be unreliable as
a statistic since the definition is subjective and individual
rink scorers show significant differences in the
way they record them.
Separate events. there does not have to be an equal number of brain farts (giveaways) to aggressively taking the puck away Takeaway. The NHL does not record the victim of a takeaway.
The statistics are all unreliable as are the shots on goal / attempts and shot blocks which are basis of CORSI and Fenwick.
If someone can show me how CORSI or Fenwick results can be used to make a team more successful I am waiting.
Perhaps the simplicity of the RGI offends you and it's KISS application of individual statistics to overall team success offends you. Often answers to complex problems are simple.
|
Bolded for truth. Also, the definitions of the events are irrelevant. It's how you construct the logic of the relationship of the events that is problematic. Look at your magic formula.
(Hits + blocked shots + take aways - give aways) / games played
You are presenting this as there is a relationship between takeaways and giveaways, like there is in football, and the imbalance is an indicator of something positive or negative. The problem is there is no relationship between takeaways and giveaways in hockey, so to include these stats doesn't make sense.
Another major problem is a takeaway is not a measure of being gritty because there are many different ways to force a takeaway. If you actually look at the takeaway leaders in the NHL you'll see the list is not very gritty and instead relies more of better stick/puck skills. The top 20 includes Ryan O'Reilly, Eric Staal, Joe Thornton, Taylor Hall, Marian Hossa, Jamie Benn, Andrej Sekera, Dustin Byfuglien, Erik Karlsson, Tyler Seguin, Jaden Schwartz, Martin St. Louis, Gabriel Landeskog, Michael Backlund, Ryan Nugent Hopkins, T.J. Oshie, Jordon Eberle, Pavel Datsyuk, Cody Eakin, and Joe Pavelski. The majority of those players are not what you would consider "gritty players". They end up taking pucks away because of their superior skill more than their bruising style of play. Takeaways are also skewed towards forwards, because they are in a natural position to take the puck away.
In that same vein giveaways are no also an indication of lack of grit, or even lack of skill. Many times the players who lead the league in giveaways are players who are counted on to possess the puck the most and generate offense. A look at the top 20 includes Erik Karlsson, Taylor Hall, Niklas Hjalmarsson, Joe Thorton, Jeff Petry, Alex Goligoski, Phil Kessel, Jacob Trouba, P.K. Subban, Andrei Markov, Drew Doughty, Ryan Getzlaf, Slava Voynov, Justin Williams, Dustin Byfuglein, Jordon Eberle, Milan Lucic, Morgan Reilly, Duncan Keith, and Jason Demers. The distribution of giveaways is going to be slanted heavily toward players who are expected to possess the puck to make plays versus guys who engage in puck possession battles, where the real gritty work occurs. As with takeaways, giveaways are slanted toward defensemen as they are required to lead the transition game after recovering a loose puck or a dump in and making the first pass out of the zone, where most giveaways or takeaways happen. These are usually not a result of gritty play but of a brain fart.
The only statistic that you reference with any real relationship to grit is hits. That is when one player engages another and displays some grit by initiating some physical contact. The takeways/giveaways are not gritty plays. The same can be said for blocked shots, which are grossly slanted toward defensemen. You are using only one measure which requires true grit.
So in your little formula you slap together a bunch of
subjective statistics that
you have made the determination are indicative of gritty play and defined a causal relationship on, well nothing. This is referred to as
non-causa pro causa. I think that is Latin for BS.