Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Statistics in baseball are extremely binary in nature. They are one-to-one events. Pitcher throws the ball - was it a ball or a strike? Pitcher vs hitter - was the hitter out or did the batter reach base? Ball was hit to the third baseman - did he record the out or not? The rules are black and white and very rigid which allows for very accurate data collection. Hockey is not like that at all, because there is potential for multiple bodies to act as an influence on an event that does not exist in baseball. This makes data collection much more difficult and less pure as more uncontrolled variables influence possible outcomes.
Very loose trends and no correlations. Go take an advanced stats class and then try and tell me these “advanced stats” meet rigor. Much of what is discussed requires multivariate data collection and analysis, and the data does not meet rigor to do so. The vast majority of these stats are very basic analyses which are not capable of modeling complex environments like those being discussed. I learned a long time ago what simple stats can and cannot model. Hockey has too much chaos in the mix to properly model with such simplistic terms.
This thing is that those bodies behave in the same way, all the time. The rules of physics make predictive modeling possible. The rules of hockey, and the number of variable that can take place influencing any one event, make it extremely difficult to model. For instance, a shot from the boards bounces off multiple bodies on the way to the net and finds its way into the goal. Does that count the same as a clear shot? Should the goaltender be penalized for that? I don’t see an infielder getting charged with an error when the ball goes off an obstruction. Again, the complexities of the game make it very difficult to model using very simple statistics. As you lauded to, the fact that players have the ability to make their own decisions, and operate beyond the rules, makes the game that much more difficult to model. The black and white nature of events becomes much more gray and cloudy because of the chaos on the ice.
|
Then it's your fault.
If you want to call counting a model you're never going to be happy. The thing is ... that's all it is and why you shouldn't be so afraid of it ... counting.
If you count the number of times teams make shot attempts and not shots in a given area it takes out a lot of the noise that you are trying to avoid because it isn't interpretive.
Shots on goal will get blocked, scoring chances will get shot wide ... but by counting the number of occurrences that happen in certain areas of the ice that don't get binned you get a very simple, honest count by team.
It's not meant to be conclusionary, it's a count that leads to most relatable outcomes.
Teams that get more shot attempts tend to have more possession.
Teams that get more shot attempts within home plate tend to get more scoring chances.
These teams tend to win more often than not.
And how many coaches would suggest anything other than get shots from in close?
The key is to not boast they are more than that and you keep the simplicity on your side.
The Flames were top 5 in shot attempts
The Flames were top 5 in shot attempts within home plate.
My study showed the Flames top nine forwards were consistent in both behind the net passes and across the royal road passes with the game's best offences.
Those counting stats really can't be argued.
What can be argued is the conclusion ... Flames were unlucky and I'm fine with that.