Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe
I do think that if some of you analytic-minded folks get your heads together and reliably assign values to such things as 'contested' vs 'uncontested' shots, and 'goalie having to go side-to-side to make a huge save', maybe a '5 fricken jam the net shots'... and include these with the current analytics, I do think that it could provide stronger correlation.
What I hated last season was the constant "Flames are on the verge" talk when the eye test told me that they weren't being 'unlucky', but rather that their chances for (including the high danger chances) were not of great quality. Even when these high danger chances for last season was way in Calgary's favour, I argued that the chances against were of even better quality (uncontested, sometimes cross-crease tap-ins where Smith had to make a crazy save to stop, etc), even if they were lower in volume.
That's always the toughest part of objective analytics though, isn't it? Assigning consistent and reliable values to things that are subjective. Heck, something that constitutes a hit varies wildly from arena to arena, and even things like shots were not universal from arena to arena, right?
I do think that stats can and often do correlate really nicely with the data that you are seeing, but I also think that there are examples when they are proven rather unreliable consistently due to different systems employed by teams with differing amounts of talent.
I can't say that I have disagreed with any of the games that these charts are representing yet that Bingo has been posting. It has - for the most part - been matching my eye test. Even if they weren't 100% matching, I am sure at least some of the individual columns would be describing what I am seeing well enough.
Know what this tells me? That the Flames are a team with solid talent playing a system well (for the most part, ignoring a couple of obvious games in which they didn't play well), and that this system is more conducive to creating higher (real?) danger chances for which is helping align the 'what you see is matching what the analytics is saying'. Just my guess anyway.
|
If the NHL goes through with the player tracking system they are discussing they should have a huge jump in validity. You'll have goalies showing they moved within a second of a player shooting in an area on the ice deemed dangerous ... as an example.
I watch a lot of games late because of my kid's hockey so I can't check stats during the game for fear of seeing the final score. As a result I go eye test through the game without the ability to see if the counting stats are going the same way. Then the game is over and I sit down to finish up the game story and I check the metrics ... 90% of the time it matches what my eyes were telling me.
Last year I saw a Flames team (especially on home ice) that came out hard, looked like the better team faced adversity and failed, and then played catch up (score effects) for a lot of the night. So the early was fine, the implosion was a mess, and then of course they'd have good metrics because they're home and losing.