Curses, Foiled Again

[toquester]

How can it be? The unsustainable Calgary Flames make the playoffs in spite of their terrible statistical game. The Flames must be the flukiest, most lucky team in all of hockey.

But wait, the L.A. Kings, the best team on paper in the league according to the stats boys, miss the playoffs. How can this be? They must be the most snake-bitten, unlucky team on earth.

http://www.jewelsfromthecrown.com/20...190.1413319896

This just makes the debate even funnier.

Lucy, you got some splaining to do.

[GGG]

Actually the kings were very unlucky this year. 3-15 it ot and shoutout and a significantly under .500 record in one goal games.

In a 3-2-1 point system they actually make the playoffs.


This is what bugs me about those that wish to dismiss statistics. One singular event doesn't invalidate a statistic especially when you ignore that as a strong posession team they won 2 cups.

[calumniate]

Yeah 3 for 15 hurts. Flames won plenty of games in regulation though. Shot blockers like Kris Russell, and tempo setters like gaudreau and hudler kept us afloat despite the puck possession.

Kings regressed this year with brown and Richards, and lost voynov. Did their corsi stats regress when they lost voynov?

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by GGG

Actually the kings were very unlucky this year. 3-15 it ot and shoutout and a significantly under .500 record in one goal games.

In a 3-2-1 point system they actually make the playoffs.


This is what bugs me about those that wish to dismiss statistics. One singular event doesn't invalidate a statistic especially when you ignore that as a strong posession team they won 2 cups.

I'd argue that's not unlucky, that's a lack of killer instinct to finish off your opponent. The Kings did not deserve to be in a playoff spot. Bottom line is they didn't win enough. Don't feel sorry for them either.

[chockfullofgoodness]

Originally Posted by GGG

Actually the kings were very unlucky this year. 3-15 it ot and shoutout and a significantly under .500 record in one goal games.

In a 3-2-1 point system they actually make the playoffs.


This is what bugs me about those that wish to dismiss statistics. One singular event doesn't invalidate a statistic especially when you ignore that as a strong posession team they won 2 cups.

Holler!!!

The Kings had 15 loser points. Crunch the numbers any way you have to, they missed the playoffs and deserved to miss the playoffs.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I'd argue that's not unlucky, that's a lack of killer instinct to finish off your opponent. The Kings did not deserve to be in a playoff spot. Bottom line is they didn't win enough. Don't feel sorry for them either.

See, that would be an emotion, which isn't quantifiable by a stat. Much similar to chemistry, drive and will to win. So Big Advanced Stat disregards it. What I find super interesting, is lack of emotion is something that seems very common in these Advanced stat gurus. They never get mad at anything you say no matter how hard you run down their theories. If they cannot understand it, they disregard it.

I say this seriously, it would be interesting to see the stats of the mental makeup of the folks obsesses with Advanced stats. What type of personality are they? Do they show tendencies to fall towards certain mental spectrums? I honestly believe there would be some very interesting results. And I do not mean it as a dig.

There are a couple posters I can think of where their obsession with 'the numbers' fall beyond simple hockey numbers, and their posts on every single subject boils down to statistical patterns.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by GGG

Actually the kings were very unlucky this year. 3-15 it ot and shoutout and a significantly under .500 record in one goal games.

In a 3-2-1 point system they actually make the playoffs.


This is what bugs me about those that wish to dismiss statistics. One singular event doesn't invalidate a statistic especially when you ignore that as a strong posession team they won 2 cups.

Good scientists are often more fascinated by the outliers and the non-correlated results, than they are the garden variety results.

Corsi or whatever flavour is neither right nor wrong nor good nor bad.

It's either useful or it is not useful. I think evidence seems to be mounting that it is limited - not because of the results that agree with it, but because of the valid results that do not.

There is something interesting going on with both the Flames and the Kings vis-a-vis statistics. I'd be more interested in that analysis than a constant defensiveness with regards to the current tools.

What is different about the Flames? Can it be quantified in some reasonable manner? Can that information be used to move on from Corsi to something that is a more complete model?

[Dajazz]

Advanced (lol) Statistics Crowd put the cart before the horse.

Good teams with talented players tend to hold on to the puck and create chances. Bad teams don't. So Good Corsi does not equal Good Team, it's the other way around generally speaking.

Read an article on THN this morning, it was more "Luck" BS regarding Flames and LA. Again, what is wrong with having for example strong goaltending to off set possession, or generate chances off the rush instead of "just-throw-it-on-net-and-hope-good-comes-of-it"

Luck exists, or rather, random events, as just that - an event. A team is not lucky over the course of 82 games or a full season. It is successful, that's it. No luck, bad luck, mojo, juju, vodoo etc - it's pure and simple success.

I've said it before, the current Flames play like the old Czech national teams - collapse on D, rush and counter attack and forecheck. That's one way of playing hockey, unfortunately it doesn't cater to the flavour of the month lolwick stat people so well, it must be wrong.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by Dajazz

Advanced (lol) Statistics Crowd put the cart before the horse.

Good teams with talented players tend to hold on to the puck and create chances. Bad teams don't. So Good Corsi does not equal Good Team, it's the other way around generally speaking.

Read an article on THN this morning, it was more "Luck" BS regarding Flames and LA. Again, what is wrong with having for example strong goaltending to off set possession, or generate chances off the rush instead of "just-throw-it-on-net-and-hope-good-comes-of-it"

Luck exists, or rather, random events, as just that - an event. A team is not lucky over the course of 82 games or a full season. It is successful, that's it. No luck, bad luck, mojo, juju, vodoo etc - it's pure and simple success.

I've said it before, the current Flames play like the old Czech national teams - collapse on D, rush and counter attack and forecheck. That's one way of playing hockey, unfortunately it doesn't cater to the flavour of the month lolwick stat people so well, it must be wrong.

Never taking penalties and having active Dmen that create 4 on 3 opportunities busts the Corsi argument.

[renny]

if you lose to edmonton, you don't deserve to be in the playoffs.... edmonton is just no good, and if you lose, you're even more no good

[pappa jan]

Originally Posted by toquester

How can it be? The unsustainable Calgary Flames make the playoffs in spite of their terrible statistical game. The Flames must be the flukiest, most lucky team in all of hockey.

But wait, the L.A. Kings, the best team on paper in the league according to the stats boys, miss the playoffs. How can this be? They must be the most snake-bitten, unlucky team on earth.

http://www.jewelsfromthecrown.com/20...190.1413319896

This just makes the debate even funnier.

Lucy, you got some splaining to do.

I don't know, I find some good reasoning in there. It's a very tight race for the playoff-spot, and luck is sure to have some effect.

[stemit14]

I think the problem is that the stats are still too primitive to actually assess teams and players yet. That's why trackers on players' jerseys will tell a much better story and help explain the "outliers" like Calgary supposedly is.

Just some examples/hypotheticals... If they had a subjective rating scale for the quality of scoring chances. Beyond that, they could measure how much higher the average quality of scoring chance is created if gaudreau carries the puck into the offensive zone rather than anyone else.. Stats could be made to compare number of high quality scoring chances vs. shot attempts. Stats like that would show how the single high quality scoring chance created by the gaudreau line on a shift offsets the 5 low quality scoring chances against created by the other team by just throwing the puck at the net from the corner on a shift.

The potential of this stuff can be seen in how many teams are investing in statistical analysts. One day there might be stats guys assigned to advising coaches on how they should adjust their systems based on stats of individual players. For example, if it was measurable today, they could probably tell Hartley things like the odds of the Flames generating a quality scoring chance increases significantly if gaudreau accelerates to this speed by the defensive zone blue line and then receives the puck before crossing the red line. This is a trend we can all see as fans who watch every game and I'm sure Hartley is aware of it but the stats don't tell the story yet. One day they might.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jagger]

Call me old school but let's just get down to brass tacks; the team that scores more actual goals than the team that they are playing wins the game and gets the points. It's quite simple really. The Flames did that better, much better actually, than the Kings. That's why they made the playoffs. All this other stuff is just noise and matters not one bit.

The Kings can sit back and admire all their great stats while the Flames , on the other hand, can actually play hockey in the playoffs and simply ignore their pathetic stats. Nothing else matters. End of story.

[driveway]

The Flames are a statistical outlier. Outliers happen, see for example Joe DiMaggio's hitting streak or Don Bradman's career run average in test cricket.

Possession stats in hockey don't go back all that far, but there is for me good evidence that they do offer insight into the sport. I don't think they are the end-all-be-all and I think player tracking data is going to ultimately be way more useful and insightful.

That the Flames made the playoffs does not invalidate the statistic, likewise the Kings winning last year, or the Avs regressing does not prove it.
They are a tool, one of many, that help explain what's going on in a hockey game.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by toquester

How can it be? The unsustainable Calgary Flames make the playoffs in spite of their terrible statistical game. The Flames must be the flukiest, most lucky team in all of hockey.

But wait, the L.A. Kings, the best team on paper in the league according to the stats boys, miss the playoffs. How can this be? They must be the most snake-bitten, unlucky team on earth.

http://www.jewelsfromthecrown.com/20...190.1413319896

This just makes the debate even funnier.

Lucy, you got some splaining to do.

That is a reasonable article but as a fan of a team I would hope my management would look beyond 'bad luck' to attempt to improve the team.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Buster

Good scientists are often more fascinated by the outliers and the non-correlated results, than they are the garden variety results.

Corsi or whatever flavour is neither right nor wrong nor good nor bad.

It's either useful or it is not useful. I think evidence seems to be mounting that it is limited - not because of the results that agree with it, but because of the valid results that do not.

OMG, thank you a million times for this post, especially the bolded part. That's the thing, theories come around all the time. Either evidence supports your theory or discounts it. In the event you have events that regularly discount it and are statistically significant, you have to consider remodeling the theory. That's how science progresses, and statistics and math are just a tool for all types of science.

Originally Posted by driveway

The Flames are a statistical outlier. Outliers happen, see for example Joe DiMaggio's hitting streak or Don Bradman's career run average in test cricket.

No, no, no. You've got it wrong. The Flames are considered an outlier because they shouldn't have done well despite their success. Joe DiMaggio's success was due to the fact he was an exceptional player. You can't suggest that his streak should have regressed to the mean, right? At what point do we allow for exceptionalism in a competitive sport? BTW, no idea who Don Bradman is.

[EldrickOnIce]

Sigh...
The greatest moments in sport are now just outliers. The miracle on ice, that incredible streak, the perfect game - where an individual or team accomplishes something that they have no earthly right achieving. As a fan, you get to be a kid again - where you get to believe that anything is possible.
Statistics has become a fun sucker/ruiner of that 'magic' .

[SebC]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

That is a reasonable article but as a fan of a team I would hope my management would look beyond 'bad luck' to attempt to improve the team.

And a reasonable way to do that would would be to practice/study the shootout and 4-on-4s. The article is helpful in that sense.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Buster

Good scientists are often more fascinated by the outliers and the non-correlated results, than they are the garden variety results.

Corsi or whatever flavour is neither right nor wrong nor good nor bad.

It's either useful or it is not useful. I think evidence seems to be mounting that it is limited - not because of the results that agree with it, but because of the valid results that do not.

There is something interesting going on with both the Flames and the Kings vis-a-vis statistics. I'd be more interested in that analysis than a constant defensiveness with regards to the current tools.

What is different about the Flames? Can it be quantified in some reasonable manner? Can that information be used to move on from Corsi to something that is a more complete model?

Great post. I have attempted to make this argument a few times, but you have stated it very well here.

The problem isn't statistics, they are what they are. The problem is the analysis and use of said statistics. In my profession, grabbing a stat and drawing a conclusion from it would get you fired so fast you would simply become another statistic. Analysis requires attempting to disprove the stat, and compare its results with other stats and other forms of analysis, to see if its results can be independently verified. THEN you are in a position to start to draw conclusions.

The 'hockey analysts' learn about a stat and they suddenly think they 'know' something. And to make it worse, many of them get arrogant about it. Drives me figuratively insane.

[Enoch Root]

The shoot-out is a coin flip, no question about it.

But to suggest the OT 4 on 4 is just luck as well, I don't know about that. Dismissing it because of small sample sizes and thus being fairly inconsequential with respect to the overall standings - sure, that's fine.

But labelling it 'luck' is foolish IMO.