Not to worry; this won't last says Myrtle

[Stay Golden]

There seems to be a fair share of hockey analysis that are noticeably annoyed with the Flames success.
They keep hoping the Flames will drop down the standings.
Especially Kypreos.
Funny i always thought that sports media like a good Cinderella sports story.
If it was the Oilers or the Leafs i bet the response would be more supportive.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Why don't you tell me about those things considering you're the one making the claims that they underlying data is crap. That is your claim right?

So lets have it, show me where there are systemic biases in the data.

Honestly Tinordi, your typical "I'm right because I say I am" attitude both fails to advance the argument and only sets people against the point you are trying to make.

Street pharmacist and I are trying to engage in the debate. You might consider doing the same.

[formulate]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that sometimes Advanced Stats are designed for people that need to feel better about themselves and don't take the time to actually watch a hockey game.

Yeah its great when your talking about possession times and PDO, but I have yet to see someone come up with a quality of shot taken, quality of shots allowed stat, or mean passes before a shot.

If a team is getting outshot like the team up north and the shots are coming from key scoring areas, and teams are getting it off of the forecheck because the defense runs around a lot then you would have an argument.

Even the svpct is invalid because it dosen't take into account things like rebounds allowed for goals or good goals versus bad goals.

But its easy to sit back with a spreadsheet and mutter, they're no good without ever watching a game or ever actually thinking about it.

Stats are not a substitute for the real thing.

Not a stat, but this site is super interesting to look at for shot location:
http://somekindofninja.com/nhl/

Unfortunately nothing uploaded from the current season as of yet.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Why don't you tell me about those things considering you're the one making the claims that they underlying data is crap. That is your claim right?

So lets have it, show me where there are systemic biases in the data.

Sorry dude, you are the one claiming people don't have an understanding of advanced stats. The onus is on you to back up your claim of brilliance and inform us unwashed masses about the nuances of statistical analysis. You're not going to smugly dodge this one.

[Henry Fool]

The most significant statement in the article is that the Flames are "very poor at controlling play." Is that based on possession stats or watching the games, I wonder. There are many ways for teams to "control play".

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Honestly though, Tampa (and Montreal) have a track record the Flames don't. It is fair to question whether the Flames can keep it up, irregardless of whether other teams are or should be similarly questioned.

Not a word!

[JiriHrdina]

The basic problem is not the stats themselves, but how they are used. At times it seems like reporters have a theory and then they go out to find the numbers that support it. It happens in business too. The better approach is look at the stats and decide what narrative they are actually telling you.

[Nehkara]

I'm not convinced... and I have a reason!

The argument that has been made is that because the Flames aren't controlling the play, they can't sustain their current record.

The Flames are down 5 regular starting forwards including their 2nd and 3rd line centers, and three scoring wingers (one of whom can also play center).

I would argue that the Flames' poor possession numbers are due to INJURY and circumstance... not poor play.

If the Flames can keep themselves in it until Backlund, Stajan, Colborne, Raymond, and Jones are back in the lineup... I think they have a shot.

[calumniate]

The advanced stats just aren't advanced enough (at least in the article).

One measure I generally find telling is overall goal differential. A team ranked high with a low goal differential is always the one I'll pick to come back to earth at some point.

We're a +9, Chicago is below us in the standings with a +15, Vancouver above with only a +1. Therefore I predict these two teams to flip. Pretty advanced eh! Haha

[Gaudfather]

Mirtle - how about this stat: 11-6-2

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I think nobody is talking about Tampa because it is Tampa and most people don't think about them much except to complain about the NHL existing in warm weather markets. Certainly there is a lot of questioning about Montreal, and how they need to control games better if they want to sustain their record.

Honestly though, Tampa (and Montreal) have a track record the Flames don't. It is fair to question whether the Flames can keep it up, irregardless of whether other teams are or should be similarly questioned.




I think "luck" is used as a shorthand for "defying expectations" in this context. And yes, the bias and expectation of the person making the comment does factor in.

But lets look at the Flames. We have been fortunate that for 19 games now, either the goaltending has been hot, or the offence has been hot, or both. At some point, both are going to go cold. That is when our PDO will normalize, as will our "luck". Last year, that cold snap produced a 3-11-1 stretch that dropped us to the bottom of the league. This year, we shall see. Our strong record to start the year, plus hopefully greater overall talent should help us avoid such a dramatic tailspin.

But lets face it, based on how this team has played the last several years, one can't fault outsiders for questioning the Flames. We're not going to prove them wrong in 20 games.

I agree with everything you said. The flames will not continue to be this lucky. I follow Mirtle on Twitter and agree with most things he says. Also, I believe he studied journalism about 500m from where I live a TRU here in Kamloops (I always thought he's from here not Kelowna?), so I have a soft spot for him.

The PDO may normalize, but I keep arguing that it doesn't have to normalize by very much to be normal. The Bruins finished last year with basically the same PDO we have now. Over very large sample sizes, there are teams with a PDO over 101. The sample size is quite small right now, so a 1% correction means maybe 2-3 less points than we have now. Whoop di do.

The flames will however, finish with a worse record than they have now unless they start playing better. You can't reasonably argue against that

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by New Era

Sorry dude, you are the one claiming people don't have an understanding of advanced stats. The onus is on you to back up your claim of brilliance and inform us unwashed masses about the nuances of statistical analysis. You're not going to smugly dodge this one.

Just to be clear. You are the person claiming that the data is unreliable. That's the claim. I haven't made any besides insinuating that criticising stats generally comes with a lack of understanding them. So far you seem to be supporting that. If there is a systemic bias in the data then we should observe issues with it in the analysis. So back up your claim. What are the problems with it? I'm not saying it's above reproach, I just want more than platitudes like some guy named New Era on the internet knows that the data is biased or incomplete.

[Burner]

simply a story from Toronto where they cant stomach someone elses success while they lose to Buffalo and continue to suck.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that sometimes Advanced Stats are designed for people that need to feel better about themselves and don't take the time to actually watch a hockey game...

Stats are not a substitute for the real thing.

I'm pretty sure Myrtle watches far more games than you, or 90 per cent of fans, do. A person can watch lots of hockey and analyze stats.

But yes, there are limits to how much hockey a person can watch. So where does that leave us when it comes to hockey commentary?

A) If you want to have any credibility as a league-wide hockey analyst, you need to spend 15 hours a day watching recorded hockey games.

B) There should be not be any such thing as league-wide analysts, since A is impractical. We should only have individual team reporters reporting on hockey. Or better yet - enthusiastic and highly partisan fans!

[GioforPM]

The lack of experience at centre = lower faceoff percentage = less initial possession in the d-zone, = more shots against. However, those same players are not bad defensively + Brodano = less quality shots. Really -how many 5 bell saves do you remember the goalies having to make the last few games, especially where the game was on the line? The last on I can recall is Hiller's against the Caps.

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by calumniate

The advanced stats just aren't advanced enough (at least in the article).

One measure I generally find telling is overall goal differential. A team ranked high with a low goal differential is always the one I'll pick to come back to earth at some point.

We're a +9, Chicago is below us in the standings with a +15, Vancouver above with only a +1. Therefore I predict these two teams to flip. Pretty advanced eh! Haha

No less "advanced" than adding together save percentage and shooting percentage.

[Gaudfather]

A big issue with advanced stats - the "garbage in - garbage out" factor.

Here is a quote from Brad Treliving today: "That’s a challenge in our sport - to get real data. Meaningful data."

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

There seems to be a fair share of hockey analysis that are noticeably annoyed with the Flames success.
They keep hoping the Flames will drop down the standings.
Especially Kypreos.
Funny i always thought that sports media like a good Cinderella sports story.
If it was the Oilers or the Leafs i bet the response would be more supportive.

I highly doubt it. There's no conspiracy here. The Flames have received more positive press than any team this year. Mirtle says nothing groundbreaking or wrong here.

Flames have been outshot for large stretches this year, and that will likely mean a bit of a fall. We can all come up with arguments against it, but Mirtle's argument was not an emotional one. It's one he made last year for the eastern darling Leafs.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I don't argue that the PDO stat is valid, or even his conclusion that the Flames numbers are likely to regress. With 19 games in the books, it is fair to say that we stole a few points (Chicago being the obvious example) which would skew the PDO. In particular, Hillers numbers were bound to drop.

However, over the last 10 games or so, it seems to me that we "deservedly" won the games we won and lost when we should have lost. Has the PDO been at a more normal rate? If so, doesn't that mean our recent win rate (6-3-1) is sustainable? I think it is possible.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

There seems to be a fair share of hockey analysis that are noticeably annoyed with the Flames success.

Then we're watching different coverage. 90 per cent of the commentary about the Flames this year has been highly positive. The universal praise of the work ethic of the team. The excitement over Gaudreau. All the praise for Giordano.

But one or two commentators make one or two remarks that the team success might not last, and it's time to circle the wagons against all those mean guys in the media who hate the Flames.

Christ we have a thin-skinned fanbase.

And let's be honest guys - if advanced stats analysis earmarked the Flames as one of the better teams in the league, this forum would be nodding in agreement at the predictive quality of advanced stats.