Not to worry; this won't last says Myrtle

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

If the stat guys said that the 2003-04 Flames success was unsustainable based on stats, then point taken, but I don't recall any discussion of that 10 years ago. My recollection is that they were saying that based on the eye test, but if you have a link I would certainly like to see it.

The discussions that I heard weren't based on what are now called advanced stats; they were based on plain old-fashioned shots for and against. I can't link to them, because most of what I saw and heard was on live radio and TV. I don't know if anyone even has archives of those broadcasts online, and they certainly don't have transcripts, which makes searching for them pretty nearly impossible.

In any case, an argument based on Corsi or Fenwick is essentially similar to an argument based on SOG. Both are vulnerable if the team makes a deliberate strategy of not trying to prevent perimeter shots, as the '03-04 Flames did.

[JetsFlamesFan]

My guess is if the guys calculating all these advanced stats online knew any more than anyone inside the NHL organizations, they would be employed by said organizations, not writing articles about it. I'm generalizing, but I think a lot of teams have had advanced stats guys since long before we started talking about it. I listened to an interview on the Fan today with Brad Treliving and he was fully aware of our shooting percentage and that it may not be sustainable, and he seems to be very analytical himself. They analyze every win and loss to see what they can adjust to gain an edge in the next game. Maybe I'm a homer, but from listening to him, I have more confidence that he will have discussions with Hartley to find ways to adjust their game. Maybe it's just because I've never heard any other Flames GM be so open about their strategy before, but knowing that he is actually into the advanced stats and willing to talk about it instead of throwing out vague cliches like "our best players need to be our best players", makes me feel pretty good about the Flames chances this year. What I like about the Flames organization overall, is that they know what people are saying about them and yet they just continue to win hockey games. I feel they are very honest with the fan base and not condescending and smug like some previous GM's/coaches. So far, the results speak for themselves. I'm just gonna keep enjoying it. When they regress, I'll shut my yap. But this team IS as good as it's record.

[driveway]

In the end, it doesn't actually matter if corsi or fenwick are an accurate measure of possession, because the idea of measuring possession is based on a sensible but unproven assumption that possession results in wins.

What is important for predicting future events is whether or not corsi or fenwick correlate with wins. The answer to that question right now is that yes, there is a correlation between high fenwick and corsi scores and winning percentage. It's not perfect, and there are obviously outliers, but there is a correlation, therefore there is value in the statistics.

[Robbob]

out of curiosity, do shots when your goalie is pulled count towards the possession stats?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Robbob

out of curiosity, do shots when your goalie is pulled count towards the possession stats?

Yes, but not 5v5 which is what most people who use them look at

[bucksmasher]

interesting stat, every post past page 10 has the word stat or statistic in it

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by JetsFlamesFan

So are we basing that on the fact that their shooting percentage is so high, and it must average out over 82 games?

Partly, yes. But also on the fact that good possession teams are better at bucking trends (in a good way) than bad possession team. The Flames have been a bad possession team, and continue to be pretty bad possession-wise despite recent modest improvements.

If that's the case, is their shooting percentage so high because their shots on goal are so low and they are just getting lucky right now? If they are way below average in shots on goal, couldn't I also suggest that their shots on goal will go up because it must average out over 82 games?

Nope. Shots on goal don't tend to regress.

If your team scores in 15% of shots, its because they're lucky, and probably won't continue to be lucky. But if they post 40 shots per game, they're good, and will probably continue to be good.

Obviously teams can have a good or bad game here and there, or even be wildly inconsistent, but over a long-ish stretch (maybe 10-20 games) the good teams will shoot more than the crappy teams, and give up fewer shots against.

With regards to it being a deliberate strategy, the teams that collapse defensively and get peppered with perimeter shots all game, and then rely on scoring a big goal off the rush going the other way... well those are usually crappy teams. So the shot totals still tend to reflect ability. Not always, but usually.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

I actually think these types of stat calculations work most of the time. But one of the biggest flaws in these stats is that it uses a proxy for possession. Shots on goal don't actually track puck possession. I'm sure 80% of the time! it's a fair proxy! but it's still not actual puck possession.

Start a timer every time the Flames touch the puck, sop it when they lose it. At the end of the game what does the clock say? That's actual puck posesssion.

Trust me, as I start to believe more and more that these guys are for real and this good, I worry they might come back down to earth. But I don't worry about that because of what the advanced stats are saying. Why, because I believe through watching the games, I'm not seeing the Flames lose the puck possession battle the way the stats suggest they are. I see a tea that on most nights is at least close to 50% and often better on possession and controlling the play! but simply doesn't take enough shots with that possession.

Flames goggles, wishful thinking, maybe but I don't think so.

[timbit]

Too bad how much heart a team plays with is not quantifiable.

Flames possession of that would lead the NHL.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I actually think these types of stat calculations work most of the time. But one of the biggest flaws in these stats is that it uses a proxy for possession. Shots on goal don't actually track puck possession. I'm sure 80% of the time! it's a fair proxy! but it's still not actual puck possession.

Start a timer every time the Flames touch the puck, sop it when they lose it. At the end of the game what does the clock say? That's actual puck posesssion.

Trust me, as I start to believe more and more that these guys are for real and this good, I worry they might come back down to earth. But I don't worry about that because of what the advanced stats are saying. Why, because I believe through watching the games, I'm not seeing the Flames lose the puck possession battle the way the stats suggest they are. I see a tea that on most nights is at least close to 50% and often better on possession and controlling the play! but simply doesn't take enough shots with that possession.

Flames goggles, wishful thinking, maybe but I don't think so.

This is literally what every Colorado and Toronto fan has said the last two years. If you think a stopwatch would've got you anywhere near 50% most nights you'd be wrong.

Forget possession, we get outplayed for long stretches, then put them away in a short stretch. Heck, even in the Chicago, Anaheim games we were in our end longer than theirs

[Vulcan]

Some teams are good at scoring off the rush, others are good at scoring off the cycle. The cycle teams will have the better possession stats. Not having a good cycle and possession stats could partly be due to being a small team.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Some teams are good at scoring off the rush, others are good at scoring off the cycle. The cycle teams will have the better possession stats. Not having a good cycle and possession stats could partly be due to being a small team.

The Flames are a team that take away time and space, so I expect the opposition is forced into shots that aren't ideal. The Oilers could give up 15 shots and lose a lot of games, simply through golden chances and sub par goaltenders.
Lots of things can skew the numbers in favour of or against any team... And I think k the Flames are one that can consistently be out shot / outplayed to some degree and still be successful. Going back to January last year, it's a pretty long 'lucky' streak now.
That said, I'm sure it's bound to catch up with them... but I don't really care. I love watching this team. Any hockey fan does. I'm just going to enjoy it

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

This is literally what every Colorado and Toronto fan has said the last two years. If you think a stopwatch would've got you anywhere near 50% most nights you'd be wrong.

Forget possession, we get outplayed for long stretches, then put them away in a short stretch. Heck, even in the Chicago, Anaheim games we were in our end longer than theirs

Maybe. As posted on here, Torontos advance stat picture looked much worse than ours. And what's your point, of course we got outplayed for stretches against Chicago and Anahiem. I would wager many of the other top team do to. Especially vs. Chicago, we also outplayed them for long periods. Isnt that just what happens.

Like I said, maybe wishful thinking, but I've watched a lot of hockey over the years (as I'm sure you have) and I've seen this team win games they don't deserve, and we've all seen how kipper used to steal us games. I think I'm being realistic when I say, at least since the first part of the season, I simply haven't left games wondering how we won or how we got lucky, I leave feeling like we were full marks for most of our wins.

[Righteous1]

All these analytics guys will be fired cause of the Flames

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Righteous1

All these analytics guys will be fired cause of the Flames

There are always exceptions. But these analytics guys are getting hired because history has shown their conclusions are generally accurate.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

There are always exceptions. But these analytics guys are getting hired because history has shown their conclusions are generally accurate.

Nope.

Bloggers draw conclusions.

Real analytics guys (who would be more typically employed by teams) provide data that assists with the overall analysis of the teams and the players.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Nope.

Bloggers draw conclusions.

Real analytics guys (who would be more typically employed by teams) provide data that assists with the overall analysis of the teams and the players.

"here's numbers that don't mean anything! Thanks for hiring me!"

That's not generally how it goes. They have to draw some conclusions or the whole exercise is moot

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Nope.

Bloggers draw conclusions.

Real analytics guys (who would be more typically employed by teams) provide data that assists with the overall analysis of the teams and the players.

Baffling statement

Stats guys just run a bunch of r squared values and call it a day?

All statistical work whether at NASA or the NHL is conducted to draw conclusions. Otherwise it's a meaningless activity.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Baffling statement

Stats guys just run a bunch of r squared values and call it a day?

All statistical work whether at NASA or the NHL is conducted to draw conclusions. Otherwise it's a meaningless activity.

Stats are a tool, not a means in themselves. This shouldn't be a hard concept for you guys to understand.

The 'stats guys' for teams aren't sitting around going: this guy's Corsi sucks so he's a bad player.

Well, except for Edmonton anyway.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Baffling statement

Stats guys just run a bunch of r squared values and call it a day?

All statistical work whether at NASA or the NHL is conducted to draw conclusions. Otherwise it's a meaningless activity.

Help draw conclusions.

Big difference.