[GDT] Kraken @ Flames 7pm MT

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

A lot of these nuances are addressed in public vs private models. So unless you have access to private models or pay to access some, it is always best to look at multiple data sources.

Are they? Do you have access to any of the private models? If so, please share what they are doing differently. If not, then how do you know they are in fact doing anything differently?

And some of them simply can't be addressed - private or not.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bingo

"bunch of stats ..."

Lets check the list

1. Number of shootouts per season

Maybe green text then? It's not like we don't have that established.

Works well because then I don't think you actually mean that he should make the team because of shoot outs so I don't feel the need to point out that not many games make it to a shoot out.

I'm not gonna green text everything for the small percentage that needs it.

You didn't need to point it out even if my intention was the other way. It's clear that was an off the cuff comment, by the fact I didn't outlay shootout stats to backup my position and infer that I want someone to have a debate about it.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You defend the stats in every situation - it is okay to criticize them, in fact that is an important part of the process of deriving better stats.

Above, you are continuing to argue for location as the most important factor (as the stat does). But people keep giving examples of how that is not always the case - and in fact may not be the most important variable at all. Coronato's chance was a very high danger chance because Frost's cross-crease pass got through, and put the goalie out of position. That left Coronato to shoot at an empty net. The important variable here was the set-up. Location, in this case, was irrelevant - especially for an NHLer.

And has been stated many times, time and space can also be more important than location. As can the skill of the shooter.

So yes, more shots from close in is better (or worse). But HD scoring chances is a comparative stat that is trying to quantify how well a player performed (and that is how people use it). And it simply doesn't do a good job of doing that.

I don't get the impression you understand my argument at all. Maybe I haven't done a good job of making my point.

I'm not defending a stat.

I've admitted they should improve.

I just don't think the existing stat is flawed if you view it as I do ... a count of location events on the ice, to which more is worse than less.

Period.

If three guys play on a line and give up more immediate slot chances than other lines they've likely given up more than the other lines. Then you look at matchups and how much responsibility they are given. Or you can look at other games and see if they've given up more or less of those immediate slot chances.

That's it.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

I'm not gonna green text everything for the small percentage that needs it.

You didn't need to point it out even if my intention was the other way. It's clear that was an off the cuff comment, by the fact I didn't outlay shootout stats to backup my position and infer that I want someone to have a debate about it.

So I'm the one that needs it?

That's not very nice.

Do you honestly think you're adding more to the discussion by arguing that I never should have commented by commenting about my commenting?

It wasn't clear. It's a topic on daily talk shows about deciding on the final forward spot and should shootouts break the tie. You appeared to be in that mindset so I replied on a discussion forum.

Not sure why this has been such an issue.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, sometimes, more complex isn't better (but sometimes it is)

And yes, sometimes it becomes an issue of what people want it to measure, as opposed to what it does measure.

But this stat measures HD chances. Yes, it defines that as shots from home plate. But that doesn't mean that is should. Sometimes the design of the stat can be flawed, or too simplistic. Again, Coronato's goal against the Kraken was a very high danger scoring chance in any rational person's mind. But it wasn't a stat, by the way it is counted. That isn't a problem of the viewer (wanting the stat to be what they want it to be), it is a shortcoming of the stat. Full stop.

Well, no, it is 100% wanting the stat to be something different.

Again, that stat measures the area of the ice the shot is taken from, assigning values based on the probably of a shot from that area going in.

It is not, nor does it pretend to be, a measurement of the danger of that shot or its probability of going in in totality. It is literally JUST a measure of location, based on the probability of a shot (any shot) from a shooter (any shooter) going in, based on how often goals go in from those areas historically.

Saying Coronato had a “high danger scoring chance” is fine, if those are just words you’re using to describe how the shot came together. But the reason it is not qualified as one by the stat is because that is not what the stat measures nor claims to measure.

Full stop. Or whatever.

HD also has nothing to do with the card that people took issue with so not sure why this is the topic but oh well. I’m still interested in why the stats behind that card which set out to measure a single game aren’t representative of a single game. What I’m hearing is general sentiment that stats don’t tell the whole story which… of course they don’t, that isn’t what’s being argued. But not telling the whole story =/= garbage.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I just don't think the existing stat is flawed if you view it as I do ... a count of location events on the ice, to which more is worse than less.

This is where I get lost a bit. There seems to be a belief that stats are either perfect or garbage. That they should explain every detail of everything that happened or, if not, they’re useless. Or that being a little bit better at explaining or predicting something is worth nothing.

Like, goals don’t tell the whole story. But at the end of the day you can say your team had an unlucky game and just got bad bounces, but losing 5-0 is still bad.

It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t tell the whole story. Not everything needs to. But often they tell the only story that really matters at the end of the day.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So I'm the one that needs it?

That's not very nice.

Do you honestly think you're adding more to the discussion by arguing that I never should have commented by commenting about my commenting?

It wasn't clear. It's a topic on daily talk shows about deciding on the final forward spot and should shootouts break the tie. You appeared to be in that mindset so I replied on a discussion forum.

Not sure why this has been such an issue.

I'm not arguing or attempting to add more to a discussion, nor am I in an mindset. I'm just commenting on commenting.

If you take a few words and twist them up into a pretzel, that's not on me.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I don't get the impression you understand my argument at all. Maybe I haven't done a good job of making my point.

I'm not defending a stat.

I've admitted they should improve.

I just don't think the existing stat is flawed if you view it as I do ... a count of location events on the ice, to which more is worse than less.

Period.

If three guys play on a line and give up more immediate slot chances than other lines they've likely given up more than the other lines. Then you look at matchups and how much responsibility they are given. Or you can look at other games and see if they've given up more or less of those immediate slot chances.

That's it.

But people (including you) don't just count them up as location events on the ice, they use the results to argue whether a player had a good or a bad game.

"Player X got caved in, with 37% HD chances, for and against last night" And people buy into that like it's a fact and it is representing useful information.

But in reality, the player was on the ice for 3 home plate shots for, and 5 home plate shots against. Great, but it completely ignores all the other things that happened, and that have been listed in this discussion, which would add a great deal more colour to the situation. For instance, maybe they set up their linemate for a perfect, cross-crease empty netter (which didn't happen in home plate). And many other relevant events.

But no worries, it's a stat. So, they got caved in.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

I'm not arguing or attempting to add more to a discussion, nor am I in an mindset. I'm just commenting on commenting.

If you take a few words and twist them up into a pretzel, that's not on me.

Who did that?

You said keep him for the shootout.

I thought you were serious.

I answered honestly.

You've had a problem ever since.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But people (including you) don't just count them up as location events on the ice, they use the results to argue whether a player had a good or a bad game.

"Player X got caved in, with 37% HD chances, for and against last night" And people buy into that like it's a fact and it is representing useful information.

But in reality, the player was on the ice for 3 home plate shots for, and 5 home plate shots against. Great, but it completely ignores all the other things that happened, and that have been listed in this discussion, which would add a great deal more colour to the situation. For instance, maybe they set up their linemate for a perfect, cross-crease empty netter (which didn't happen in home plate). And many other relevant events.

But no worries, it's a stat. So, they got caved in.

Sigh ... not sure how further this can go.

If Backlund had a 37% night in xGF% with his regular 18 minutes of five on five hockey it likely wasn't a great night. He likely was caved in.

If Morton playing on the fourth line had a 37% night you'd have to look more at xGA60 to see if it was a good night or not because the 4th line doesn't generate much.

I don't think I've been all that inconsistent in my analysis in game stories.

[PepsiFree]

I don’t recall anyone ever using HD as the sole measure of whether a player got caved in or not.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Who did that?

You said keep him for the shootout.

I thought you were serious.

I answered honestly.

You've had a problem ever since.

Sigh ... not sure how further this can go.

[Hockey-and_stuff]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t recall anyone ever using HD as the sole measure of whether a player got caved in or not.

Bingo is arguing with a poster who doesn't want to do anything except expound on their point over and over again.

If you don't like the stats, that's fine, but maybe consider bowing out and letting the people who want to talk about it do that without this "um actually" interjection every single time they are brought up. It's extremely tiresome to read the same thing from the same poster every time advanced stats are brought up in conversation.



Sent from my SM-S931W using Tapatalk

[Reggie Dunlop]

I thought Wolf looked sharp despite the goal.

[D as in David]