NHL Power Rankings

[Sainters7]

God I hate that NHL Moneyball advanced stats stuff so much, at least how it's gotten so mainstream to the point where it's the only reason why Power Rankings have the Flames so low. So stupid


Posted from Calgarypuck.com App for Android

[JiriHrdina]

I listened to this entire segment today and it underscored, for me, why the analytics community has struggled to get wider buy-in across the fan bases.

The guy came across as smug, dismissive and as a guy who thinks that he’s the smartest guy in the room – and has no patience for anyone with a differing opinion. He reinforced the stereotype of a hockey nerd who doesn’t watch the game.

Now I get it – I understand why these guys are defensive. They get called “geek” and told to step away from the spreadsheet all the time – that must be irritating. He had interesting things to say, but his presentation of that information is poor. Again – it comes off arrogant and dismissive.

Pinder didn’t help by calling those that were objecting to the opinions being raised as being “scared” by the stats.

I thought the timing of the segment was also poor. I got into my car looking forward to listening to the details of a pretty incredible win last night. Instead my entire commute was spent listening to a guy tell me all the reasons why the team I follow sucks. None of the information was new – same stuff – unsustainable, poor possession stats, high shooting percentages.

BLAH BLAH BLAH.

This is a conversation you save for an off-day – not the morning after a great win. You need to have some sense of the emotional pulse of your audience – and when to have the right conversations.

Contrast that with the regular segment Kerr has in the afternoon with a different analytics guy – I can’t recall his name. It is ALWAYS interesting. They don’t focus entirely on the Flames, but touch on them and spend time looking at trends around the league. The analytics guy presents the data he has, and his opinions of what it means – but never comes across as a know it all.

Part of what the analytics community needs to realize is that the data in part should help you figure out the next question to ask – not draw hard and fast absolute conclusions.
So for instance with the Flames they should be saying

“Hmmmm…the underlying numbers don’t match with the success the Flames are having – let’s drill down to try and figure out why”.

Instead the answer is “it’s all luck – this team isn’t very good”.
That’s just not good enough.

[nik-]

Your avatar confused me Jiri

[transplant99]

Jiri nailed it...that guy was a joke this morning..truly came across as a guy who honestly believes he is smarter than everyone else when in fact he is totally inept at analyzing hockey played on the ice because his head is stucK so far up the numbers ass he doesn't have a clue.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by nik-

Your avatar confused me Jiri

Derp?

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

So for instance wit the Flames they should be saying

“Hmmmm…the underlying numbers don’t match with the success the Flames are having – let’s drill down to try and figure out why”.

Instead the answer is “it’s all luck – this team isn’t very good”.
That’s just not good enough.

I'm pro-stats, but your post is bang on. I believe the stats have been hijacked by a bunch of loud simpletons like Drance and Lambert who have sounded like broken records all season long. the real smart guys have been out there constantly re-evaluating their data and methods, always seeking better ways to do the predictive analysis. unfortunately, they're being drowned out by the dummies who just trot out basic numbers like they had climbed a mountain themselves to consult the Oracle...and that's more than enough to give the majority of this forum the torches and pitchforks.

oh and the guy who does those analytics segments with Kerr is Robert Vollman. count him in the good, smart guy column. I wish media would give more time to him instead of the fake stat experts.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

I'm pro-stats, but your post is bang on. I believe the stats have been hijacked by a bunch of loud simpletons like Drance and Lambert who have sounded like broken records all season long. the real smart guys have been out there constantly re-evaluating their data and methods, always seeking better ways to do the predictive analysis. unfortunately, they're being drowned out by the dummies who just trot out basic numbers like they had climbed a mountain themselves to consult the Oracle...and that's more than enough to give the majority of this forum the torches and pitchforks.

oh and the guy who does those analytics segments with Kerr is Robert Vollman. count him in the good, smart guy column. I wish media would give more time to him instead of the fake stat experts.

It's the exact same problem baseball had. As the stats grow in popularity there will always be idiots that try and capitalize on it by spewing out click-bait articles. Guys like Drance and Lambert aren't real advanced stats guys - I don't think I've ever seen new, cutting edge analysis from them. They just fill the niche of guys who understand how the stats work and just put out the same article over and over again. Blogs and websites have to put out content to keep viewers engaged and they are there for that reason only.

Corsi is the new OBP. Yes, it's better than the old way of statistically analyzing players. But it has it's flaws and it isn't anywhere near a comprehensive stat - and it's not supposed to be. Those stats will come in due time, but who knows when and how effective they are right away. Using it as the sole way of evaluating teams is ridiculous. It doesn't factor in goaltending, special teams, and, most importantly to the Flames, penalty differential. The Flames lead the league in PP time minus PK time - which does help account for some of their possession woes.

[Inglewood Jack]

any good stats cruncher will readily admit the current metrics are very rough. once they get that system in place that tracks every player and puck movement, that will be a quantum leap forward and we'll really start seeing solid analytics.

the most annoying thing about the stats hijackers will be the broken clock/blind squirrel effect. when the Flames inevitably go on a losing streak (and they will), those guys will get even louder and more obnoxious, like "see? I was right all along"...ignoring the fact that they looked totally clueless for several months prior.

[malcolmk14]

I heard Vollman the other day and really enjoyed the segment. Guy knows what he's talking about

[Stay Golden]

Personally i would be just fine with having the Flames sitting 1-5 overall in the West in March and still being ranked 20th by this small stubborn group that makes up the rankings.
I am getting a kick out of our collection of kids and second chance players making them look foolish weekly.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Awesome. I'm actually glad that list looks like that. Hartley is most certainly using lists like these as motivation for the boys.

Here is my own power rankings and it's the only one that matters.

As much as I agree actual standings matter a lot more than some dumbass who doesn't watch the games, I still have to put an astetisk there because it doesn't factor in strength of schedule. It's genuinely harder to win games in some divisions. You've gotta have a correction factor for that.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I listened to this entire segment today and it underscored, for me, why the analytics community has struggled to get wider buy-in across the fan bases.

The guy came across as smug, dismissive and as a guy who thinks that he’s the smartest guy in the room – and has no patience for anyone with a differing opinion. He reinforced the stereotype of a hockey nerd who doesn’t watch the game.

Now I get it – I understand why these guys are defensive. They get called “geek” and told to step away from the spreadsheet all the time – that must be irritating. He had interesting things to say, but his presentation of that information is poor. Again – it comes off arrogant and dismissive.

Pinder didn’t help by calling those that were objecting to the opinions being raised as being “scared” by the stats.

I thought the timing of the segment was also poor. I got into my car looking forward to listening to the details of a pretty incredible win last night. Instead my entire commute was spent listening to a guy tell me all the reasons why the team I follow sucks. None of the information was new – same stuff – unsustainable, poor possession stats, high shooting percentages.

BLAH BLAH BLAH.

This is a conversation you save for an off-day – not the morning after a great win. You need to have some sense of the emotional pulse of your audience – and when to have the right conversations.

Contrast that with the regular segment Kerr has in the afternoon with a different analytics guy – I can’t recall his name. It is ALWAYS interesting. They don’t focus entirely on the Flames, but touch on them and spend time looking at trends around the league. The analytics guy presents the data he has, and his opinions of what it means – but never comes across as a know it all.

Part of what the analytics community needs to realize is that the data in part should help you figure out the next question to ask – not draw hard and fast absolute conclusions.
So for instance with the Flames they should be saying

“Hmmmm…the underlying numbers don’t match with the success the Flames are having – let’s drill down to try and figure out why”.

Instead the answer is “it’s all luck – this team isn’t very good”.
That’s just not good enough.

this is exactly it, they don't have a reason why their stats don't add up. I'm sorry but if having crummy stats puts us where we are then give me crummy stats all day. Who gives a ####? Seriously, nobody.

And Jiri also REALLY hit the nail on the head with the morning show. First they start off with this useless drivel BS, then when Rhett (welcome back finally by the way, holy #### do any of you guys come to work on a regular basis?) comes on the radio, they sort of blast the Flames some more. Saying it's unsustainable, etc etc etc.

Holy crap, know your audience and the feel of what's going on, exactly what Jiri said. It was so disappointing to listen to the morning show today.

And where the hell is Boomer? These guys just rotate in and out like it's optional. Very weird.

[troutman]

If the two teams started a seven-game series right now, who would prevail?

FLA would beat CGY in a 7 game series? LOL.

[-TC-]

The show goes rapidly downhill when it's only Pinder. he can't hold a candle to Boomer

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

As much as I agree actual standings matter a lot more than some dumbass who doesn't watch the games, I still have to put an astetisk there because it doesn't factor in strength of schedule. It's genuinely harder to win games in some divisions. You've gotta have a correction factor for that.

I like this site which attempts to give a weighted prediction.

It knows the season schedule and scores for past games. As games are played it grabs the new scores from the internet (or gets scores sent in from fans) and simulates the rest of the season by randomly picking scores for each remaining game. The weighted method takes the opponents record and home field advantage into account when randomly picking scores, so the better team is more likely to win.

The standings show that Colorado is only 6 points out of the playoffs with 2/3 of the season yet to play, but this shows that their chances are only at 4.8% to make it.

http://www.sportsclubstats.com/NHL/Western.html

[MissTeeks]

This was Rhett's line this morning:

Boomer & Rhett@BoomerAndRhett · 9h9 hours ago

Rhett Warrener: "I've been to the Stanley Cup Final three times on teams that would have terrible corsi ratings."

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

This was Rhett's line this morning:

Boomer & Rhett@BoomerAndRhett · 9h9 hours ago

Rhett Warrener: "I've been to the Stanley Cup Final three times on teams that would have terrible corsi ratings."

Drops the mic and walks off the stage.

Seriously, to anyone who took a stats class above the 100 level, hockey advanced stats are a joke. If you don't get it, take a 500 or 600 level advanced stats class. You'll laugh at this bull#### too.

[calf]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

This was Rhett's line this morning:

Boomer & Rhett@BoomerAndRhett · 9h9 hours ago

Rhett Warrener: "I've been to the Stanley Cup Final three times on teams that would have terrible corsi ratings."

Yeah, but he lost each time, so the advanced stats were eventually right

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I like this site which attempts to give a weighted prediction.

The standings show that Colorado is only 6 points out of the playoffs with 2/3 of the season yet to play, but this shows that their chances are only at 4.8% to make it.

http://www.sportsclubstats.com/NHL/Western.html

Its my favorite site as well, especially for power rankings!

Though, the weighted option for making the playoffs is really dependent on which teams are hot/cold at the moment. It results in much higher jumps in the chances a team will make the playoffs after each game. That's why I prefer 50/50 to predict actual chances in the long run(when it comes to placing bets). In Colorado's case their chances to make the playoffs are 23%.

Otherwise, it doesn't really matter 5% or 23%... as long as it is less than 50% the team is on the outside looking in.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

any good stats cruncher will readily admit the current metrics are very rough. once they get that system in place that tracks every player and puck movement, that will be a quantum leap forward and we'll really start seeing solid analytics.

the most annoying thing about the stats hijackers will be the broken clock/blind squirrel effect. when the Flames inevitably go on a losing streak (and they will), those guys will get even louder and more obnoxious, like "see? I was right all along"...ignoring the fact that they looked totally clueless for several months prior.

From what I can find, 5 year correlations between Fenwick and Corsi For versus wins is 0.25 - 0.3ish. If this is true, I can see why people are annoyed hearing about them to describe / predict team performances... because those correlation values basically say no correlation.

If I submitted a paper claiming causative correlations based on values of 0.25-0.3, I'd get summarily dismissed.