How Screwed are the Flames?

[getbak]

Here's Darren Haynes' counterpoint to the whole "the Flames have bad Corsi, so they suck" argument: Who Cares What Analytics Say?

Will there be a drop off in the Flames play coming up -- either later this month or next year? Probably. Will there be a lengthy losing streak as their luck evens out? Possibly.

But from a fan's perspective, isn't that even more reason to enjoy the prosperity of today. The losses are coming. Nobody thinks the rebuild is over. So you better damn well enjoy the winning.

Lamenting that the team is getting outplayed when there'e nothing you can do about it anyway just seems like a downer way to watching a hockey game. Maybe you should stick to watching movies instead -- although if you choose Rudy or Hoosiers, you might as well stick to watching the Flames games as the underdog story playing out in Calgary this season is just as good.

And while the luck will run out eventually, who is to say that doesn't happen at the same time the Flames start winning games on merit instead.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Where has Darren Haynes come from? He's become a must read for Flames fans over the last couple of years, after 25 years covering the team.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That's just so misguided. Some people just want to watch the games and enjoy the wins when they come, and these people will not care what analytics say. Other people want to engage in an intellectual exercise to understand what makes teams successful long-term, and these people will care what analytics say. Both are legitimate ways to enjoy hockey.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's just so misguided. Some people just want to watch the games and enjoy the wins when they come, and these people will not care what analytics say. Other people want to engage in an intellectual exercise to understand what makes teams successful long-term, and these people will care what analytics say. Both are legitimate ways to enjoy hockey.

I hope you didn't just call Lambert's writing "intellectual".

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't think I did... let me read again.

Nope. Didn't.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's just so misguided. Some people just want to watch the games and enjoy the wins when they come, and these people will not care what analytics say. Other people want to engage in an intellectual exercise to understand what makes teams successful long-term, and these people will care what analytics say. Both are legitimate ways to enjoy hockey.

Not misguided at all. Considering the opening lines I think it's a direct response to the annoying analytic fanboys who flood his twitter after the Flames win.

Winning games they have no business winning. If there's a theme to this season, that's been it and it's a quality that is driving the advanced stats extremists crazy.

I know this because immediately after Flames wins -- like clockwork, out come the line graphs from the analytics folks, insistently pointing out the opposition line and how it's way up there and the Flames line and how it's way down there. Calgary should not have won that game, this grid proves it.

[flames_fan_down_under]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's just so misguided. Some people just want to watch the games and enjoy the wins when they come, and these people will not care what analytics say. Other people want to engage in an intellectual exercise to understand what makes teams successful long-term, and these people will care what analytics say. Both are legitimate ways to enjoy hockey.

I don't think it's about not caring about the analytics. I think it's more about recognizing that yes the Flames success is likely unsustainable but there is nothing wrong with enjoying the wins. It's also pretty apparent that Treliving has a realistic outlook of this team, is stockpiling picks and has a vision of building towards the future.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's just so misguided. Some people just want to watch the games and enjoy the wins when they come, and these people will not care what analytics say. Other people want to engage in an intellectual exercise to understand what makes teams successful long-term, and these people will care what analytics say. Both are legitimate ways to enjoy hockey.

If that's what you think discussing Corsi is, I don't know what to say to you.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If that's what you think discussing Corsi is, I don't know what to say to you.

It's about feeling superior. I chuckled at the intellectual discussion part.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If that's what you think discussing Corsi is, I don't know what to say to you.

This. Running the numbers through an excel macro is not "discussion", nor is it finding out why things are the way they are. If you really want to provoke discussion then why not try and find models for the teams that buck the current ones?

[dash_pinched]

Wow, thanks for telling me that you cannot engage in intellectual discussions about hockey with utilizing advanced statistics. Can you possibly be more condescending?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's just so misguided. Some people just want to watch the games and enjoy the wins when they come, and these people will not care what analytics say. Other people want to engage in an intellectual exercise to understand what makes teams successful long-term, and these people will care what analytics say. Both are legitimate ways to enjoy hockey.

Jesus. You are talking about watching sports.

I have several stats of my own that that tell me that over both the short and long term, I don't care about advanced stats. I do, however, know enough about them to know this isn't exactly the theory of relativity. It's watching sports. It is not an "intellectual exercise".

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

I hope you didn't just call Lambert's writing "intellectual".

I had a hearty chuckle at this

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's just so misguided. Some people just want to watch the games and enjoy the wins when they come, and these people will not care what analytics say. Other people want to engage in an intellectual exercise to understand what makes teams successful long-term, and these people will care what analytics say. Both are legitimate ways to enjoy hockey.

Ugh, give it a rest.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by dash_pinched

Wow, thanks for telling me that you cannot engage in intellectual discussions about hockey with utilizing advanced statistics. Can you possibly be more condescending?

Intelligent discussion about "advanced stats" would be something along the lines of: The advanced stats say that the Flames should not be winning the games that they are winning, but they are winning them. Why are they winning these games when other teams with similar numbers are near the bottom of the league? Is there something about the way the Flames play that effectively counteracts the results we expect to see? Is there something lacking in the advanced stats we're using today that do not account for the Flames' style of play?

The advanced stats say that the Flames performance is unsustainable over the long term, yet, here we are with 80% of the season behind us, and the Flames have sustained it. What are the advanced stats missing?


Instead what we get is: The Flames are bad. The Flames' numbers are bad. We know that we are correct and we have already answered all the questions. The Flames are going to start losing any day now, and then we'll be proven correct.

That sort of "discussion" is as anti-intellectual as you can get.

[Street Pharmacist]

The is an awful lot of intelligent discussion going on. If CorsiHockeyLeague was taking about the interesting work going on I agree. If he's referencing that article, I don't.

He/she has brought some interesting takes already, but this Lambert article isn't that. It's intellectually bankrupt blatant trolling. What interesting or intelligent point did it make?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by dash_pinched

Wow, thanks for telling me that you cannot engage in intellectual discussions about hockey with utilizing advanced statistics. Can you possibly be more condescending?

I really don't think he meant that.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If that's what you think discussing Corsi is, I don't know what to say to you.

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

It's about feeling superior. I chuckled at the intellectual discussion part.

If your general view is that people who like to talk about this stuff are smarmy and arrogant, I'd just say re-read your own posts here. The sneering derision towards analytics on this board (and as has been pointed out, any board dedicated to any hockey team that has a season like this one) is at least as grating - partly because there's absolutely no substance underlying it. Those kind of cheap drive-by lines do seem to generate thanks clicks, though, so I guess you're getting the pats on the back you set out for.

Originally Posted by getbak

Intelligent discussion about "advanced stats" would be something along the lines of: The advanced stats say that the Flames should not be winning the games that they are winning, but they are winning them. Why are they winning these games when other teams with similar numbers are near the bottom of the league? Is there something about the way the Flames play that effectively counteracts the results we expect to see? Is there something lacking in the advanced stats we're using today that do not account for the Flames' style of play?

This is basically correct, as long as you also realize that a significant chunk of the answer to "why" is going to involve randomness. Same for previous years. How did Colorado succeed last year? There was plenty of discussion about the "why", and the other side of it is always the "can we reasonably expect this to continue, and to what degree".

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The is an awful lot of intelligent discussion going on. If CorsiHockeyLeague was taking about the interesting work going on I agree. If he's referencing that article, I don't. He/she has brought some interesting takes already, but this Lambert article isn't that. It's intellectually bankrupt blatant trolling. What interesting or intelligent point did it make?

I said earlier, I think it's a bad article, though I think it raises interesting points about how to build a team's blue line corps. These points are lost in the din that's raised by the usual blunt "Flames suck at hockey" line in Lambert's articles this year. He's also raising the correct if somewhat obvious point that awards voters are completely out to lunch when it comes to giving out Norris trophies. I see those as the nuggets of usefulness in an otherwise poorly put together piece. I don't see much in the way of interesting statistical analysis (except in so far as he's defending how good the top pairing has been for two years running now).

[heep223]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's just so misguided. Some people just want to watch the games and enjoy the wins when they come, and these people will not care what analytics say. Other people want to engage in an intellectual exercise to understand what makes teams successful long-term, and these people will care what analytics say. Both are legitimate ways to enjoy hockey.

This post is exactly what discredits advanced stats. For some reason the majority of Corsi advocates think in terms of right vs. wrong and have this unwarranted defensive attitude. Why can't we just look at shot attempt differentials as another stat in the big conversation? It could be another useful stat in the big puzzle of stats, why does it have to be "if you don't care about Corsi than you don't have an intellectual interest in the game"? The truth is somewhere in the middle.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't think I did... let me read again.

Nope. Didn't.

Phew. Sure seemed like that was your implication.