Curses, Foiled Again

[edslunch]

On the whole, stats make some sense - shoot more, score more. Whether they are descriptive or predictive is an open question.

The real question is should I care about them? Unless I'm a gambler or a GM or a coach who is going to make decisions based on them they are irrelevant to me. As a fan I'd rather not know that my team is weaker than it appears (if that can in fact be proven). Suppose we get to a point of perfect tracking - does that help my enjoyment of the game? No, I suspect the opposite.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The shoot-out is a coin flip, no question about it.

But to suggest the OT 4 on 4 is just luck as well, I don't know about that. Dismissing it because of small sample sizes and thus being fairly inconsequential with respect to the overall standings - sure, that's fine.

But labelling it 'luck' is foolish IMO.

Well you would need to check whether year over year 4 on 4 performance is similar year over year for teams. If it is then it isn't just bad luck. The article above suggests it is.



As far as outliers go the kings are a boring one easily explained by bad luck in one goal games and shoot outs. As sad as it may be there is no evidence that clutch scoring exists, momentum, etc exist. We are just watching a coin flip 10 times and getting excited at it coming up heads 10 times in a row. When a team scores a goal is random the rate at which teams score is not.

The flames are an interesting outlier though. The reason for the flames success is our shooting percentage is high. And the skill vs luck question here is quite interesting.

[Dienasty]

I think the word "luck" is taken out of context in regards to OT. I think the point is that if a team goes into overtime it usually means that the game was evenly contested, and on that night the two teams were evenly matched thus they needed extra time to solve the game. Hence you would assume that in OT games that teams would be around .500. That isn't always the case but that is the general theory behind it.

My thoughts as to why the Kings aren't in the playoffs are for the following reasons:
1) They went Stanley cup, Western conference finals, Stanley cup. Last year alone they played 26 more games (not including OT) then the Flames/Preds/Canucks/Jets) all in the playoffs this year did, I think fatigue is a big part of it.
2) They relied too heavily on Doughty, mentioned above is all the extra games they played in the prior 3 years, and on top of that the #2 D man on the team only played 6 games. Thus Doughty goes from 25 minutes to almost 30 minutes a game that really taxed the defense. On top of that they weren't granted any cap space room and ran with 5 D a couple games when Voynov got suspended.
3) Tanner Pearson injury, he was a key piece in the top six and the only player with "game breaking" speed on that roster. Could have made a difference in OT when there is more room
4) They didn't buy out Richards, he is a useless player now clogging up much needed cap space. Really should have bit the bullet on that one.

At the end of the day I think the Kings will make playoffs and will be a serious cup contender next year.

[StrykerSteve]

Originally Posted by GGG

Actually the kings were very unlucky this year. 3-15 it ot and shoutout and a significantly under .500 record in one goal games.

In a 3-2-1 point system they actually make the playoffs.


This is what bugs me about those that wish to dismiss statistics. One singular event doesn't invalidate a statistic especially when you ignore that as a strong posession team they won 2 cups.

You didn't really just try to use the argument that in an imaginary world with completely different parameters, a team made the playoffs.... did you?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

You didn't really just try to use the argument that in an imaginary world with completely different parameters, a team made the playoffs.... did you?

Not really. There's been talk that the Kings actually benefitted from 15 'loser' points.
In reality, OT killed them... compared to most teams.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Not really. There's been talk that the Kings actually benefitted from 15 'loser' points.
In reality, OT killed them... compared to most teams.

I would say anyone who argues the Kings benefited from "loser" points has no idea what they are talking about. The Kings were fifth in the NHL in regulation wins. It was their overtime record that crushed them.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

You didn't really just try to use the argument that in an imaginary world with completely different parameters, a team made the playoffs.... did you?

No, I argued that in a system that measures the skill of a team more accurately and has less random elements in it would reward the Kings.

It supports the position that the Kings being eliminated has a lot to do with random chance.

[StrykerSteve]

No, it really doesn't. Random chance had zero to do with playing poorly for a large chunk of an entire season.

[Jason14h]

With the parity in the NHL luck plays a HUGE part in the game.

Anyone who argues the Flames have not been luckier this year then in past years is out to lunch IMO.

That doesn't make them a bad team. However, every Stanley Cup, World Series and Superbowl winner needs luck with teams being as even as they have been lately.

LA has been extremly lucky for there 2 cup wins, and this year were unlucky. When 5 pts in 82 games can shift you 6 spots in the standings luck will come into play.

The idea is over 82 games it SHOULD balance out, but that isn't always the case.

In fact the article even states:

The Kings have 93 points now; if the beat the Sharks at home tomorrow, they'll get 95. That's exactly how many regular season points the 2011-12 cup team had. The difference was the 2011-12 Flames only got to 90 points and finished 9th, while the 2014-15 Flames surged ahead and will get to 97 or more.


If the 2011-12 Flames had won three more games, that Kings team would have missed the playoffs, and no one would have known what they were capable of

Basically the Kings were the same team as always, but a few others teams did better, and LA sucked and/or were unlucky in extra time. Why is this so outlandish?

Realistically the reason is LA did not capitalize on the free Edm and Pho points that some other teams did.

[automaton 3]

Just because something can't be measured with the tools that you have, it should not be automatically classified as "luck" or randomness

[Jason14h]

Just because something can't be measured with the tools that you have, it should not be automatically classified as "luck"

Do you really believe luck isn't a factor in sports?

The Flames have had how many empty netters? One of those pucks bounces an inch either way and we 2 pts down.

LA doesn't deflect Johnny's hatrick goal into their own net and we're playing for our playoff lives today.

Teams are so evenly matched, a bit of luck CAN have a huge effect on the standings.

The idea is the better teams should prevail over 82 games and luck will 'even out' but it isn't always the case.

Why is it such an insult that the Flames have been lucky? Many championships have been won off 1 lucky incident. That is the nature of sports and why it is so enthralling.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GGG

Well you would need to check whether year over year 4 on 4 performance is similar year over year for teams. If it is then it isn't just bad luck. The article above suggests it is.



As far as outliers go the kings are a boring one easily explained by bad luck in one goal games and shoot outs. As sad as it may be there is no evidence that clutch scoring exists, momentum, etc exist. We are just watching a coin flip 10 times and getting excited at it coming up heads 10 times in a row. When a team scores a goal is random the rate at which teams score is not.

The flames are an interesting outlier though. The reason for the flames success is our shooting percentage is high. And the skill vs luck question here is quite interesting.

Again, I have no problem classifying SOs as luck. As long as one understands that 'luck' includes having a good season (like Tanguay did that one year with the Flames). It isn't something you would expect to replicate next year.

But to casually dismiss one-goal games with the same sweep is a HUGE mistake IMO.

Losing (or winning) the vast majority of your one-goal games is not random. It is earned. It is the reason the games are played. And LOTS goes into it - from PPs to PK, to goaltending, to matchups. And yes, it includes clutch scoring and a poorly times post or two.

If we are going to call one-goal games random, and dismiss PPs and 4 on 4 play, why don't we simply save ourselves a lot of time and simply flip a coin to see who wins? Or maybe vote for the nicest uniforms.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by GGG

Well you would need to check whether year over year 4 on 4 performance is similar year over year for teams. If it is then it isn't just bad luck. The article above suggests it is.



As far as outliers go the kings are a boring one easily explained by bad luck in one goal games and shoot outs. As sad as it may be there is no evidence that clutch scoring exists, momentum, etc exist. We are just watching a coin flip 10 times and getting excited at it coming up heads 10 times in a row. When a team scores a goal is random the rate at which teams score is not.

The flames are an interesting outlier though. The reason for the flames success is our shooting percentage is high. And the skill vs luck question here is quite interesting.

Of course it's easy to use "bad luck" to explain the outlier, because it's a cop-out in my opinion. There may or may not be something statistically odd with LA's lack of over-time scoring, but it's at least worth looking at rather than saying they're just coin tosses. Perhaps a team that has played so much extra hockey in the last 3-4 years is more tired? Maybe the extra few minutes makes a bit of a difference?

All outliers should be interesting until explained through something other than "a coin flip".

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Do you really believe luck isn't a factor in sports?

The Flames have had how many empty netters? One of those pucks bounces an inch either way and we 2 pts down.

LA doesn't deflect Johnny's hatrick goal into their own net and we're playing for our playoff lives today.

Teams are so evenly matched, a bit of luck CAN have a huge effect on the standings.

The idea is the better teams should prevail over 82 games and luck will 'even out' but it isn't always the case.

Why is it such an insult that the Flames have been lucky? Many championships have been won off 1 lucky incident. That is the nature of sports and why it is so enthralling.

For me it's using "luck" to explain away the 2-3 outliers *every season*. Do I believe in that much chance in sports? No. But you're also mixing in single instances of luck with longer trends. It's the longer trends that are less likely to be mere chance and are worth looking at.

[Yrebmi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The shoot-out is a coin flip, no question about it.

But to suggest the OT 4 on 4 is just luck as well, I don't know about that. Dismissing it because of small sample sizes and thus being fairly inconsequential with respect to the overall standings - sure, that's fine.

But labelling it 'luck' is foolish IMO.

The shoot out -while not my favorite thing - is not a coin flip. If it were then it wouldn't matter who teams choose as shooters.
There is a valid theory that future teams will start keeping a back up tender as a shoot out specialist who can fill in the odd game. Berra anyone?

Previous poster mentioned that killer instinct is not quantifiable as a stat. Know what, neither is luck, and I wish people would quit trying.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Thanks to everyone for an actual, level headed discussion on stats. I am still trying to understand corsi/fenwick in particular and their value as an analytic tool.
A couple of questions:
I can wrap my mind around the thinking that "quality" shots even out over a larger sample size, and therefore it isn't absolutely necessary to try and track or assess quality (which was an argument for the Leafs that one year). However, winning is all about scoring more than the other team, so shouldn't quality of goaltending factor into the equation? I hear Montreal as an example of an outlier, but to me, Price is that good, and I would not be surprised if they repeated their performance for a number of years. Unless goaltending is part of the picture, I have a hard time with that form of stat.
Secondly, I struggle with the predictive value. What is the sample size required? First few months of the year? If so, I think the eye test does as good a job, if not better than corsi. I read where the advanced stats crowd predicted 75% of the playoff teams. That isn't all that impressive to me.
Finally, is the thought that these stats are more helpful on an individual, rather than a team basis? The discussion seems to trend towards teams, but perhaps these are a better tool comparing individual players (in an attempt to build a better team).
Thanks in advance.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Yrebmi

The shoot out -while not my favorite thing - is not a coin flip. If it were then it wouldn't matter who teams choose as shooters.
There is a valid theory that future teams will start keeping a back up tender as a shoot out specialist who can fill in the odd game. Berra anyone?

Previous poster mentioned that killer instinct is not quantifiable as a stat. Know what, neither is luck, and I wish people would quit trying.

When people say luck (in terms of statistics) they mean statistically indistinguishable from random chance. It doesn't mean that there isn't a cause for it just that there is no way to prove it. Luck as defined above is quantifiable.

If you notice teams haven't employed a shoot out specialist yet even though it decides playoff spots. If you have a way to find one or even prove one exists a hockey team would pay a lot for that info.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

Just because something can't be measured with the tools that you have, it should not be automatically classified as "luck" or randomness

Well, the shootout has very little to do with skill, so in that respect, I would very much argue that it is the product of luck more than anything else.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, the shootout has very little to do with skill, so in that respect, I would very much argue that it is the product of luck more than anything else.

Some players are clearly better than others and some goalies are better at it then others.

Flucuations from the norm is different but its not like the Flames could put out Engelland, Bollig and Potter and have have the same results if they put out Colbourne, Gaudreau and Monahan.

I'm also not sure its luck.. its just small sample sizes. When you get 10 chances a year, a difference on one goal is a 10% shift in success rate.

I much prefer this explanation:

The NHL is no stranger to conspiracy. Throughout the league’s history, decisions by referees and other league characters have left us with unanswered questions. And with two generational talents expected to be drafted this summer, there has been considerable pressure on the NHL to improve the transparency of its draft lottery selection. However, as league critics have looked forward to the future of the NHL, many have missed a sizeable conspiracy going on in the present, right in front of our eyes.
During the heat of an intense Western Conference playoff race which featured the reigning Stanley Cup champions fighting for their lives, the Calgary Flames played three consecutive games without taking a single penalty. Their last call? April 2nd versus the St. Louis Blues.
After swallowing their whistles for the Battle of Alberta, the NHL’s tandem of referees once again refused to call the Flames on anything during their pivotal game against the Coyotes. Instead, Phoenix received four minor penalties during the game, including a “roughing” penalty to Mike Smith. (Perish the thought. Mike Smith would never rough.) In their final act, NHL referees gave Trevor Lewis and the L.A. Kings the lone penalty of Thursday’s critical contest. With the Flames up two after one period of play, the whistles disappeared, and the game finished as planned. Why, you might ask?
Because the NHL desperately want the Los Angeles Kings out of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Think about it…

http://vansunsportsblogs.com/2015/04...-playoff-spot/