This is Definitely a Real Advanced Stats Discussion Thread

[Samonadreau]

First of all interesting idea and kudos for the work put in. But it would make more sense if the order of teams was reversed so that the 'best' team is 1st.

I'm also not sure why you would take a 0 out of the middle of a number and make it a different number. That 0 needs to be there.

[powderjunkie]

I crunched the numbers from last year. Turns out Pittsburgh was the best.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

First of all interesting idea and kudos for the work put in. But it would make more sense if the order of teams was reversed so that the 'best' team is 1st.

I'm also not sure why you would take a 0 out of the middle of a number and make it a different number. That 0 needs to be there.

You have to subtract the zero from the variable.

[Cycling76er]

This thread needs some hero charts for good measure.

[Inglewood Jack]

I chuckled a little I guess, but any interest out there in an actual stats thread? one with discussion between members that actually know or want to know more about this stuff? it would be a great place for guys like Street Pharmacist, Formulate, GranteedEV, even much maligned Ashasx to contribute without everyone having to sift through a whole bunch of eye roll emojis and other dismissive one-liners.

I'd read it for sure. but it would only work if there were a mod-enforced rule about no "close the spreadsheet and watch the game nerd" comments.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Well, I don't mind someone trying to figure something out using stats at all. I can't say I agree with the results, but kudos on starting a new thread where stats can be discussed and dissected, and people can gain some insight into this side of things rather than get shouted-down at times (and yes, I am fully aware I have been one of the people shouting down - PDO IS a joke, and no explanation will ever convince me otherwise).

My opinion of the advanced stats we currently are exposed to - most of it is junk based on loose correlations that are indirectly measuring something.

How about this for a novel idea:

Devise stats that DIRECTLY measure events and name them something that tries to explain what you are measuring. Crazy, right?

I will believe in the existing advanced stats when teams OTHER than Edmonton employ people to work with them. I think Burke's analogies of the existing stats is apt - something something drunk guy lampost something... I believe Treliving stated matter-of-factly that the Flames use their own in-house developed stats and do NOT use CORSI and the other stats out there.

So, while I don't agree exactly with FingerCooking's work here, at least he is trying to apply different things to see if there is correlation or if it is a predictor of any sort.

Columbus to me has been a team on the verge of doing a lot of great things, or falling on their faces yet again. One year they were on the verge of really making noise until injuries decimated them, and then they sucked again. This year I think they are playing to their potential. From watching them play, they are fairly dominant on the ice, and are backed by one of the league's best goalies for when they make a mistake. From that standpoint, I would infer that they should be near the top of the list, not the bottom.

However, at least someone is trying to think differently than trying to say how many shot attempts were directed at the net - regardless of placement and circumstance - and say this is possession. Call me crazy, but a hail-mary shot from the redline is NOT as important as 30 seconds of complete domination in the offensive zone, even though a few high-chance cross-crease passes just didn't connect as they just took a bad bounce on a patch of poor ice.

How about we time possession - just like they do in soccer - instead of trying to indirectly measure it? Makes more sense, no?

[darthma]

haha. This is awesome. More please.

[Iggy3x]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

First of all interesting idea and kudos for the work put in. But it would make more sense if the order of teams was reversed so that the 'best' team is 1st.

I'm also not sure why you would take a 0 out of the middle of a number and make it a different number. That 0 needs to be there.

I appreciate the effort as well, but taking out that zero doesn't make sense to me either. What happens if a team has a combined number of 1.100. There is no 0 in this case to take out. Granted the team would be crazy good (i.e. 90% pk and 20% pp), but not impossible.
It does give another perspective. Cool!

[TheScorpion]

This thread reminded me of this old article on PPP:

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/20...ke-on-grit-rgi

[Inglewood Jack]

Dear god, I don't even know who's still joking and who's not

[FBI]

Can somebody correlate weight with shooting percentage? Let's find out if fat guys have more accuracy or skinny guys do.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by FBI

Can somebody correlate weight with shooting percentage? Let's find out if fat guys have more accuracy or skinny guys do.

Fat guys have more power, but the skinny guys are way better at moving the puck and distributing it. They force double-teams just because they get in high scoring areas, and then dish it off for for a huge one-timer that goalies seem to have trouble stopping.

1 goalie
1 skinny guy
3 fat guys

They are such strong drivers of possession, and win championships along the way.

Medium guys don't maintain a high enough CORSI, and even their FENWICK is really bad. They also register fairly low on the GRIT index. Not many of them make it onto championship squads, even though they appear to possess everything you need in a hockey player. That is why Jarome Iginla was just so good - not that big, not fast and skinny, but a really solid medium guy.

[bigrangy]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

This thread reminded me of this old article on PPP:

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/20...ke-on-grit-rgi

It is really weird to see a thread in which Ricardo isn't immediately ridiculed.

If someone actually compared RGI historically to teams that have done well I'd love to see the result. It's interesting at the very least.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Holy hell this is definitely a real advanced stupidity thread

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

Dear god, I don't even know who's still joking and who's not

It's actually funny reading people's posts thinking this thread is serious.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

It's actually funny reading people's posts thinking this thread is serious.

At some point the time invested in reading a lame thread and its actually funny responses is less than the time invested watching a comedy special with, I dunno, whatever you prefer, say, Louis CK or Amy Schumer.

Respecting of course what is actually funny.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

I chuckled a little I guess, but any interest out there in an actual stats thread? one with discussion between members that actually know or want to know more about this stuff? it would be a great place for guys like Street Pharmacist, Formulate, GranteedEV, even much maligned Ashasx to contribute without everyone having to sift through a whole bunch of eye roll emojis and other dismissive one-liners.

I'd read it for sure. but it would only work if there were a mod-enforced rule about no "close the spreadsheet and watch the game nerd" comments.

This would not work when the primary goal as a poster is to be able to successfully identify opinions that are the norm in the community and being able to capitalize on Thanks currency through well-timed, first-to-post commentary that reinforces established viewpoints.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Well, I don't mind someone trying to figure something out using stats at all. I can't say I agree with the results, but kudos on starting a new thread where stats can be discussed and dissected, and people can gain some insight into this side of things rather than get shouted-down at times (and yes, I am fully aware I have been one of the people shouting down - PDO IS a joke, and no explanation will ever convince me otherwise).

My opinion of the advanced stats we currently are exposed to - most of it is junk based on loose correlations that are indirectly measuring something.

How about this for a novel idea:

Devise stats that DIRECTLY measure events and name them something that tries to explain what you are measuring. Crazy, right?

I will believe in the existing advanced stats when teams OTHER than Edmonton employ people to work with them. I think Burke's analogies of the existing stats is apt - something something drunk guy lampost something... I believe Treliving stated matter-of-factly that the Flames use their own in-house developed stats and do NOT use CORSI and the other stats out there.

So, while I don't agree exactly with FingerCooking's work here, at least he is trying to apply different things to see if there is correlation or if it is a predictor of any sort.

Columbus to me has been a team on the verge of doing a lot of great things, or falling on their faces yet again. One year they were on the verge of really making noise until injuries decimated them, and then they sucked again. This year I think they are playing to their potential. From watching them play, they are fairly dominant on the ice, and are backed by one of the league's best goalies for when they make a mistake. From that standpoint, I would infer that they should be near the top of the list, not the bottom.

However, at least someone is trying to think differently than trying to say how many shot attempts were directed at the net - regardless of placement and circumstance - and say this is possession. Call me crazy, but a hail-mary shot from the redline is NOT as important as 30 seconds of complete domination in the offensive zone, even though a few high-chance cross-crease passes just didn't connect as they just took a bad bounce on a patch of poor ice.

How about we time possession - just like they do in soccer - instead of trying to indirectly measure it? Makes more sense, no?

Well the problem with stats is that it doesn't account for everything. My personal favorite is the player usage chart, even though it only accounts for shot differential. I would like to see a more broad metric based on quality-of-competition and zone starts, therefore for players are subdivided into the following categories:

1st liner
2nd liner
3rd liner
4th liner

1st pairing
2nd pairing
3rd pairing

Once a player is in a given category, there should be a differential of their performance based on positive and negative events. These events would be:

Positive/Forwards
Successful shot block (D)
Body check (D)
Winning board battle (O)
Causing board battle turnover (D)
Successful pass (O)
Successful shot on net (O)
Contributed to faceoff win (O)
Did not take a penalty
Stick checked puck (D)


The negatives would be the opposite of these categories (ie, failed shot block/didn't try). The differential would yeild a metric that indicates their positive contribution to victory, assuming coaching system endorses these events. Then you would have a metric (ie, +1.5) that shows a player is a contributor and not a burden. Since that metric could be placed on a usage chart, you can then see if they're "A contributing/burden 1st liner with mostly offensive zone starts" or whatever. Then analystics could compare apples with apples.

This would be different that shot differentials because not every player is a shooter. Some guys just block shots and body check and cause turn overs (ie, Stajan). Assumingly a guy like Stajan would yeild a "4th line contributor with mostly defensive starts while facing an average of 3rd line competition", whereas a guy like Monahan would yeild a "1st line burden with all zone starts facing an average of 2nd line competition".

While it's not perfect, because theoretically you could have a coach who wants a player to stretch pass (ie, yield more turnovers) therefore the negative events are biased against them, it at least encompasses a player usage chart with more events than shot differentials

[GullFoss]

based on these advance stats, its pretty obvious iginla needs to be traded to Calgary if the flames are going to win a cup this year. But it has to happen now for it to make sense.

[Bingo]

pretty good tongue in cheek look at fancy stats and how they're derived. Well done sir!