A little validation at least.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Mike F

According to this report, that's not true:

Exactly.

Hockey is a simple game and goals for/against and save % have always been the primary stats that determine winning. Advanced stats might be able to give you a slight edge on those factors, but they are not the primary determining factors for winning. Corsi might help explain why one particular team wins, but that doesn't mean it can be applied across all teams. It certainly isn't relevant enough compared to the amount of attention it gets.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Mike F

According to this report, that's not true:

I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion that offence matters more than defence. I posted this recently (https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...0&postcount=41), that as at January 25:

5v5 Goals For to Points %: 61.8% correlative
5v5 Goals Against to Points %: 73.9% correlative
5v5 Goal Differential to Points %: 82.3% correlative

So 82.3% is under FFPhD's mandated 0.9 threshold but it's fairly close.

But there is a lot more going on in the "advanced" stats world than trying to correlate one particular stat to winning (i.e. points %). It permits player-to-player comparison in a far more granular way than the traditional stat line. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot more statistical information than we had before.

I just really don't get the arguments to throw out the whole enterprise because not every stat has a 100% correlation to proving something. It just seems so small-minded.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The building thing has been taken out, first by having venue adjusted numbers, and then I think again because the venues that were outed self corrected to some degree.

So that's no longer a problem.

Beyond that I don't think there's any issue with the data itself it's with the assumptions that come with them.

I wouldn't debate the fact that the Flames have had more shots inside the other team's home plate than they've given up. But I do think it's fair to debate that that's not a great way to measure scoring chances, or that the plate is too big allowing a huge disparity in value within the region.

But the data itself is pretty straight forward.

Yeah, sorry, I'm not buying this. Just the idea that they need 'venue adjusted numbers' shows that the data is seriously flawed. Who is doing this 'adjusting'? Can I see the before and after adjusted numbers somewhere?

There is nothing straight forward about the data. It is all being gathered subjectively and is filled with errors. Last night the NHL "statisticians" couldn't even get the goal scorer right on Johnny's deflection. Sure, they might eventually go back and correct that (but they haven't yet), but no-one is going back and correcting shot attempts that may or may not be actual shots, or re-examining whether a shot really was in the home plate area or was actually outside of it.

It would take thousands of man hours to do that manually, and no-one is doing it. Maybe, maybe, some teams are doing these things internally, but certainly none of the publicly available stats are getting this level of scrutiny. Until things are actually tracked by sensors on players and the puck, all of this data is flawed.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I mean this respectfully Bingo, but you come off a little biased and defensive when defending stats that you use quite heavily. I mean you state it's been taken out, but then state that you "think" the venues have been self corrected to some degree and then finish by saying "so it's no longer a problem".

What do you mean by you think? Like someone said something? There was a news release or an insider suggested it? You're assuming? Those were some pretty ambiguous points made with very sure statements bookending them.

Also, could you explain and show the "venue adjusted numbers"? (asking sincerely as I hadn't heard that had happened).

Not defensive at all, sorry it came across that way.

In the past couple of seasons venue adjusted and raw possession numbers have differed by less than 1%. I'm not sure where it used to be, but the big changes across the league have flattened.

The only thing I guessed on is the why; where I opined that the venue adjusting may have shamed counters in markets to change their biases because they were outed. I certainly don't know that to be true.

The current top five possession teams (five on five) unadjusted ...

1. Boston 53.68%
2. Carolina 53.5%
3. Chicago 52.95%
4. Calgary 52.35%
5. Edmonton 52.33%

The current top five possession teams (five on five) adjusted for venue and score (couldn't find just venue adjusted)

1. Boston 54.48% (up)
2. Carolina 53.33% (flat)
3. Chicago 53.18% (up)
4. Tampa 52.59% (new)
5. Calgary 52.32% (flat)

Edmonton moves down to 13th at 51.17% likely because they trail often and possibly because they have the biggest "adjustment" from venue.

Bottom line the numbers are trending towards being pretty tight when biases are being analyzed and removed.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I believe the problem is that the Flames play road games at home.

The Flames are 5th in the NHL in road GF% at 52.75% - this is a great stat. For comparision, 18th place Chicago is 46.82% on the road.

However, at home, where the 5th place team in GF% is sitting at a whopping 59.55%, the Flames are sitting at a mediocre 18th place at 51.7%.

In a vacuum, 51.7% is a good overall GF%, but it's not a good GF% for a home team.

I believe this is because Gulutzan is not good at playing the game within the game... dictating forechecking assignments and that sort of thing. All the shots in the world don't matter if Curtis Lazar is taking them. We simply don't dictate the play even when we have the last change.

But the Flames are still a dominant team in terms of scoring chances at home, ranked third in the league with a split of 58%

Their home shooting percentage in high danger situations is 14th however.

On the road the Flames are ranked 10th in chance splits at 50.1% but have a high danger shooting percentage even lower at a rank of 28th.

The Flames don't finish anywhere, but Mike Smith is a brick wall when wearing white (almost 4% higher save percentage).

It's not a coaching differential in the numbers anyway

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Exactly.

Hockey is a simple game and goals for/against and save % have always been the primary stats that determine winning. Advanced stats might be able to give you a slight edge on those factors, but they are not the primary determining factors for winning. Corsi might help explain why one particular team wins, but that doesn't mean it can be applied across all teams. It certainly isn't relevant enough compared to the amount of attention it gets.

Corsi is certainly relevant when comparing teams at 5 on 5 play. You will never see a 29th or 30th place team with a top five corsi. It will never happen.

Corsi shouldn't be treated as a be all and end all, and I think any backlash against advanced stats is more aimed at those stats guys who claim that advanced stats give all of the answers rather than just a better picture.

I like being able to take a nuanced look at what is happening in hockey games. Being able to break down stats by game state and situation is huge for the regular fans who previously had to rely on TV talking heads and their hot take narratives for info on how teams were coming about their success/failures.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Corsi is certainly relevant when comparing teams at 5 on 5 play. You will never see a 29th or 30th place team with a top five corsi. It will never happen.

Corsi shouldn't be treated as a be all and end all, and I think any backlash against advanced stats is more aimed at those stats guys who claim that advanced stats give all of the answers rather than just a better picture.

I like being able to take a nuanced look at what is happening in hockey games. Being able to break down stats by game state and situation is huge for the regular fans who previously had to rely on TV talking heads and their hot take narratives for info on how teams were coming about their success/failures.

This exactly

Eye test aligned with stats brings confidence.
When they don't align both should be questioned.

To many stats guys point to a spreadsheet only and are arrogant about it.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by colbym72

I am a supporter of advanced stats and when I see things like this and wonder why Calgary hasn't done better, you have to look further. The Flames are 2nd in High Danger Chance % but 24th in High Danger Shooting Percentage. That is pretty glaring that the chances are there but they need to convert them.

To me, this is the key with this team under Gulutzan. You can go on and on about how great the flames look from a 5-5 and possession metrics and that's a big deal. However, the team struggles in many of the high danger statistical categories and this points to a lack of finish, skill or however you want to look at it. This is a big reason why the PP is so terrible and is costing the team wins and maybe even a playoff spot when the dust settles.

What's the answer? I'm not sure, but playing players like Bennett, Brouwer on special teams and with relatively hefty 5-5 minutes is not helping matters in those categories.