[Signing] Flames sign Jacob Markstrom. (6 yrs, $6mil AAV)

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Itse

And the only reason you are defending them is because they said Flames goalie good.

No, I just think your attack is over the top and unjustified.

I criticize hockey stats as much as anyone on here. They have small sample sizes, and there are far too many external variants influencing the actions that are attempting to be measured, in order to draw strong conclusions from them. Despite this, many fans, who don't understand how stats work, do in fact draw strong conclusions from them, to the point of often mistaking them for hard facts.

So I get what you were trying to say. However, you simply dismissed these outright, as arbitrary, without knowing anything about the process or the people that put them together. That is just as fallacious, probably more so, as what you were trying to attack.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No, I just think your attack is over the top and unjustified.

I criticize hockey stats as much as anyone on here. They have small sample sizes, and there are far too many external variants influencing the actions that are attempting to be measured, in order to draw strong conclusions from them. Despite this, many fans, who don't understand how stats work, do in fact draw strong conclusions from them, to the point of often mistaking them for hard facts.

So I get what you were trying to say. However, you simply dismissed these outright, as arbitrary, without knowing anything about the process or the people that put them together. That is just as fallacious, probably more so, as what you were trying to attack.

If these guys had said the same about an Oilers goalie, or a Canucks goalie, or a Kings goalie or a Ducks goalie, we'd all agree it's a dumb thing to say and that they don't sound like a very credible bunch.

It's just a really dumb thing to say.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Itse

If these guys had said the same about an Oilers goalie, or a Canucks goalie, or a Kings goalie or a Ducks goalie, we'd all agree it's a dumb thing to say and that they don't sound like a very credible bunch.

It's just a really dumb thing to say.

Lol

You've been replying with nothing but straw-mans for the last couple pages though?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Lol

You've been replying with nothing but straw-mans for the last couple pages though?

Uhh, that's not what a straw-man means.

But yeah, I've said what I wanted. People can choose to feel good about what ever they like, it's what the preseason so for I guess.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Itse

Uhh, that's not what a straw-man means.

But yeah, I've said what I wanted. People can choose to feel good about what ever they like, it's what the preseason so for I guess.

“ an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.”


“You’d disagree with this if it was said about a team you didn’t like”. “Look how dumb these buildings are, you can glance at something and accurately say it’s dumb”

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

Arbitrary means quite a few things. It also means "based on individual discretion".

Just because someone says that "these are the important numbers" doesn't make it so. This is one of the major misunderstandings of the whole fancy stats community.

Just having a system is not the same as "not arbitrary", and even further from "objective fact".

Stats like "bad goals" can by definition only be a arbitrary because "bad" has no fixed meaning and it's not a thing you can measure. You have to just make up some definition of bad, which is probably not going to be much better than someone else's definition of bad.

"Most goals scored" is not an arbitrary stat. "Best goalscorer" is.

SV% is not an arbitrary stat, "bad goals" is.

There is certainly discretion in picking parameters and how to weight them. But that's hardly arbitrary.

As Enoch pointed out the definition basically eliminates what you're saying ...

based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system

If they have a log of 32 stats there is certainly a system. There isn't any whim once they have built the model.

You can certainly disagree with the parameters used and the weighting, but to suggest it's just subjective arbitrary list wouldn't be fair.

Most "fancy" stats are pretty clear cut in what they are counting. Then they're pressure tested against actual out comes looking for the degree of causal relationship.

Most goals isn't a model. It's a summary. As we learned from 2018-19 to 2019-20, you couldn't project the Flames or their players simply by saying they did this last year, so that's the model.

Why? How? You have to look at circumstances beyond just a scoring summary.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

If these guys had said the same about an Oilers goalie, or a Canucks goalie, or a Kings goalie or a Ducks goalie, we'd all agree it's a dumb thing to say and that they don't sound like a very credible bunch.

It's just a really dumb thing to say.

Would they? I wouldn't. Maybe you shouldn't either.

I'm always deep diving on the Oilers to see how sustainable their success and failure is.

If numbers suggest they are unlucky I don't discount them, I begin to worry. Luckily that doesn't happen very often!

[Bonded]

I also don't think it is super hard to define bad goals. We know them when we see them during the game.



Low, medium, and high danger save percentages are a pretty good start.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I also don't think it is super hard to define bad goals. We know them when we see them during the game.



Low, medium, and high danger save percentages are a pretty good start.

I'm not sure about that. Low danger shots are sometimes heavily screened. High danger shots are sometimes someone shovelling the puck into the pads of the butterfly goalie.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I'm not sure about that. Low danger shots are sometimes heavily screened. High danger shots are sometimes someone shovelling the puck into the pads of the butterfly goalie.

As a starting point, I think they are a pretty good screen. If a goalie is in the bottom third of getting scored on low danger shots then they are likely going to be letting in more bad goals in general and they can dig-in from there.

[Enoch Root]

Exactly. You can establish a set of parameters as a definition. Then refine it and expand on it. It doesn't need to be perfection, it needs to be useful, relevant and measurable.

Then you apply it, and analyze the results. The important thing is to also analyze the validity of the test. This test, defining bad goals in the way they defined bad goals, had Markstrom at the top of their list.

It is what it is, and it isn't hard to follow through the process. If you want to argue whether this criterion or that criterion isn't valid, please do. But to just jump up and down and yell 'arbitrary', isn't very productive.

[Locke]

I love it.

"Oh no...Markstrom is having an off night? Welp. Guess we have to send out Rittich. Who is also good."

Its a nice problem to have. My only concern is that Rittich was given every opportunity to grab this job and didnt do it.

But as a backup? Big Save Dave isnt a bad fall-back option.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by Locke

I love it.

"Oh no...Markstrom is having an off night? Welp. Guess we have to send out Rittich. Who is also good."

Its a nice problem to have. My only concern is that Rittich was given every opportunity to grab this job and didnt do it.

But as a backup? Big Save Dave isnt a bad fall-back option.

I think BSD will be one of the best backups in the league this year. Given the last couple of seasons, he seems to falter when fatigue hits. The weight off of not being “the guy” and a lighter workload should be huge for him.

[Calgary4LIfe]

IIRC, the definition around 'bad goals' (and this is coming from memory, as I don't have too much of an interest in re-listening to the audio or even hunting around for it), was fairly straight forward:


Un-screened shot - goalie had clear line of sight
From a certain length away (so obviously, not right on the doorstep, not a breakaway, etc).


I have issues with a lot of stats and how they are measured, as there are some stats that seem subjective. However, I don't think this is one of them. Either a goalie had a clear line of sight or not. It is either 'x' amount of distance away (or more), or it isn't. Seemed pretty clear to me. This was a good stat, and I don't think it should be causing this much of an argument over. Unless I missed something, it was very clear how they determined what constituted a bad goal.



What also interests me is how many bad goals other goalies gave up. Did the next ranked goalies only give up 1? What about the median? What were the worst 2 or 3?


This is a cool stat to talk about, but it is essentially rather meaningless if there was a 15 goalie tie for 2nd with only allowing 1, another 12 goalies with 2, and the worst goalie having allowed 3. In this case, being the only goalie not giving up a bad goal is 'cool', but more or less irrelevant.


However, if the median starts being around 4 or 5, and the worst 7 or 8, then it becomes something more significant, instead of just 'cool story bro'.


However, arguing about how they determined what a bad goal was is completely irrelevant, as (IIRC), they did provide their definition, and it seemed logical and easily determined quantitatively, rather than qualitatively.

[Pellanor]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

What also interests me is how many bad goals other goalies gave up. Did the next ranked goalies only give up 1? What about the median? What were the worst 2 or 3?

From the article I linked earlier, Binnington led the league with one goal on 129 low-percentage shots. Rittich was last, with 10 allowed on 126. Unfortunately those are the only two data points provided. However he does note just how demoralizing those bad goals can be, with NYR losing 70% of games where they allowed a single bad goal, and NJD losing 90%.

[Squirrel]

I think Markstrom may struggle playing behind this Flames D which IMO is not going to be as good as what he had in Vancouver.

Also, what's the Over/Under on how many games he plays before he gets injured?

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Squirrel

I think Markstrom may struggle playing behind this Flames D which IMO is not going to be as good as what he had in Vancouver.

Also, what's the Over/Under on how many games he plays before he gets injured?

How was the Canuck's defense better last season?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Squirrel

I think Markstrom may struggle playing behind this Flames D which IMO is not going to be as good as what he had in Vancouver.

Also, what's the Over/Under on how many games he plays before he gets injured?

Interesting take. Flames D is far superior in my opinion. Craig Button called them one of the top blue lines in the NHL on the TSN preview show today. No idea why you think the Canucks had a better blueline last year than the Flames this year?

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by Squirrel

I think Markstrom may struggle playing behind this Flames D which IMO is not going to be as good as what he had in Vancouver.

Also, what's the Over/Under on how many games he plays before he gets injured?

I think he might be ok, Ward has them playing a better defensive system anyway.

[stang]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Interesting take. Flames D is far superior in my opinion. Craig Button called them one of the top blue lines in the NHL on the TSN preview show today. No idea why you think the Canucks had a better blueline last year than the Flames this year?

Button also picked Montreal to win the division to. He got into the hooch a little early today.