Francis: Treliving filled with disappointment, anger after team's collapse

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Can one not visualize and analyze at the same time? Does it have to be mathematically calculated in %'s and CORSI to count as legit analysis?
Honest question.

If you're that confident that your vision isn't biased then I guess so.

Not sure anyone can say that though.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Didn't say that at all ... in fact I said Gulutzan's effectiveness was up to each to decide, but that Monahan is improving.

The offensively elite can develop 200 foot games, and I think that's key.

I'm not too worried about Hamonic becoming Bobby Orr on a team that has Giordano and Hamilton.

Bobby Orr?

I believe you would take offense if someone grossly exaggerated your statement to make a point.

[nik-]

I think if you're seeing great corsi numbers and then seeing the team consistently lose games and slide down the standings, it's pretty reasonable to say the team is poor.

It's been pretty clear the positive numbers where they exist weren't translating to actual success for a long time now. That's not really bias, but how is one supposed to present an "analysis" for this?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Show my your analysis then.

I didn't discredit anyone. I'm saying I think it should be looked at. It would be prudent.

Arriving at a conclusion without an analysis isn't an analysis

You don't need to make yet another analysis.

Try a thought experiment.

Take corsi. Now, it's a correlation, so right on that basis it should not be trusted.

But hey, why the hell not.

So let's say that corsi has a direct effect on game points. That is, the higher a team's corsi, the more points they should have. Points are the majority measure by which teams make the playoffs (ties in points notwithstanding, but for this exercise it's not important).

I'm not going to bother to do the math because it's so obvious, but basically this means that the Flames should finish second this year.

So everybody knows that this is ridiculous. What to do?

Well, you can refine your data so that you're getting more data on different things. The one thing I have noticed is that the fancy stats guys in general are rather poor lateral thinkers. So then we have spurious things like PDO.

In general, a great data validity exercise is to take your dataset and generate a model with it. Does the model match with reality? It's really easy with sports because the dataset are so tiny.

[smiggy77]

Originally Posted by zamler

When I said "fire him already" that was in a general context not do it this second or else. I don't think firing him today would be the most egregious thing ever done either.

It sure sounds like you meant that based on your posts in this thread and the other 100 threads you mention firing GG on.

[delayedreflex]

Originally Posted by Bingo

And maybe the thing you guys don't see in me is my obsession with getting my bias out of things.

I love having stats that take passion from the view.

With the advent of advanced stats it gives me an overlay to watch the game. When I see a period of play I check the stats when I'm live or later if I'm not to see if the numbers support what I'm seeing.

More often than not they do.

But I'm not arrogant enough to think my view is the only view, or that my view is the correct view so I suggested what I'd do to get rid of another layer of bias is look at those high danger chances.

So I'm not judging anyone.

I'm open to the stats being wrong the whole time.

I posted this in the Coyotes PGT but thought here might be a bit more relevant:

I found this older article (also part 1 here)which shows that shot location is not a good enough determiner of shot quality. Are the "high danger chances" that are usually tracked just based on shot location, or does it also take into account puck movement prior to the shot? According to this article, goalies still save like 90% of clean shots in the high danger area, even though overall they only save 75-80% of the total shots from that area. On transition shots and deflections, goalies seem to only save ~70% of the shots, and ~76% for shots off rebounds (though the datasets show a lot of variance due to the smaller sample size examined).

A key snippet from the article:

But by focusing on just the shot type and not the location, it became quite clear that scoring success in the NHL was predicated on movement and deception. If you remove these elements even the worst goaltender in the league begins to look like Dominik Hasek.

It would be amazing if we could see this sort of breakdown for the Flames this year vs. past years as well as vs. other teams. Many people here say the eye test says that the Flames aren't getting real high danger chances, ie. the type that actually has higher chance of scoring, vs. clean shots from the slot (which might show up as as "high danger" chance if shot location is the only thing tracked).

Understanding if Calgary's large number of "high danger" chances this year are real or not will help us understand if it's a matter of luck or not. I would say if Calgary is really generating high numbers of real high danger chances (shots off transition, deflections and rebounds), then that would point more to a luck and/or player execution issue - however if Calgary actually ISN'T generating lots of real high danger chances, and is instead just generating clean shots in the slot, then that points more towards a systems issue.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's how they're coming across. And it's been happening often this season.

How many times has the term "level headed" been used in counter to people who wanted this coach gone long ago?

The evidence hasn't really changed all year, so taking an exceptionally long time to come to a conclusion others have isn't a virtue, and it's definitely not something which should be used to diminish the opinions of others.

If you choose to take what people have posted and extrapolate to the type of extreme thing you posted - that's on you.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Take corsi. Now, it's a correlation, so right on that basis it should not be trusted.

I think this is the trap that every advanced stat advocate falls into. Corsi does not correlate very strongly with team success. If you want a predictive measure earlier in the season of where your team is going to finish, then look at goal differential.

I do think Corsi is useful. But as I’ve detailed in the Tkachuk thread, I use it more for individual player assessment with respect to teammates, not use it to take the average of an entire team and trust it as an overarching performance indicator. It’s why I consider the whole “high danger”-ness of a corsi event such a useless, garbage metric.

Regular CF has a higher correlation to team success than HDCF over a bigger sample dataset... it’s a joke.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

If you choose to take what people have posted and extrapolate to the type of extreme thing you posted - that's on you.

I'm taking it exactly the way they meant it, and I assume you know that.

People don't bring up how they're not making the same conclusions as others as a result of them being "level headed" or "even keeled" as anything but a sanctimonious dismissal of people they disagree with. It looks extra silly when they end up towing the same line others they claimed others were being irrational fans for doing.

[4X4]

Pretty interesting thread. I guess I wasn't justified in my opinion of wanting GG gone, because I don't give a rat's ass about corsi? His extremely frustrating player deployment, and boring as hell system with zero momentum, that doesn't win games, weren't good enough reasons?

Pretty high horses some of you guys are sitting on. Basically saying that my opinion isn't as good as yours. Thanks for that. Look where all of Gulutzan's stupid corsi stats are going to land him.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Bobby Orr?

I believe you would take offense if someone grossly exaggerated your statement to make a point.

Didn't mean any offence.

I'm just saying the Flames really only have one defensive defenseman in their top nine defenders.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

I think this is the trap that every advanced stat advocate falls into. Corsi does not correlate very strongly with team success. If you want a predictive measure earlier in the season of where your team is going to finish, then look at goal differential.

I do think Corsi is useful. But as I’ve detailed in the Tkachuk thread, I use it more for individual player assessment with respect to teammates, not use it to take the average of an entire team and trust it as an overarching performance indicator. It’s why I consider the whole “high danger”-ness of a corsi event such a useless, garbage metric.

Regular CF has a higher correlation to team success than HDCF over a bigger sample dataset... it’s a joke.

Yeah, IIRC goal differential and regular season PK standing are the two things that predict SC finalists the best.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Pretty interesting thread. I guess I wasn't justified in my opinion of wanting GG gone, because I don't give a rat's ass about corsi? His extremely frustrating player deployment, and boring as hell system with zero momentum, that doesn't win games, weren't good enough reasons?

Pretty high horses some of you guys are sitting on. Basically saying that my opinion isn't as good as yours. Thanks for that. Look where all of Gulutzan's stupid corsi stats are going to land him.

Who said that?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Who said that?

Two guys named Corsi and Fenwick.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by delayedreflex

Are the "high danger chances" that are usually tracked just based on shot location, or does it also take into account puck movement prior to the shot?

It's more than that, but really hard to pin down definitively.

From what I've read every shot within home plate qualifies as a scoring chance, but there are additions and subtractions with points that qualify only 3s as high danger and 2s as regular scoring chances.

High Dangers Chances are slightly more complex than Corsi, Fenwick, or PDO. While those three have easily quantifiable metrics with which to create the stat, high danger chances have some subjectivity. Each site that tracks high danger chances have slightly different standards or definitions. However the basic premise is that every shot attempt is broken down into different danger levels based on the zone that it was taken from, whether it was a rebound or rush shot, and whether or not it was blocked.

High Danger Chances are shot attempts that have a rating of 3 or higher.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm taking it exactly the way they meant it, and I assume you know that.

People don't bring up how they're not making the same conclusions as others as a result of them being "level headed" or "even keeled" as anything but a sanctimonious dismissal of people they disagree with. It looks extra silly when they end up towing the same line others they claimed others were being irrational fans for doing.

So who is doing that? Honestly?

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Yeah, IIRC goal differential and regular season PK standing are the two things that predict SC finalists the best.

Here is some real, quantifiable data to actually prove it too.

Case in point - corsi is quite awful while used as a predictive model. It is much better seen as a performance measure.

[Shazam]

Pfft, we don't need no stinking regression analysis.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

What are you qualifying as a 'comeback'? Games that were tied up in the 2nd or early 3rd are borderline.

We tied up MAYBE one game with the EN this season. Tkachuk helped the team even up that one game with a couple goals in the middle of the third against Arizona I think it was? But unless we've evened up a game in the first few minutes of the third period, where the gap was no more than one goal, the Flames have typically folded like a cheap tent to finish games.

We ####ing sucked this season when pulling the goalie. And I distinctly remember the team being far, far better at pushing to tie in those situations under Hartley. There's no comparison when it comes to pushback.

The numbers represent the wins in which we've won games after trailing the 1st or the 2nd.

I agree we haven't been great with the EN this season. But really, outside of the miracle 14-15 season, Hartley's teams weren't great at comeback wins either.

Obviously everyone remembers 14-15 quite fondly, but the goals that were scored with the bouncing off legs, off skates, off backs of goaltender's heads were just so incredibly lucky that you really can't bank on it every year as 15-16 showed. We barely had any comebacks wins that season and it contributed to Hartley's demise as our coach.

[stone hands]

Advanced stats get a bad rap around here ever since they accurately predicted the miracle season was a mirage and extremely statistically unlikely to be repeated

Using anything to back your opinion up outside of the ubiquitous eye test gets you quite a ribbing around these parts