[PGT] Blues 3 - Flames 1

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I was speaking rhetorically – since I was talking about sportscasters' rhetoric. They are sadly liable to make absolute statements by way of hyperbole: another way of constructing narratives out of nothing games. If they haven't used the word ‘unstoppable’ with reference to a team's momentum, it is because they haven't thought of it yet, not because they object to it as a tribe. And I do seem to recall the term being used from time to time.

Anyway: If this so-called momentum can completely change direction from one play to the next, then it is not a force at all. Not an unstoppable one, not a strong one, not even a weak one. Water down my statement as much as you like, and it remains true that the two things claimed are mutually contradictory.

In fact, I've read some of the work by hockey statisticians who have tried to quantify ‘momentum’. They concluded that it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, as so often happens, the links have since been borked.

I have read work by statisticians claiming that shot quality essentially doesn’t matter. This despite the facts that they are using inappropriate proxies for shot quality.

I have read statisticians that have tried to correlate shot quantities to winning and been fairly unsuccessful.

Momentum exists in my mind, but is probably too difficult to propose a model to measure.

What I can tell you is that scoring affects the game situation, often team mood and often play. Sometimes due to strategic adjustments, sometimes other factors.

It is far harder to get a goal than it is to give up a goal. If you are trying to argue that a weak goal is not demoralizing and doesn’t shift momentum, because statisticians can’t figure out how to model it, I don’t know what to do.

[jayswin]

PSA since they get posted quite frequently here. Tim and Sid generally release 13 - 15 minute videos. If you're going to post one and say "They talk about the Flames in this one" to make a point, please timestamp or at least say when it starts.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I was speaking rhetorically – since I was talking about sportscasters' rhetoric. They are sadly liable to make absolute statements by way of hyperbole: another way of constructing narratives out of nothing games. If they haven't used the word ‘unstoppable’ with reference to a team's momentum, it is because they haven't thought of it yet, not because they object to it as a tribe. And I do seem to recall the term being used from time to time.

Anyway: If this so-called momentum can completely change direction from one play to the next, then it is not a force at all. Not an unstoppable one, not a strong one, not even a weak one. Water down my statement as much as you like, and it remains true that the two things claimed are mutually contradictory.

In fact, I've read some of the work by hockey statisticians who have tried to quantify ‘momentum’. They concluded that it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, as so often happens, the links have since been borked.

They may have 'concluded' that it doesn't exist (incorrectly), but in reality, all they would have been able to actually demonstrate is a lack of evidence that it does exist.

Momentum is a very difficult thing to quantify and measure. And the simple fact of the matter is that very little effort or research has gone into this with respect to sports.

So let's look at a much larger field, where magnitudes more research has been done - finance, and specifically, securities trading.

One of the challenges with testing for momentum is the amount of noise you have to circumvent. Another is defining what it is you're looking for. Yet, in testing for momentum with respect to securities prices, there is now enough evidence that it is generally accepted as existing and persisting.

Most of the research I am familiar with was done by people (including Nobel laureates) who believe it shouldn't exist. And if it did, it should be an anomaly that would get priced out, the moment is was discovered. However, it appears, very much to their surprise, that it does seem to exist. And it persists and is pursuable (though consistently profiting from it remains extremely elusive, net of costs).

If we then look to determine whether momentum in securities prices holds any information that is at all applicable to sports, the thing I would mention here is that, unlike securities prices, humans are emotional and demonstrate things such as confidence (and a lack thereof). And that being the case, human behavior should be far more susceptible to a phenomenon like momentum than an inert thing like securities prices would be.

One note here: one of the things stemming from the research is that momentum is not always observable - in fact, more often than not, it isn't. But if we make the tests stringent enough, we can observe it in about 10-20% of securities at any given time. In other words, at its strongest, it is (or becomes) observable.

If we bring that lesson back to the (very rudimentary) testing done in sports, it becomes easy to see that in all likelihood, the reason they discovered nothing is that they haven't refined the tests enough yet. If you look for momentum across the board, it will get completely buried by noise. However, (at least as was found with securities prices), if you refine the tests properly, it is there.

Note: please don't come back with data mining arguments and such - the research I am referring to has been ongoing for decades by academics that don't need to be told how to conduct research. It has proven to be consistent, persistent, robust, and quantifiable.

None of this proves that there is momentum in sports. But one thing is certain: there is not proof that there is no such thing as momentum. And if we simply watch the games, it appears to be there for all to see, despite a lack of quantifiable evidence supporting it, to date.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I mean, you asked about backups so I gave you the answer of teams struggling with one of their two goalies.

Jones has been pretty far below average and he’s their top guy. CBJ definitely hasn’t seen the returns of a “proven, solid #1” in Bob with his .913, which is well below Rittich. In fact, Rittich is going toe to toe with Rinne.

At some point you just have to see that the Flames situation isn’t “teetering on the edge of goaltending abyss” this year. Instead, it’s eerily similar to almost every top 16 team in the NHL.

Of the teams above us in P%, Rittich is playing better than Hutton, about as well as Rinne and Anderson, with only Vasilevsky looking miles ahead than the competition. Call me a sucker for not being too worried, but if the Flames are facing a goaltending situation that might make their success unsustainable, so is nearly every team around us. That’s a nice reality.

If by 'eerily similar' you mean that the Flames have two goalies, like other teams, and one of them is better than the other, again like other teams, then sure - eerily similar.

If however, we are talking about the fact that our #1 goalie (as measured by playing the majority of the games), is clearly struggling to the point of losing the teams points in the standings,, and our backup has only played more than 31 games once in his career, and that was in the Czech league, then I would venture to say that things are not eerily similar to other teams. If we are talking about goaltending as the single biggest question mark of the team, which it is for the Flames, then no, I don't think it is eerily similar to the other 15 playoff teams.

[Robo]

Would have been nice to get a win in these last 3 games considering how favorable the oot has been

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

If you believe this, then you must also believe that the GM is either intentionally refusing to make necessary upgrades, or he is incapable of seeing something that is patently obvious to casual viewers from the other side of their televisions.

If there are available options, then why do the Flames not acquire one?

Treliving did say on the TSN 3-in-3 spot that he would wait until the team was fully healthy to make any significant roster adjustments. That hints to more of a deadline or leading up to the deadline move. Although the legwork for a lot of those TDL trades starts months back, so that's why we're seeing him make scouting trips.

He also mentioned that you need two goalies playing well to get you deep. It's not a barb at Smith by any means, but he's stated exactly what he's looking for here, no? One is playing well. One is not and does not look to be getting back on track.

I think he is still a good influence on Rittich as seen by his improved confidence in puckhandling, and hope he can find his way and sticks around. But if he isn't capable of delivering as a veteran backup then he will be replaced by someone else.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If by 'eerily similar' you mean that the Flames have two goalies, like other teams, and one of them is better than the other, again like other teams, then sure - eerily similar.

If however, we are talking about the fact that our #1 goalie (as measured by playing the majority of the games), is clearly struggling to the point of losing the teams points in the standings,, and our backup has only played more than 31 games once in his career, and that was in the Czech league, then I would venture to say that things are not eerily similar to other teams. If we are talking about goaltending as the single biggest question mark of the team, which it is for the Flames, then no, I don't think it is eerily similar to the other 15 playoff teams.

Smith was the number 1 to start the season, but its clearly not that way anymore, so weird argument.

So Rittich is your number 1 now and the backup has as many wins as your starter....doesnt seem like that bad of a situation to me?

Obviously BT will be shaking the trees around the league to see what might fall to him, but in the meantime the situation here is pretty tenable for now and likely why the club is in 1st place in the division.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If however, we are talking about the fact that our #1 goalie (as measured by playing the majority of the games)

In that case, Rittich has been the starter since mid-October. So again, not much to see here. Starter is one of the best in the league, backup is struggling. Par for the course.

[Enoch Root]

Rittich is playing more and more, but we don't know whether he can handle starter duties yet. And he certainly hasn't been the starter since mid-October.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Rittich is playing more and more, but we don't know whether he can handle starter duties yet. And he certainly hasn't been the starter since mid-October.

He’s started more games than Smith since that time, so I’m just going by your definition.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Treliving did say on the TSN 3-in-3 spot that he would wait until the team was fully healthy to make any significant roster adjustments. That hints to more of a deadline or leading up to the deadline move. Although the legwork for a lot of those TDL trades starts months back, so that's why we're seeing him make scouting trips.



He also mentioned that you need two goalies playing well to get you deep. It's not a barb at Smith by any means, but he's stated exactly what he's looking for here, no? One is playing well. One is not and does not look to be getting back on track.



I think he is still a good influence on Rittich as seen by his improved confidence in puckhandling, and hope he can find his way and sticks around. But if he isn't capable of delivering as a veteran backup then he will be replaced by someone else.

Of course this will happen. NO ONE is disputing that. What I have consistently been challenging is the reactionary notion that a change in goal must occur now—that the solution is obvious and simple. It’s not. There are a lot of factors to consider as you have pointed out. I wish that posters would think more carefully about a lot of these things.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Rittich is playing more and more, but we don't know whether he can handle starter duties yet. And he certainly hasn't been the starter since mid-October.

Yeah, in the current situation the Flames are in the designation “starter” simply does not apply. Right now, Rittich is getting more starts, but it is likely that he will see another stretch in which he sees fewer games than Mike Smith. I don’t think Rittich will start more than 50 games this year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I have read work by statisticians claiming that shot quality essentially doesn’t matter. This despite the facts that they are using inappropriate proxies for shot quality.

That work has long since been discredited. The work on momentum hasn't, to the best of my knowledge.

I have read statisticians that have tried to correlate shot quantities to winning and been fairly unsuccessful.

Ditto.

Momentum exists in my mind, but is probably too difficult to propose a model to measure.

In other words, you think it exists, but you can't define it well enough to propose an objective standard that will tell anyone whether it's there or not. It sounds a bit like the dragons in my office, both of whom are drinking beer (but I have no way of detecting their presence).

What I can tell you is that scoring affects the game situation, often team mood and often play. Sometimes due to strategic adjustments, sometimes other factors.

Score effects unquestionably exist. Those are not what sportscasters mean by ‘momentum’.

It is far harder to get a goal than it is to give up a goal. If you are trying to argue that a weak goal is not demoralizing and doesn’t shift momentum, because statisticians can’t figure out how to model it, I don’t know what to do.

If you are trying to argue that a weak goal is always demoralizing and always causes the team that gave it up to play badly for the rest of the game, I don't know what to do except laugh.

The Flames gave up two weak goals against St. Louis. After the first, they got their act together and put on substantial pressure to try to tie the game. After the second, they appeared to lose heart and give up. Your hypothesis about momentum accounts for one but not the other.

As I said, score effects are real, because a team with a lead has an advantage that it will naturally try to defend. Nobody disputes that. But when sportscasters and writers talk about ‘momentum’, they are referring to something more than that, which they construct in their own minds to make a game into a story.

The distribution of scoring chances, adjusting for score effects and the strength of each team, is essentially random over short intervals. One team may happen to get four or five chances in a row, just as a tossed coin may come up heads four or five times in a row. When people start seeing patterns in coin tosses, we call it apophenia, or the ‘clustering illusion’, or ‘hot-hand fallacy’. The research on the subject demonstrates pretty convincingly that the sportscaster's ‘momentum’ is an illusion of exactly the same kind as the basketball player's ‘hot hand’.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That work has long since been discredited. The work on momentum hasn't, to the best of my knowledge.



Ditto.



In other words, you think it exists, but you can't define it well enough to propose an objective standard that will tell anyone whether it's there or not. It sounds a bit like the dragons in my office, both of whom are drinking beer (but I have no way of detecting their presence).



Score effects unquestionably exist. Those are not what sportscasters mean by ‘momentum’.

...
The distribution of scoring chances, adjusting for score effects and the strength of each team, is essentially random over short intervals. One team may happen to get four or five chances in a row, just as a tossed coin may come up heads four or five times in a row. When people start seeing patterns in coin tosses, we call it apophenia, or the ‘clustering illusion’, or ‘hot-hand fallacy’. The research on the subject demonstrates pretty convincingly that the sportscaster's ‘momentum’ is an illusion of exactly the same kind as the basketball player's ‘hot hand’.

Okay, consider the Flames game against the Blues. I would say the Blues had momentum in the first (roughly), the Flames gained momentum around the time if the penalty that led to the goal, and through the second (had the majority of the shots), and lost momentum with the softie in the third.

There is no single well defined cause of momentum, but I believe it exists, in the sense of dominating balance of play for a sustained period of time. I believe a bad goal can kill it.

I think it is something understood to come about, but difficult to define and measure.

I don’t know. What are you calling momentum and refusing to acknowledge exists? Probably you need to define it.