Advanced analytics are the Blackhawks’ secret formula for success

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That's my point. The building blocks were there before Bowman and his advanced stats.

Bowman's claim is that the process started in 2001.

[calumniate]

Anyone know who won the Oilers 'analysis' competition a year or so ago? I entered, but never did anything with it

[topfiverecords]

Burkie will pay cash.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by troutman

I developed this unique new program for gaining an advantage over other hockey teams. It's called "Score More Goals Than The Other Team."

Join your program with mine, "Let in Fewer Goals Than The Other Team" and we'll be filthy rich.

[Boreal]

With possession stats or "having the puck" advanced stats provide more insight into the who/what/when/where/why of having the puck & offence/defence. However, it comes down to how you incorporate the interpretation and analysis of the data into the holistic team strategy & the organization's personnel to carry out that strategy.

It's like Treliving said on MvsW podcast this week, "there is no advanced stat that says how well player A gets along with player B". The results of Bowman's system are hard to argue. Maybe they even used it to evaluate Toews higher in the draft in 2006, but they needed luck to draft him. If St. Louis or Pittsburgh selected him, no advanced stat or system is going to recreate his leadership & drive. The intangible attributes are why scouting is essential to player evaluation in hockey. More stats can provide more information to the story, but they're useless if the story has a flawed premise. In addition, if they're used the wrong way they have the potential to be toxic. Don't lose wisdom in a sea of knowledge, as a little information can be a dangerous thing.

[_Q_]

OK can someone please explain corsi and Fenwick for me?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by _Q_

OK can someone please explain corsi and Fenwick for me?

Brief explanation in the article:

In recent seasons, terms such as Corsi, Fenwick and PDO have crept into the hockey lexicon, even occasionally appearing on national TV broadcasts. Named after the people who popularized the stats, Corsi measures shot attempts (on goal, blocked or missed) against the other team’s. Fenwick takes out blocked shots. Typically boiled down to just even-strength play when the score is close (because power plays and mop-up duty skew the numbers) they’re used as a way to measure puck-possession — the idea being the more shots you attempt, the more you have the puck in the offensive zone. And while in small sample sizes, a hot goalie or a bit of bad puck luck can negate positive possession, eventually, the math will catch up.

Put simply when player is on the ice and their team generates a shot on goal, blocked shot, or missed shot they get +1 to their Corsi number. If they are on the ice when the opposing team generates a shot they get a -1 to their Corsi number.

Fenwick same thing except they don't do anything with blocked shots.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Is Toews "Advanced" and Kane "Analytics," or is it the other way around?

[sun]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Brief explanation in the article:



Put simply when player is on the ice and their team generates a shot on goal, blocked shot, or missed shot they get +1 to their Corsi number. If they are on the ice when the opposing team generates a shot they get a -1 to their Corsi number.

Fenwick same thing except they don't do anything with blocked shots.

The author seems to have forgotten about the ricardo grit index.

[_Q_]

OK so for example, I'm looking at Flames advanced stats for 2013-14, and I see corsi for at 51, corsi against at 57, corsi for % at 47.2. What does that all mean?

[JayP]

Originally Posted by _Q_

OK so for example, I'm looking at Flames advanced stats for 2013-14, and I see corsi for at 51, corsi against at 57, corsi for % at 47.2. What does that all mean?

Corsi for & against = shots directed on net (on goal, blocked, or missed the net)
Corsi % = Corsi for/(corsi for + corsi against)

51/(51+57) = 47.2%

It's actually very simple stuff. Most people that rag on it are just too lazy to spend the 5 minutes reading up on it.

[Flash Walken]

Like most statistics, I would wager that the success and failure of their system is dependent on tracking the information that is necessary while making a conscious effort to remove and not be swayed by the information that clouds judgements.

Any goof can record faceoffs and shots. It's determining the validity of the data in question for determining a valuation that is the difficult part.

[_Q_]

OK I've also seen things like QoC, what's that? How's it determined and how can it be used to analyze how "good" a player is?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by JayP

Corsi for & against = shots directed on net (on goal, blocked, or missed the net)
Corsi % = Corsi for/(corsi for + corsi against)

51/(51+57) = 47.2%

It's actually very simple stuff. Most people that rag on it are just too lazy to spend the 5 minutes reading up on it.

I don't think that's why most people rag on it

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by _Q_

OK I've also seen things like QoC, what's that? How's it determined and how can it be used to analyze how "good" a player is?

Quality of competition
For example, Giordano and Brody face not only the toughest quality of competition on the Flames, but one of the toughest of any pairing in the league. Despite that, their Corsi, etc is very high, particularly in relation to the Flames team.
Also of note is corsi relative (or maybe adjusted?) which is related to how much better you make the players around you. Again, Giordano is the excellent here, for example.

The problem with any of these measures is what exactly you do with them and how much stock you put in the data.

[SebC]

I hope Burke is a bigger fan of advanced stats than he lets on. Why wouldn't you want to use the best analytical tools available?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I don't think that's why most people rag on it

It's foolish to discount this information. It's also foolish to rely on it overly much. It's also not fair to pick and choose where/when to.
Everything that Treliving has had to say about it is the ideal approach, as far as I'm concerned.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by SebC

I hope Burke is a bigger fan of advanced stats than he lets on. Why wouldn't you want to use the best analytical tools available?

The issue is:
Use them how?
I. E. Big Ern, according to advanced stats, has zero value. Not only that, but is about as big liability to his own team as there is in the league.
I think McGrattan was great for the Flames. Brings much more than any analytics can measure. And that's the constant battle between the 'stats' guys and the other guys

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

The issue is:
Use them how?
I. E. Big Ern, according to advanced stats, has zero value. Not only that, but is about as big liability to his own team as there is in the league.
I think McGrattan was great for the Flames. Brings much more than any analytics can measure. And that's the constant battle between the 'stats' guys and the other guys

Not true at all. Data could reveal anything, just depends on what you're looking for. For example, what is the corsi for/against when McGrattan is dressed? Gut feel is somewhat helpful buy a wide angle lens will naturally see more than only looking at it one way

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

The secret to the Hawks being a cup contender likely has nothing to do with Stats. It is as many have mentioned, they sucked at the right time and got great players in the draft, namely one of the best Centers in the game Toews, a winger in Kane and one of the best D-men in Keith. Now if Bowman wants to tell me that their "stats" system is what led them to draft those players in spots that other teams wouldn't have passed on them, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, it's not what's driving Chicago's consistent stints at the top.

However, I am willing to accept that maybe a better advanced stats system is what is giving them a little bit of an edge....... an edge that means the difference between winning and losing with other contender clubs that also have some of the key pieces that Chicago has. That I'd buy. The difference between the handful of top teams in this league razor thin, so I have no doubts a something like what Bowman is talking about could be something that's giving them that last 2 to 3% of improvement, but I'm having a tough time figuring it could be the "key" to the development of their team. That has to do with the players they drafted a while back.