Brodie and Giordano make the "don't bet on these guys" list

[Tinordi]

The alternative to "advanced stats" are just commentators spouting off with their untethered opinions. A decade ago some sports columnist would have wrote a Giordano and Brodie are overrated without using more in-depth stats. Would you have preferred those articles? At least now people are constructing arguments based on more than a feeling.

If you don't like the conclusions drawn using stats then draw up your own conclusions and reasoning, its never been easier.

But can we all stop the incessant whining about stats? This type of analysis is simply NOT going away. Better get used to it.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The alternative to "advanced stats" are just commentators spouting off with their untethered opinions. A decade ago some sports columnist would have wrote a Giordano and Brodie are overrated without using more in-depth stats. Would you have preferred those articles? At least now people are constructing arguments based on more than a feeling.

If you don't like the conclusions drawn using stats then draw up your own conclusions and reasoning, its never been easier.

But can we all stop the incessant whining about stats? This type of analysis is simply NOT going away. Better get used to it.

You just said it in a nutshell. Advanced stats are not telling us anything we didn't already know. If they didn't exist you are correct in that media would be saying the Flames were playing over their heads and Brodie and Giordano are overrated. So why should it matter that some math nerd is telling us the same?

Have we really got to the point in society that we need metrics to tell us the sky is blue or that the Oilers are a bad hockey team? Really I simply haven't seen much to date with advanced stats that have a lot of value to fans that watch a lot of hockey. The only major value I see in them is for casual fans or people that don't follow the sport to be able to evaluate and somewhat draw conclusions.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You just said it in a nutshell. Advanced stats are not telling us anything we didn't already know. If they didn't exist you are correct in that media would be saying the Flames were playing over their heads and Brodie and Giordano are overrated. So why should it matter that some math nerd is telling us the same?

Have we really got to the point in society that we need metrics to tell us the sky is blue or that the Oilers are a bad hockey team? Really I simply haven't seen much to date with advanced stats that have a lot of value to fans that watch a lot of hockey. The only major value I see in them is for casual fans or people that don't follow the sport to be able to evaluate and somewhat draw conclusions.

The trouble is the stats tell us that the Oilers aren't a terrible team (depending on what you're looking at).

It's been said ad nauseum, but the stats are simply a way to confirm what you see, it cause you to question it. They aren't a substitute for watching.

Eggs. Ryan Lambert writes they play a boring style of hockey. No one who watched the games would say that, but an "advanced stats" guru who died nothing else like he does would just see a team getting shelled and pulling out flukey victories

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The trouble is the stats tell us that the Oilers aren't a terrible team (depending on what you're looking at).

No, the stats tell us the Oilers aren't terrible in terms of possession, not that they aren't terrible overall. One still has to dig deeper (i.e.: score effects) to understand why they have the numbers they do. And then one further has to account for the general uncertainty of hockey stats. Football and baseball are zero sum games. Hockey is not. That will always leave the sport more prone to outliers.

It's been said ad nauseum, but the stats are simply a way to confirm what you see, it cause you to question it. They aren't a substitute for watching.

Largely yes. They quantify what a (theoretically) objective observer would see, but can be great at countering confirmation bias.

Eggs. Ryan Lambert writes they play a boring style of hockey. No one who watched the games would say that, but an "advanced stats" guru who died nothing else like he does would just see a team getting shelled and pulling out flukey victories

As noted, Lambert is trolling for effect. As you note, watching the games remains critically important. Most advanced stats proponents I follow usually say the same things: "I don't think they can keep it up, but damn are the Flames fun to watch."

[SanFranFlamesFan]

Re: Gio's stats. I think these are kind of interesting and likely fairly explainable. His shooting percentage is lower than his career, but he's explicitly said that he's focussing on just trying to throw it at the goalie and get a rebound instead of sniping a corner. So that would explain why his shooting percentage is lower than normal.

However, his time On Ice SH% is really high, which means the team is scoring at a high rate when he's on he ice. Again, this is explained by the same thing - he's shooting for rebounds which is leaving easy (high SH%) rebound shots for his teammates.

I think his stats are quite sustainable.

Brodie 10% SH% is sky high and not likely to last though. That's a pretty crazy number for a D.

This is the type of thing that is interesting to me about advanced stats. They let your reason about things like this. Too many times the discussion just degenerates to "His % sucks, he's going to regress" or "I hate advanced stats" (i.e. the majority of this thread).

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

We aren't in danger, we are behaving exactly like Leafs and Avs fans did last year. But that is also a natural opinion. Nobody wants to see the Flames run end. Toronto's did, and horribly. Colorado's didn't - at least not until they had a division title banner in their pockets. The Flames could go to either extreme, or they could find a middle ground. And given how strong our start was, we wouldn't have to do too much better than middle to make the playoffs at this point.

Other than Aaron Ward, nobody expected the Flames to be anywhere near the playoffs. And nobody here should be surprised that the doubters remain legion. People will continue to question the Flames right up until we either fall out of the race or we get that little x beside our name in the standings. And even if that happens, people will question whether we can duplicate it next year.

My advice? Don't worry about it. The stats say that what we are doing is decidedly unlikely. If people want to question the long-term sustainability of the Flames play on that basis, let them. There is nothing that makes that an invalid opinion. Just enjoy the team's play for what it is.

The funny thing about the Leafs is their collapse was just as much, if not more of an outlier as their play earlier in the year.

It matched what stats people said - they were playing above their heads - so it counted as a success for the stats.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The funny thing about the Leafs is their collapse was just as much, if not more of an outlier as their play earlier in the year.

It matched what stats people said - they were playing above their heads - so it counted as a success for the stats.

PDO did, but most people saying the Leafs were going to collapse were pointing to their Corsi and overall poor possession, and that was terrible all year long. Their issue was unsustainable goaltending. Ours is unsustainable shooting. But I think our numbers are slowly equalizing without a serious impact on overall performance. Toronto's really didn't.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Except you didn't skip the post, polak. You chose to make an explicit point of whining about it. Next time, do what you claim to do and just skip by it.

I had to see the reasoning (k, confirm my guess for the reasoning) behind a so-called analyst saying to "bet against " the best defenseman in the world.

And I was right. Stupid, meaningless "advanced" stats.

[polak]

My post explained why I hate advanced stats. Its not cause they paint the Flames in a bad light. Its cause they discount staple aspects of hockey like the power play, momentum, shot blocking, keeping shots to the perimeter, transition play and discipline. How on earth people jump to these conclusions about these players with out even giving a shred of consideration to those things and then people actually agree with them, is something I will never understand.

[CliffFletcher]

Statistical analysis got a big boost in credibility among the media when the stats guys correctly predicted the decline in fortunes of the Leafs and Avs.

Will the Flames see the same decline? Maybe. I don't know. But I do know that statistical analysis in the NHL isn't going away. Some people like data and stats. People who dislike that approach to analyzing the NHL can ignore them. I do have a suspicion that if the Flames were lower in the standings, and the advanced stats crowd were saying the Flames should be getting better results and would likely improve, there would be a lot more support for advanced stats on this forum.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Have we really got to the point in society that we need metrics to tell us the sky is blue or that the Oilers are a bad hockey team? Really I simply haven't seen much to date with advanced stats that have a lot of value to fans that watch a lot of hockey. The only major value I see in them is for casual fans or people that don't follow the sport to be able to evaluate and somewhat draw conclusions.

You really think it's casual fans who read those articles? I doubt more than 1 in 5 people who have watched an NHL game on TV this year have the faintest idea what Corsi or Fenwick are. The people who are into advanced stats are the same people who spend 15 hours creating spreadsheets in preparation for their annual hockey draft. Hardly what I would call casual fans.

[EldrickOnIce]

I think the other meaningful part, when it comes to individual players, is that about half the articles out there are written from a fantasy sports perspective

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I think the other meaningful part, when it comes to individual players, is that about half the articles out there are written from a fantasy sports perspective

Absolutely. When money is on the line, you care very much about what is likely to happen. Emotion and fan loyalty don't enter into it (unless you want to lose your money). If these stats prove predictive - or at least more predictive than what we had before - they will be embraced by people betting on hockey.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by TheDebaser

I think the bigger threat is that they'll get worn out as the year moves forward. Part of me wonders whether or not the return of Raymond and Colborne as well as continued progression from Gaudreau will help these guys maintain their pace, even if they do run into a spell of bad luck.

We have a secret weapon tho. The new strength and conditioning coach that the plucked out of L.A.. The Kings always had the extra gear over the other teams late into the season and playoffs.