I sometimes muse about the NHL handing over the running of a team - managing, coaching, scouting, everything. - to a bunch of analytics nerds who don’t watch the game live, never played, never coached at any level, or do any of that other ‘traditional’ stuff. If they just made every decision from laptops at home based entirely on data and analytics. I’m genuinely curious how good that team would be.
I thought Kyle Dubas was supposed to be an analytical GM and bring on a new era of decision making based heavily on analytics. I'm not sure if he accomplished that and I don't know if his tenure with Toronto is indicative of what could be done.
I sometimes muse about the NHL handing over the running of a team - managing, coaching, scouting, everything. - to a bunch of analytics nerds who don’t watch the game live, never played, never coached at any level, or do any of that other ‘traditional’ stuff. If they just made every decision from laptops at home based entirely on data and analytics. I’m genuinely curious how good that team would be.
Wasnt that essentially John Chayka.
The Following User Says Thank You to Samonadreau For This Useful Post:
I can’t listen to much of it all. Maybe that’s just me being tired of sports talk in general, which just seems to be recycled discussions over and over. Boomer is a pro, I’ll give them that and he can carry a show. I kind of like Dreger when he is on as well. There are two dude bro’s that sometimes do afterburner. I kind of like them, because they don’t take themselves nearly as seriously as most of the others and can be funny.
Speaking of bad radio, 960 was playing a Krahn sitdown with Vernon. I guess what I heard was part 2. That was embarrassingly bad, Krahn saying he was a huge Vernon fan but then had to ask who they played in the various rounds 89. In general, he showed zero preparation and could not talk in complete sentences.
It sort of highlights just how much work goes into being a radio/podcast host and interviewer, when I feel these people often aren't given any or enough credit for their craft and ability. To be good, you need to take the time and research, but also when you're inexperienced, take the time to practice and rehearse. It's clear which people (hosts or non-hosts) on Barnburner are newer to talking for more than 2 minutes whenever they're on as their conversations, etc. are awkward, unlike when it's Boomer or Cammy.
I can’t listen to much of it all. Maybe that’s just me being tired of sports talk in general, which just seems to be recycled discussions over and over. Boomer is a pro, I’ll give them that and he can carry a show. I kind of like Dreger when he is on as well. There are two dude bro’s that sometimes do afterburner. I kind of like them, because they don’t take themselves nearly as seriously as most of the others and can be funny.
Speaking of bad radio, 960 was playing a Krahn sitdown with Vernon. I guess what I heard was part 2. That was embarrassingly bad, Krahn saying he was a huge Vernon fan but then had to ask who they played in the various rounds 89. In general, he showed zero preparation and could not talk in complete sentences.
To be fair he was seven years old in 89.
The Following User Says Thank You to topfiverecords For This Useful Post:
1. Barnburner - best in-depth Flames analysis and debate. Great personalities, guests and interviews with former players and folks in the Flames “orbit”. I also enjoy when they talk about other sports, especially NFL. The weekly segment with Noodles is a must-listen. I just skip ahead when they do the non-sports stuff and play YouTube bloopers (which I can’t see in podcast form anyway).
2. Flames Talk - Pat and the guys are great. You get to hear directly from players/coaches etc. Yes it is a bit more “friendly” and corporate than then the others. But it’s the only one that’s really affiliated with the team. Again, Pat is a gem.
3. In the Dome - just two hilarious passionate Flames fans talking hockey. Can skew a bit negative towards Flames ownership/management but I enjoy their takes and game breakdowns. It’s like a little support group/therapy session for Flames fans. Especially when the Oilers were in the playoffs.
Love to hear any other Flames or general hockey podcast recommendations.
They literally do tell the whole story of what’s happening on the ice. You’re describing the “eye test.”
Yes, they literally tell the whole story (for some things) in the sense that all 10 players on the ice are being quantified. However, only in very general ways, and often not very accurately- very important variables, like time and space, aren't quantified.
Also, they don't track everything- there are intangible things, and difficult to quantity things, which they can't track.
And that is a good thing because if sports could be thoroughly quantified, they would be a lot less interesting
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
In a sense, sports can be thoroughly quantified: that is, it's possible, with enough sensors and enough data-collecting power, to come up with metrics describing everything that goes on in a particular sporting activity. But this in itself accomplishes nothing, except to give wanking material to stats nerds.
Consider chess. The world's best chess players are now computers, merely because they operate very, very fast and can churn through millions of possible move combinations without running out the chess clock, while human players, though much more efficient, work much more slowly. But there is still no system that can compute the optimum strategy for chess; the number of possible games is far too large. The problem isn't computable.
In a sense, hockey is like a game of chess in which all the pieces move at once, each piece makes its own decisions, and every piece can make hundreds of moves in the course of the match – as opposed to the 30 or 40 total moves each player makes in a typical chess game. On top of that, no two pieces in hockey are exactly alike, because every player's reaction times, intelligence, and athletic skills are slightly different. Even if, by some miracle of processing power, someone could calculate an optimum strategy for hockey, human players would never be able to carry it out perfectly, and the essential element of athletic competition would remain.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
In a sense, sports can be thoroughly quantified: that is, it's possible, with enough sensors and enough data-collecting power, to come up with metrics describing everything that goes on in a particular sporting activity. But this in itself accomplishes nothing, except to give wanking material to stats nerds.
Consider chess. The world's best chess players are now computers, merely because they operate very, very fast and can churn through millions of possible move combinations without running out the chess clock, while human players, though much more efficient, work much more slowly. But there is still no system that can compute the optimum strategy for chess; the number of possible games is far too large. The problem isn't computable.
In a sense, hockey is like a game of chess in which all the pieces move at once, each piece makes its own decisions, and every piece can make hundreds of moves in the course of the match – as opposed to the 30 or 40 total moves each player makes in a typical chess game. On top of that, no two pieces in hockey are exactly alike, because every player's reaction times, intelligence, and athletic skills are slightly different. Even if, by some miracle of processing power, someone could calculate an optimum strategy for hockey, human players would never be able to carry it out perfectly, and the essential element of athletic competition would remain.
Well, no, stats just tell you what happened.
This has literally nothing to do with creating some ultimate strategy or whatever nonsense you’re talking about. They’re literally just there to tell you what happened and that, not “wanking,” is what they accomplish.
Some of y’all struggle too much with simple things.
This has literally nothing to do with creating some ultimate strategy or whatever nonsense you’re talking about. They’re literally just there to tell you what happened and that, not “wanking,” is what they accomplish.
Some of y’all struggle too much with simple things.
LOL with the attitude. Set theory explains this completely. Go learn it before you shout at other people.
I see PepsiFree (whom I put on ignore long ago) is trying to mock me by spouting from his own apparently inexhaustible supply of ignorance.
Believe you me, when teams keep their own statistics (and they do, copiously) it is not ‘just there to tell you what happened’, but to help them develop strategies and tactics that will allow them to win more games with the players they have available to them. They would not go to the trouble and expense of hiring programmers, statisticians, and the people who do video breakdowns, if they did not believe it would help them win. The public doesn't have access to these proprietary stats, but they are very detailed and granular and cover every area of the game.
But the proprietary stats are not designed to tell you what happened in a particular game. They are designed to identify the habits and limitations of particular players over a span of many games, so the coaches can use practice time more productively, and to spot the strengths and weaknesses of particular teams and systems, so the coaches can adapt their own systems to try to neutralize the strengths and exploit the weaknesses. None of this has anything to do with the statistics seen by fans, and none of it is ever published in a game report in the media.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
LOL with the attitude. Set theory explains this completely. Go learn it before you shout at other people.
Nobody is shouting. Have a better point before you respond to people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
I see PepsiFree (whom I put on ignore long ago) is trying to mock me by spouting from his own apparently inexhaustible supply of ignorance.
Believe you me, when teams keep their own statistics (and they do, copiously) it is not ‘just there to tell you what happened’, but to help them develop strategies and tactics that will allow them to win more games with the players they have available to them. They would not go to the trouble and expense of hiring programmers, statisticians, and the people who do video breakdowns, if they did not believe it would help them win. The public doesn't have access to these proprietary stats, but they are very detailed and granular and cover every area of the game.
But the proprietary stats are not designed to tell you what happened in a particular game. They are designed to identify the habits and limitations of particular players over a span of many games, so the coaches can use practice time more productively, and to spot the strengths and weaknesses of particular teams and systems, so the coaches can adapt their own systems to try to neutralize the strengths and exploit the weaknesses. None of this has anything to do with the statistics seen by fans, and none of it is ever published in a game report in the media.
It’s a good thing you have me on ignore but still respond to my posts. You’re always so brave, it’s why everyone respects your opinions.
You’re talking about two different things: what stats reveal, and how they’re used. What’s being discussed is what stats reveal, and despite you trying to dispute my position on what stats reveal by talking about how they’re used, you’re supporting it completely and agreeing with me while calling me ignorant (and mocking stats as useless and nerds, before responding by talking about how useful they are lol).. It’s endlessly entertaining watching you embarrass yourself, which is why you’ll never be on my ignore list. Maybe mix in some political opinions so I get peak comedy.
The reason stats can be used to inform training, team strategy, etc is because they tell the whole story. Danielle Fujita isn’t basing her training on whether a player looks “visually slow,” you can bet she’s got, as you said, detailed metrics that include how a player is skating in-game.
What’s important to recognize, which a couple of you are missing so I’ll repeat again, is that “the whole story” is not a magic trick. Just because stats reveal the whole story of what’s happening on the ice does not mean they predict the future, guarantee some infallible team strategy, or make hockey any more or less boring. They’re not for “wanking” or “useless,” they’re literally just data. How they’re used is another story completely. You don’t have to be scared of them or think they’re some mystical voodoo or, worse, that they somehow diminish the mystical voodoo that is hockey.
Really enjoyed today's episode. Pinder made himself cry making up a story about Weisbrod going to watch Jankowski light it up against a team from a school for the blind.
Barnburner is appointment viewing right now. There were a couple of clips after game 1, with Rhett talking about how bad Bouchard was, and then about how poorly constructed the Oilers are outside 97/29. There's a clip with Pinder saying they looked at each other on the bench and were like "so, is no one else gonna....alright, here we go" that I've watched about 10 times. Inject that straight into my veins!
Not barnburner but adjacent....Cam and Strick in their podcast around the 25 min mark just ripping on Bouchard. Edmonton would be a disaster if they pay him $9-10mm.
__________________
.
"Fun must be always!" - Tomas Hertl
The boys following that viral story with the Aussie twins that speak in unison has definitely been the highlight of the show this week. Jack is at a complete loss for words haha
Not barnburner but adjacent....Cam and Strick in their podcast around the 25 min mark just ripping on Bouchard. Edmonton would be a disaster if they pay him $9-10mm.
And yet how do they not?
He is an RFA and they simply cannot let him leave or be offer-sheeted. So they have no choice but to sign him, and how do they pay him less than Nurse? They can't. He has already taken one short-term contract to help the team, he isn't going to take another. And there is no way his agent accepts a number less than Nurse's.
Over the last 2 seasons, Bouchard is 3rd in pts for defensemen, behind Makar and Hughes. And he was making $3.9M on a 2-yr, team-friendly, show me contract.
