Yep. If the NHL releases all the data, this likely makes corsi, fenwick and a bunch of other stats obsolete.
That is a big leap. Somebody has to take the raw data and develop predictive models. Shot location is still not a proxy for quality, but there will be more data to support how the puck got there, to an extent.
Hopefully by the time they incorporate this technology, my flux capacitor will be out if the shop and we can take it back to 2004.
Glad this is finally a thing. Hopefully it narrows down screwed up calls like incorrect puck over glass penalties, or clarifies "did it cross the goal line" questions. I suppose it could potentially help with some of those horrible offside goal cancellations too.
That is a big leap. Somebody has to take the raw data and develop predictive models. Shot location is still not a proxy for quality, but there will be more data to support how the puck got there, to an extent.
Corsi is a proxy for offensive zone time. If we know exactly how much offensive zone time each team has, seems to me we no longer need the proxy.
It will certainly require new modeling, and there will be lots of new data sets that predictive modeling will need to be done for (e.g. royal road passing, stretch passes, speed of controlled zone entries and exits, speed through the neutral zone, average pass distance, number of passes made before a shot, offensive zone time before a shot, shots per minute of offensive zone time, and a thousand other things you could easily come up with off the top of your head). But it also replaces a lot of information we're currently working with.
You mention shot location as a poor stand-in for shot quality - well, how about if we know not only location, but shot speed, and where on the net it was aimed, and whether it deflected on the way to the net? That's a heck of a lot better.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
One thing about zone time.. once you score, you are done in the zone. Passing around the perimeter racks up the zone time, and that doesn’t necessarily translate to scoring.
So certainly possession / zone time can be measured much more accurately. Not sure what that will translate to, though.
I really like the implications in being able to get better quantification by team, and scoring probabilities for pucks crossing the Royal road (and other truly dangerous items like passes from behind the net to the shooter out front for a one timer)
What's the state of sensor technology in terms of its precision to detect goal/no-goal situations?
I'm not convinced that sensors in the goal posts are accurate enough, given the speed at which the puck moves and the mobility of the entire net structure itself.
It depends on what kind of data the pucks will be sending. The data doesn't need to be nearly as accurate for tracking speed and motion as it will for goal-line decisions.
Hopefully, like most technology, it will keep getting better to the point that it can be used for goal judging.
Ideally, it won't need any sensors in the goal itself. If the puck is transmitting information about its position and orientation, the system could be programmed to know where the goals are in 3-D space and if the puck crosses the plane of the goal, the system would know that it was a good goal.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
Ideally, it won't need any sensors in the goal itself. If the puck is transmitting information about its position and orientation, the system could be programmed to know where the goals are in 3-D space and if the puck crosses the plane of the goal, the system would know that it was a good goal.
You would also need a gyrometer.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
Nice. Now we'll find out that shots going 92.7mph have the greatest accuracy and the Flames will spend half of their time practicing the perfect shot speed.
Although, even if you didn't know its exact orientation, you could still use it for some goal decisions.
The puck is 3 inches in diameter and 1 inch thick. So, if you know the location of the exact centre of the puck, you would also know that if the centre is more than 1.5" behind the goal line, it must be a goal, regardless of its orientation; and if the centre is less than 0.5" behind the goal line, it can't be a goal, regardless of its orientation. It wouldn't solve every problem situation, but it would get a fair number of them.
Knowing the puck's exact position and exact orientation is the ideal, but even baby steps to get there will help.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
I honestly never thought that glowing Foxtracker thing was anywhere near as bad as it seemed like everyone else did. It doesn't really bother me and if it helps new people watch the sport, I always figured, go nuts.
I understand why people who don't watch hockey have trouble following the puck - if you watch a lot you instinctively know where it is from the camera position and from knowing what play makes sense, so you know where it's likely to go before it goes there. If you don't, well, there are a lot of plays where it's hidden by the boards, or could be masked by being on someone's stick.
Obviously HD has helped this a lot but I still hear this complaint from people, especially Americans, who don't follow hockey.
It’s like any sport you don’t understand. It’s confusing at first until you take some time. For us maybe sports like Aussie Rules Football, Cricket, or the ever popular Finnish Baseball are ones we look at and are utterly lost at first.
The issue many who grew up or understood hockey had with the Fox puck was you don’t need to watch exactly where the puck is at all times. Looking for the backdoor pass, or the Dman moving to the open lane is something we all probably do. The glow and the red line were harder to ignore and made it tougher to see the plays happening around the puck.
__________________
Hockey is just a game the way ice cream is just glucose, love is just
a feeling, and sex is just repetitive motion.
I'm pretty jacked we're headed for this, but I really hope that a tolerance is built in.
Offsides are the best example, as it's silly how a fraction of a second is considered an unfair advantage. Adding in a (random number incoming) 0.5s tolerance one way or another would make it a much more fluid game.
Right now, seeing a goal called back because 37 seconds ago a winger gained a .14s advantage entering the zone is downright silly. If it doesn't affect the play, leave it. Most of these goals that are being called back rarely demonstrate an advantage gained from the offside.
Hopefully it's adjusted so the calls are logical vs. microsecond accurate.
Now the goal-line is different. There's a definite advantage gained if a goal is called back when the puck crossed the line. That will be amazing to have an accurate and unquestionable signal. Goalies covering the puck and the light went on? Guess where the puck is bud. Puck crosses the line just barely? Sorry Khabibulin.
I'm pretty jacked we're headed for this, but I really hope that a tolerance is built in.
Offsides are the best example, as it's silly how a fraction of a second is considered an unfair advantage. Adding in a (random number incoming) 0.5s tolerance one way or another would make it a much more fluid game.
Right now, seeing a goal called back because 37 seconds ago a winger gained a .14s advantage entering the zone is downright silly. If it doesn't affect the play, leave it. Most of these goals that are being called back rarely demonstrate an advantage gained from the offside.
Hopefully it's adjusted so the calls are logical vs. microsecond accurate.
Now the goal-line is different. There's a definite advantage gained if a goal is called back when the puck crossed the line. That will be amazing to have an accurate and unquestionable signal. Goalies covering the puck and the light went on? Guess where the puck is bud. Puck crosses the line just barely? Sorry Khabibulin.
I don't think this tech is going to be used for either of those things. It's going to be for analytics.
I'm pretty jacked we're headed for this, but I really hope that a tolerance is built in.
Offsides are the best example, as it's silly how a fraction of a second is considered an unfair advantage. Adding in a (random number incoming) 0.5s tolerance one way or another would make it a much more fluid game.
Right now, seeing a goal called back because 37 seconds ago a winger gained a .14s advantage entering the zone is downright silly. If it doesn't affect the play, leave it. Most of these goals that are being called back rarely demonstrate an advantage gained from the offside.
Hopefully it's adjusted so the calls are logical vs. microsecond accurate.
Now the goal-line is different. There's a definite advantage gained if a goal is called back when the puck crossed the line. That will be amazing to have an accurate and unquestionable signal. Goalies covering the puck and the light went on? Guess where the puck is bud. Puck crosses the line just barely? Sorry Khabibulin.
Microsecond accurate wouldn't be a problem so long as the call is near-instantaneous.
It is the offside being called 30 seconds later after a goal that pisses everyone off.
If you are 0.12s offside and it is called immediately, no one would have a problem with it.
Offside involves tracking the position of the skater at the moment the puck crosses the line, puck tracking technology does not really help that at all.
