Closing the Book on 2017-18

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Locke

Also, thats not an answer. Thats a deflection.

The statistics were wrong in every way that matters. So what good are they?

It seems 'silly' to me to give weight to statistics that are clearly erroneous.

What stat is wrong then? Would love to know.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I see it as some see the result as the only thing that matters (standings / plane crash survival). Whereas others may want to look a little deeper into the how and why.

So no I don't see it as your point at all.

But it doesn't speak to the why. Because the "look a little deeper" is telling you it shouldn't have happened. Yet it did. So how is that data valuable?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

The further out we get the further it actually does appear meaningless. All it takes is a few Eakins Oilers or Gulutzan Flames playing for Corsi and possession to render it irrelevant.

And even if you take corsi as relevant, it was pretty clear early on that it wasn't to us. So why are we still pretending that it's valuable information to last years Flames?

This stuff is all so boring. Advanced stats are fine as an addition, but when we're consistently being told that the results shouldn't be what they are because of them, and the results continue being what they are for multiple seasons, they really are just noise and they've jumped the shark.

I haven't seen correlation % for high danger chances, but simple shot attempts have been shown to be 85% correlated with standings results.

Clearly a plane crash would be much higher in correlation to death, but 85% is a long way past a coin toss.

If you find it boring why are you in this thread?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If you find it boring why are you in this thread?

I'm here to speak the gospel.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

But it doesn't speak to the why. Because the "look a little deeper" is telling you it shouldn't have happened. Yet it did. So how is that data valuable?

If I'm a GM and my team is in the bottom third of the standings I don't just look at the standings and go ... "oh we suck, I get it"

I probably look into why.

Is our goalie brutal?
Special teams?
Are we getting out played?
Are bounces a part of this?
Finishing skills?

If my team is getting 40% of the shots, shot attempts and scoring chances and we missed the playoffs it's a very different off season than if we were 2nd in all those categories and found a way to lose.

To just look at the standings would be a) lazy and b) negligence

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm here to speak the gospel.

It is gospel.

It comes from a very old book that likely needs updating.

[Table 5]

I don't think finishing is just some addendum to a team's performance, or something that can be attributed to luck. It's literally what separates the good teams from the bad.

The only team stat with any long-lasting correlation with reality and the standings is goal differential. Good teams are always positive, bad teams are negative, and it tends to flip just around the playoff mark. The Flames had a horrible DIFF throughout the whole year, even when they were still in it. You can attribute it to coaching or the player skill level, but it didn't take a rocket surgeon take realize they were going to miss the playoffs even with a few more extra bounces.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I don't think finishing is just some small little addendum to a team's performance, or something that can be attributed to luck. It's literally what separates the good teams from the bad.

The only team stat with any long-lasting correlation with reality and the standings is goal differential. Good teams are always positive, bad teams are negative, and it tends to flip just around the playoff mark. The Flames had a horrible DIFF throughout the whole year, even when they were still in it. You can attribute it to coaching or the player skill level, but it didn't take a rocket surgeon take realize they were going to miss the playoffs even with a few more extra bounces.

Agreed.

And that's why the GM used the surgical tools in two directions

Coach and roster.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It is gospel.

It comes from a very old book that likely needs updating.

Well when the standings switch to Corsi % or high danger chances, you let me know. Until then when a stat is telling me a result that is consistently happening shouldn't be happening, I'm not going to put a lot of value in that stat.

You're suggesting I'm a troglodyte because I'm not putting much weight in a stat which isn't correlating to any results over a considerable stretch of games. This is legitimately laughable.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If I'm a GM and my team is in the bottom third of the standings I don't just look at the standings and go ... "oh we suck, I get it"

I probably look into why.

Is our goalie brutal? at the time, yes it was
Special teams? horrible
Are we getting out played? yes
Are bounces a part of this? a bad one and we fold
Finishing skills? outside the top 6 lacking.

If my team is getting 40% of the shots, shot attempts and scoring chances and we missed the playoffs it's a very different off season than if we were 2nd in all those categories and found a way to lose.

To just look at the standings would be a) lazy and b) negligence

That's why they were bad, not stats related.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

Well when the standings switch to Corsi % or high danger chances, you let me know. Until then when a stat is telling me a result that is consistently happening shouldn't be happening, I'm not going to put a lot of value in that stat.

You're suggesting I'm a troglodyte because I'm not putting much weight in a stat which isn't correlating to any results over a considerable stretch of games. This is legitimately laughable.

Don't put words in my mouth.

If you're going to walk out "gospel" and not expect to get a fun response from that you're skin is a bit thin.

I even gave you the correlation number at 85%, you can ignore that if you wish but it's been steady year over year. Or another way to look at it is out of 16 playoff teams 13 will have numbers that match, and three won't.

Last year the Flames were one of the three that were bumped for teams that didn't have great numbers.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

That's why they were bad, not stats related.

Well the numbers suggest they were not in fact getting out played. Their goaltending and their finishing wasn't strong, but no they weren't getting outplayed regularly at all.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Bingo

What stat is wrong then? Would love to know.

Bingo, I think a lot of posters are taking issue with you cherry-picking stats and using them to claim the Flames were unlucky as opposed to bad last year, but you're using metrics that are better applied to individual players rather than overall team performance. Most of the metrics geeks in baseball and football for instance use Pythagorean expected wins to assess whether a team was lucky or not because it accounts for overall team performance.

It hasn't been adjusted for hockey completely but it's still pretty accurate and it has the Flames expected win total from last year as 38, which basically means they were unlucky to win 1 extra game. In other words, they are exactly who their record says they are.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Don't put words in my mouth.

If you're going to walk out "gospel" and not expect to get a fun response from that you're skin is a bit thin.

I even gave you the correlation number at 85%, you can ignore that if you wish but it's been steady year over year. Or another way to look at it is out of 16 playoff teams 13 will have numbers that match, and three won't.

Last year the Flames were one of the three that were bumped for teams that didn't have great numbers.

It was a ####ing joke dude, lighten up.

I don't value your stats because they don't work towards what they say they should for my team.

That's the end of the story for me. If you want to deep dive until the Marianas Trench, go right ahead, but don't expect everyone to take see them as valuable as you apparently do.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well the numbers suggest they were not in fact getting out played. Their goaltending and their finishing wasn't strong, but no they weren't getting outplayed regularly at all.

So they were getting outplayed in two vital aspects of the game, but they weren't getting outplayed?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Bingo, I think a lot of posters are taking issue with you cherry-picking stats and using them to claim the Flames were unlucky as opposed to bad last year, but you're using metrics that are better applied to individual players rather than overall team performance. Most of the metrics geeks in baseball and football for instance use Pythagorean expected wins to assess whether a team was lucky or not because it accounts for overall team performance.

It hasn't been adjusted for hockey completely but it's still pretty accurate and it has the Flames expected win total from last year as 38, which basically means they were unlucky to win 1 extra game. In other words, they are exactly who their record says they are.

A list like I compiled is all the underlying metrics. I'm not cherry picking anything.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well the numbers suggest they were not in fact getting out played. Their goaltending and their finishing wasn't strong, but no they weren't getting outplayed regularly at all.

If they weren't getting outplayed why was watching games like seeing turds on ice?

Bad hockey was bad.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

It was a ####ing joke dude, lighten up.

I don't value your stats because they don't work towards what they say they should for my team.

That's the end of the story for me. If you want to deep dive until the Marianas Trench, go right ahead, but don't expect everyone to take see them as valuable as you apparently do.

Classy.

They're not my stats

Stay out of the thread then man, it's pretty easy.

At least you didn't accuse me of being bought and paid for this time. You're evolving.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So they were getting outplayed in two vital aspects of the game, but they weren't getting outplayed?

Come on, you know the difference.

A team can carry the play but get let down by not converting on their chances or having their goaltender out played by the opponent's goaltender.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Classy.

They're not my stats

Stay out of the thread then man, it's pretty easy.

At least you didn't accuse me of being bought and paid for this time. You're evolving.

But I have thin skin?

Individual stats being accurate can co-exist with those stats being of low value to results. That's basically what this comes down to.