101? Elias Lindholm. In Tree speak, looking at how a player touches the game, is there anyone that touches all parts of the game like he does? I feel so dirty posting that.
"Okay Mr. Game, show us on this Androgynous Doll where Elias Lindholm touched you...."
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
I would imagine that the Flames in house stats are you know, counted and calculated in house. I don't think that they watch and count stats for 1,230 games. I would be surprised if they did that for players for opposing teams even in the 82 games that they for sure make stats for.
If that were the case then they wouldn’t have very good data. I’m sure they have pretty good data but to say the public only has less than 10% of what they do seems pretty gratuitous.
If that were the case then they wouldn’t have very good data. I’m sure they have pretty good data but to say the public only has less than 10% of what they do seems pretty gratuitous.
Okay. This line of thinking seems like you're insulted by the idea that the team knows more about the team than you or anyone else outside of the organization. Which seems more plausible?
Okay. This line of thinking seems like you're insulted by the idea that the team knows more about the team than you or anyone else outside of the organization. Which seems more plausible?
That’s not what I said. I was commenting on the fact his claim was a pretty big exaggeration. As other have commented a lot of the public stats guys got picked up by clubs recently so seems unlikely they’re significantly further ahead.
Yeah, but we've seen guys like Mudcrutch and the BehindTheNet guys get hired by NHL teams, so we have a good idea that at least as of a few years ago, they werent really that far ahead of the blogosphere.
I don't know about BehindtheNet, but wasn't Mudcrutch like a decade ago?
Yeah, but we've seen guys like Mudcrutch and the BehindTheNet guys get hired by NHL teams, so we have a good idea that at least as of a few years ago, they werent really that far ahead of the blogosphere.
I interviewed with Chris Snow during the Feaster era and even as of then he indicated the stats they were gathering were far more valuable and advanced than the basic Corsi that was all the rage at the time. Not all shots are equal. Flames had been taking into account the positioning of the shot. A point shot from the middle of the ice is not the same as one from near the boards. A rebound shot is far, far more dangerous than a non-rebound shot. He wouldn’t discuss everything with me but the Flames have been near the forefront of analytics ever since he was hired from what I gather. For obvious reasons they keep most of their methodologies as secretive as possible.
Last edited by Flames Draft Watcher; 01-27-2020 at 06:25 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
If that were the case then they wouldn’t have very good data. I’m sure they have pretty good data but to say the public only has less than 10% of what they do seems pretty gratuitous.
Thats great that the Flames are supposedly at the forefront of analytics or whatever.
Maybe at some point it will amount to them being more than a playoff bubble team or pathetic 1st round fodder.
Man you’re such a downer these days. You used to be my one of favourite posters! You used to eloquently say what I would have better than I could have and I could just thank your posts! I miss non-jaded Roof-Daddy
Man you’re such a downer these days. You used to be my one of favourite posters! You used to eloquently say what I would have better than I could have and I could just thank your posts! I miss non-jaded Roof-Daddy
Yeah I know, I wish there was more to be positive about but one playoff series win in 16 years has sucked the positivity right out of me.
They pulled me back in last year only to get absolutely pummeled in round 1, and now they're back to being the kings of mediocrity this year.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Roof-Daddy For This Useful Post:
That was one of the most encouraging interviews I've ever heard from a Flames' GM.
I have to say that I'm not supervised Chris Snow was able to come up with something that brilliant. In his interview with his wife, he seemed terrifically smart and articulate. Its clear the Flames have a good one. I'd like to see the Flames give a guy like that the opportunity to just run the show.
Also, when Chris Snow came on board, it took him 18 months to design the program, and then it presumably took him longer to have enough data points that it could be used effectively to adjust the team's decision-making. I'd really like to know when that point in time was so I could look at the team's transactions before and after and see if I could find a difference.
We are lucky as Flames fans. For a number of years we had Feaster and Weisbrod performing at an elite level and taking player evaluation to a new level. Now we have Treliving and his team continuing their legacy, ensuring that the Flames are top of class. Pretty solid last decade for the Flames in that regard.
This “we are doing it better than anyone else with our top secret technique” sounds very familiar to the Weisbrod/Feaster era sound bites.
Last edited by Aarongavey; 01-27-2020 at 08:18 PM.
I interviewed with Chris Snow during the Feaster era and even as of then he indicated the stats they were gathering were far more valuable and advanced than the basic Corsi that was all the rage at the time. Not all shots are equal. Flames had been taking into account the positioning of the shot. A point shot from the middle of the ice is not the same as one from near the boards. A rebound shot is far, far more dangerous than a non-rebound shot. He wouldn’t discuss everything with me but the Flames have been near the forefront of analytics ever since he was hired from what I gather. For obvious reasons they keep most of their methodologies as secretive as possible.
This is good to hear because my biggest beef with advanced stats is things like "high danger chances". I mean just watching a game gives you a clear indication that there is so much more to a "dangerous chance" then being in a defined zone.
Hockey is so much more complicated than other sports for calculating advanced stats and I think so many people in this sport just wanted to ignore that and start proclaiming the next "money ball" analysis.
What additional stats do teams individually have if the league to this point doesn't allow sanctioned player tracking? I'm assuming when teams say they have additional stats, they're more additional data points that make up the stats? So in other words they can derive things like standard deviations on a minute by minute basis compared with the public getting those whole numbers that are at a game by game level (more minute vs macro numbers)? I've often thought about finding out who has consistent numbers as the season progresses and who tapers off as they get worn down by the season.
This is good to hear because my biggest beef with advanced stats is things like "high danger chances". I mean just watching a game gives you a clear indication that there is so much more to a "dangerous chance" then being in a defined zone.
Hockey is so much more complicated than other sports for calculating advanced stats and I think so many people in this sport just wanted to ignore that and start proclaiming the next "money ball" analysis.
Excellent post.
The Following User Says Thank You to timbit For This Useful Post:
I am curious as to how these analytics are measured. So much happens in just one shift - is the process automated? I'm sure this could be extended to other teams and see who the most 'productive' players are... similar to that baseball movie
The NHL announced that player tracking will be in place for the playoffs. This will streamline & standardize data collection. I imagine each team will have its own approach on this data.
Chris Snow did a talk on analytics a few ago at The Coaches Site conference. It was really good. He made sure to make a distinction between statistics & data and how they are different.
Statistics are manipulations of data. He made sure to tell everyone he’s a data analyst not a statistician.
He also discussed about how crucial it is to bring & communicate insights from data to the team that is useful & beneficial.
Analytics are either descriptive, predictive, or prescriptive. How fans & teams utilize and interpret data can be completely opposite. Teams might want to know how to better utilize a player (prescriptive) where as fans what to know why a certain player is or is not playing well (descriptive) or how a player may do in the future with something as basic as shooting % (predictive).
What I really enjoy about analytics as a fan is that it gives more color & insight to a game once a person understands why something is important. Zone entries are a great example for me. I pay attention to them more because they inform a great deal about how well a team generally is or is not playing. They are not a tell all stat, but to me they tell me something about the collective team confidence & cohesiveness.
I like what Jeff Marek has recently said on the topic. In whatever statement is made about “analytics” replace that word with “information”.
That’s all analytics really is, it’s just information derived from data. It might be good or bad, but the advantage it has compared to other forms of information is that it can be easily quantified & qualified for errors, mistakes, & improvement.
Each team will have its own special sauce, which optimally will help them accurately describe, predict, & prescribe information that assist the team in better understanding themselves & their opponents.
The Following User Says Thank You to Boreal For This Useful Post:
I don’t love all Treliving does. Maybe not even most of it. I’d work for him in a heartbeat though. He’ll be renewed or fired based on team success but man that’s the guy you want running an organization.
The stats chat was super interesting. The current “advanced” stats are so clearly not it’s a wtf subject for me. Anything public starting with an x or ending /60 is almost always crap. It the idea isn’t. I think every biz is living this these days. We collect numbers that mean nothing. But until better numbers come along the culture of the day said we have to idolize them.
Teams have good numbers. Eventually fans will too. Til then everything is plus minus with an asterisk.
Your analytics can't be too advanced until your data is. Right now it seems that hockey analytics are based on some person in a rink counting shots and where they are taken from.
Analytics will take a giant leap forward once tracking technology is implemented and you can use computing power to manipulate, categorize and track the data.
That's one of the reasons I'm somewhat skeptical of the impact that the analytics team has on drafting. They can't have much data on these players they are evaluating.