Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > Fire on Ice: The Calgary Flames Forum

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-21-2020, 03:56 PM   #21
Flames Draft Watcher
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV View Post
It's funny, something as basic as NHLe has a higher rate of successful NHLers drafted than draft order (scouting).

The eye test is extremely prone to individual biases and preconcieved notions.
It definitely is. There are good scouts and bad scouts. It’s a skill, a talent. Some are gifted at it, some have learned through years or decades of experience.
Flames Draft Watcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2020, 03:57 PM   #22
GioforPM
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher View Post
It definitely is. There are good scouts and bad scouts. It’s a skill, a talent. Some are gifted at it, some have learned through years or decades of experience.
The good ones - I suspect the things they internalize bear a lot of similarity to advanced stats.
GioforPM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2020, 04:03 PM   #23
Flames Draft Watcher
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM View Post
The good ones - I suspect the things they internalize bear a lot of similarity to advanced stats.
Definitely.

But they also notice things that advanced stats struggle to quantify. Here are some things that NHLers can contribute that advanced stars do not notice as easily as a scout would:
-Taking a hit to make a play (could show up as a turnover or a loss of possession if one fails to take a hit and instead turns it over)
-Tying up a forward in front of the net in order to reduce or remove chances at tipping or rebounds.
-Moving a forward from the from of the net to prevent screens, tips and rebounds
-Rubbing a forward out along the boards to prevent possession or cycling
-General offensive and defensive positioning

Advanced stats have come a long way. But they’ll need to measure a lot more things before we can ever start to talk about them replacing the eye test. A good scout or coach will see way more than the advanced stats are telling us.

The majority of the small subtle plays that defensive defensemen make are almost impossible to quantify with advanced stats. Then you get posters like GranteedEV who put too much stock into the stats and ends up underrating defensive defensemen in general because he can’t see their contributions as valuable because advanced stats don’t measure most of what they excel at

Last edited by Flames Draft Watcher; 01-21-2020 at 04:08 PM.
Flames Draft Watcher is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
Old 01-21-2020, 04:11 PM   #24
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher View Post
Definitely.

But they also notice things that advanced stats struggle to quantify. Here are some things that NHLers can contribute that advanced stars do not notice as easily as a scout would:
I'm going to go ahead and bet we can come up with a widely used metric that would, in fact, take into account each of these... let's see!

Quote:
-Taking a hit to make a play (could show up as a turnover or a loss of possession if one fails to take a hit and instead turns it over)
Typically one does this to move the puck up, so we'll call that zone exits, but it obviously factors into possession stats, too, given that the puck is in the other guys' zone more if you're able to do this.
Quote:
Tying up a forward in front of the net in order to reduce or remove chances at tipping or rebounds.
This one's easy - HDCA (or HDCF%).
Quote:
Moving a forward from the from of the net to prevent screens, tips and rebounds
Same as above, reducing high danger chances.

Screens, though, I'll grant - I'm not aware of a tool that would track that, although typically the people screening the goalie are also the ones tipping in pucks and banging in rebounds, so it's probably correlated.
Quote:
Rubbing a forward out along the boards to prevent possession or cycling
Pretty obviously influences possession metrics - in fact you just said it does.
Quote:
General offensive and defensive positioning
Obviously accounted for. Ever seen a shot heat chart? Also leads into xGF% and plenty of other things, but no need to get that far when actual positioning is tracked routinely for every game.
Quote:
Advanced stats have come a long way. But they’ll need to measure a lot more things before we can ever start to talk about them replacing the eye test.
No one will ever suggest this and no one credible ever has.
__________________
"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
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2020, 04:15 PM   #25
dammage79
Franchise Player
 
dammage79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Advanced stats... keeps you interested in a kids game as an adult. Useful for betting too! /argument
dammage79 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to dammage79 For This Useful Post:
Old 01-21-2020, 04:16 PM   #26
The Cobra
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction View Post
I The fancy stats tell you what may have happened, but in hockey, the eye-test is what really matters.
Actually, the score tells you what has actually happened, the fancy stats are trying to tell you what should have happened.

Presumably the eye test tells you the same things as the fancy stats, what should have happened, as in "Our teams may have gotten outplayed, but we won anyway".
The Cobra is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2020, 04:30 PM   #27
Beatle17
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Exp:
Default

High Scoring Changes - who defines this?

is a Shea Weber one time slapshot from the top of the circle more dangerous or a weak Sam Bennett wrist shot from the slot more dangerous? I am sure the advanced stats will tell you the shot from the slot is, but I bet the goalies will tell you otherwise. Just my opinion.
Beatle17 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2020, 05:57 PM   #28
Calgary4LIfe
Franchise Player
 
Calgary4LIfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Exp:
Default

That's exactly my issue with HDSC - it is a subjective stat. There are too many subjective stats, and others that need to be more subjective, if that makes sense. Not all shots are equal. Not all HDSC for and against are equal. Some stuff to me is pure garbage (like PDO).


With that being said, advanced metrics are still incredibly useful. I just don't buy some of the rationales that it concludes. I still take issue with the 'should have won' or 'should have lost' games based on them. For instance, watching Calgary under Hartley, and that was a team (at least until the goaltending caved-in) was SUSTAINABLY winning games even though CORSI was terrible. That was the system that was constructed to best utilize the players on hand, and it involved going into a defensive shell, but with a lightning-quick transition. Conversely, the Gulutzan Flames were the opposite - really good on CORSI for the most part, but would often lose games in which they were blitzing the opposition in CORSI.


CORSI is still rather predictive, but, IMO, it does little to explain away those situations and instead, the analytics community will just say "unsustainable". The eye-test in watching those Hartley Flames led you to believe that even though they were out-shot and 'out-possessed' (by sometimes big margins), that they were the more 'dangerous looking team'. I remember that being a recurring theme that season - how the other team just got off a bunch of shots but the Flames were not really tested and looked like the better team.


I think as time moves forward, there will be better metrics produced, better supporting explanations for them, and it will be much more ingrained in the game of hockey that it currently is. As it currently stands, it is still very useful, somewhat predictive (unless you happen to utilize a system that completely disregards possession), and very interesting. I enjoy seeing the metrics during and after games. I often agree with them, sometimes see (or at least, THINK I see - I am for sure prone to biases and I am absolutely no God after all) how meaningless they were for that game, etc. It has become an enjoyable part of the hockey experience for me.



As a player, whether they agree or don't agree, whether they bother to learn or just ignore it - I am not sure there is a right or wrong answer. Shoot more. Be better defensively. Finish your checks. Be a hero and block pucks more. These are all things that players learn staring when they are kids. I can't imagine being more knowledgeable about the advanced metrics is going to make them into better players or not. Hockey players know (or should know) what it takes to be more effective out there anyway. I wouldn't think that just because the players who are actually playing the game aren't into advanced metrics that it somehow makes advanced metrics 'less important'.



It is just a different and more in-depth way of measuring performances on the ice - personal as well as overall team performances - but it isn't impervious to errors either. That's been my take for a very long time.
Calgary4LIfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2020, 06:39 PM   #29
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe View Post
That's exactly my issue with HDSC - it is a subjective stat. There are too many subjective stats, and others that need to be more subjective, if that makes sense. Not all shots are equal. Not all HDSC for and against are equal. Some stuff to me is pure garbage (like PDO).
This just demonstrates that you don't understand what you're talking about.

HDSC isn't subjective at all. It's just shots from a particular area of the ice, where the highest proportion of goals are scored from. Nothing remotely subjective about it.

PDO isn't "garbage". It's just... math. NHL save percentage plus shooting percentage always equals an even 1.000. If your PDO is above 1.000, you're either saving goals at an above average rate, or scoring at an above average rate on your shots, or both. Nothing remotely controversial or subjective about that.
Quote:
With that being said, advanced metrics are still incredibly useful. I just don't buy some of the rationales that it concludes. I still take issue with the 'should have won' or 'should have lost' games based on them. For instance, watching Calgary under Hartley, and that was a team (at least until the goaltending caved-in) was SUSTAINABLY winning games even though CORSI was terrible.
No, they weren't. You're deluding yourself. There's a reason they got absolutely crushed by the Ducks that season - they were a bad hockey team, the second worst team in the playoffs that year. They won a bunch of games by being the "comeback kids", and if you think that's a sustainable way to win hockey games, you're just... wrong. Comparing the Hartley Flames to the way they are now is totally night and day.
__________________
"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
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2020, 07:00 PM   #30
MisterJoji
#1 Goaltender
 
MisterJoji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The toilet of Alberta : Edmonton
Exp:
Default The Athletic: The 2020 NHL Poll - Players have their say

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden View Post
This is behind a pay wall so I can't copy too much from it, because it is going to be slow for a week, might as well have some discussion about it.

Notably, Tkachuk recieved 11% of the 392 votes for who the 'dirtiest player' in the league was. He was third behind Marchand and Wilson

Wilson sure, but I think with both Marchand and Tkachuk the results are skewed because of how irritating they are to opposing players. I don’t find either very dirty. Raffi Torres, Steve Downie, Matt Cooke, Marty McSorely ... those guys are dirty players. Tkachuk and Marchand are just world class agitators.
__________________
"Illusions Michael, tricks are something a wh*re does for money ....... or cocaine"
MisterJoji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2020, 07:39 PM   #31
Textcritic
Acerbic Cyberbully
 
Textcritic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: back in Chilliwack
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatle17 View Post
High Scoring Changes - who defines this?
It is placement on the ice where shots are taken: the "home plate" between the circles and up to the goal line.

Quote:
is a Shea Weber one time slapshot from the top of the circle more dangerous or a weak Sam Bennett wrist shot from the slot more dangerous? I am sure the advanced stats will tell you the shot from the slot is, but I bet the goalies will tell you otherwise. Just my opinion.
I think your example is likely an outlier.

I expect that HDSC is adduced from the fact that this is the place on the ice that the highest percentage of shots are converted into goals. The determination is based on an accumulation of huge amounts of data, which show that while (for example, and with numbers that I am inventing for the purpose of this exercise) 70% of shots from the slot are stopped by the goalie (like Bennett's), only 4% of shots from the point are converted into goals (like Weber's).

So, while a player like Weber will probably score more frequently than most other defensemen shooting from the point, the percentage of shots converted into goals from here will still be considerably lower than the total percentage of shots from the slot.

I am guessing here, but I bet that is the sort of thing thinking that helps to define the parameters of an HDSC.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls

Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
"The Lying Pen of Scribes" Ancient Manuscript Forgeries Project

Last edited by Textcritic; 01-21-2020 at 07:53 PM.
Textcritic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2020, 07:41 PM   #32
Textcritic
Acerbic Cyberbully
 
Textcritic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: back in Chilliwack
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji View Post
Wilson sure, but I think with both Marchand and Tkachuk the results are skewed because of how irritating they are to opposing players. I don’t find either very dirty. Raffi Torres, Steve Downie, Matt Cooke, Marty McSorely ... those guys are dirty players. Tkachuk and Marchand are just world class agitators.
I don't know about Marchand—he has a pretty storied history of cheap shots. But I like where you are going with this: a "dirty" player should be one who flouts the rules in an effort to gain an advantage, and I sure don't see Tkachuk doing that. He is a relentless agitator, which is quite different in my books.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls

Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
"The Lying Pen of Scribes" Ancient Manuscript Forgeries Project
Textcritic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2020, 07:45 PM   #33
edslunch
#1 Goaltender
 
edslunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
This just demonstrates that you don't understand what you're talking about.

HDSC isn't subjective at all. It's just shots from a particular area of the ice, where the highest proportion of goals are scored from. Nothing remotely subjective about it.

PDO isn't "garbage". It's just... math. NHL save percentage plus shooting percentage always equals an even 1.000. If your PDO is above 1.000, you're either saving goals at an above average rate, or scoring at an above average rate on your shots, or both. Nothing remotely controversial or subjective about that.
Or neither. SV% and SH% tell me exactly what’s going on. PDO obscures the situation
edslunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2020, 08:03 PM   #34
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Well, no, it can't be neither. But yes, TMSV% and SH% are fine. It's just a shorthand, particularly since league averages for those two stats fluctuate from season to season.
__________________
"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
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2020, 10:58 AM   #35
edslunch
#1 Goaltender
 
edslunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
Well, no, it can't be neither. But yes, TMSV% and SH% are fine. It's just a shorthand, particularly since league averages for those two stats fluctuate from season to season.
Sorry, I misread your example, agreed it can't be neither. I still don't see that as a shorthand it's very useful. A good team will tend to be above 100 a bad team will tend to be below, but neither says why. True extreme values can indicate a non-sustainable situation but there should be no expectation that numbers revert to mean. A team with a great goalie has an automatic bump on PDO.

Even worse IMO is individual PDO. Player X has a PDO of 99 - what does that mean? They don't control save percentage and it's not even a good indicator of defensive performance, which is anyway masked by adding in smaller sample shot %. Garbage stat.
edslunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
Old 01-22-2020, 11:05 AM   #36
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

nvm
Weitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2020, 11:08 AM   #37
stang
CP's Fraser Crane
 
stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic View Post
I don't know about Marchand—he has a pretty storied history of cheap shots. But I like where you are going with this: a "dirty" player should be one who flouts the rules in an effort to gain an advantage, and I sure don't see Tkachuk doing that. He is a relentless agitator, which is quite different in my books.
https://youtu.be/YCnHa4zFcWo

5:22-8:20 breaks this down fairly well.
stang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2020, 11:13 AM   #38
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch View Post
Sorry, I misread your example, agreed it can't be neither. I still don't see that as a shorthand it's very useful. A good team will tend to be above 100 a bad team will tend to be below, but neither says why. True extreme values can indicate a non-sustainable situation but there should be no expectation that numbers revert to mean. A team with a great goalie has an automatic bump on PDO.
Well, we can argue about whether there's even such a thing as a great goalie, but what I mean by a shorthand is that you can quickly glance a league table in PDO and see, "okay, these two teams are at 1050+ and this team that's chasing them is a 977, that probably means they're going to see some bounces even out over the next 30 games". You could have, for example, used this as a basis to predict that the Lightning were still going to have a shot at the Atlantic, when there were a bunch of stories about how they had fallen apart after a first round sweep and their captain was criticizing their play style. If you actually wanted to do any sort of in depth analysis of a team's play I agree you'd discard it pretty quickly.
Quote:
Even worse IMO is individual PDO. Player X has a PDO of 99 - what does that mean? They don't control save percentage and it's not even a good indicator of defensive performance, which is anyway masked by adding in smaller sample shot %. Garbage stat.
Agreed. Although individual stats of any kind are somewhat tough to eliminate the noise from. Which is why we now have RelTM, the most sophisticated attempt so far to deal with all of those effects.
__________________
"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
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2020, 11:17 AM   #39
Rando
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV View Post
It's funny, something as basic as NHLe has a higher rate of successful NHLers drafted than draft order (scouting).

The eye test is extremely prone to individual biases and preconcieved notions.
NHLe pre draft or post draft? Because I actually like that stat, its one of the only truly interesting "advanced" stats IMO. But I'm curious when the real tracking begins and when the success starts.
Rando is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Rando For This Useful Post:
Old 01-22-2020, 11:24 AM   #40
TheIronMaiden
Franchise Player
 
TheIronMaiden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: ATCO Field, Section 201
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji View Post
Wilson sure, but I think with both Marchand and Tkachuk the results are skewed because of how irritating they are to opposing players. I don’t find either very dirty. Raffi Torres, Steve Downie, Matt Cooke, Marty McSorely ... those guys are dirty players. Tkachuk and Marchand are just world class agitators.
This is what the article had to say.

Quote:
“Nobody’s dirty,” a Pacific Division player said. “I know guys who are cheap. There are a lot of rats in the league. (Matthew) Tkachuk’s a rat. Brad Marchand’s a rat. But I wouldn’t call them dirty.”
TheIronMaiden is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
advanced stats , giordano , the athletic , tkachuk

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:15 PM.

Calgary Flames
2021-22




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021