Jump to content

Stats guys


Colin

Recommended Posts

You know what really peeves me? People who think they can reduce hockey down to stats. Take, for instance, the article done by Frank Seravalli (TSN) "Undefeated Habs 'Playing the Right Way.' He quotes stat after stat and talks about how Montreal seems to be playing a different way based on stats. Then he questions that citing "historical stats" and indicates a potential slide back to historical norms.

Mumbo jumbo.

I'm so sick and tired of people spouting their mouths based on numbers. So sick of it. It's is obvious that he hasn't actually *watched* the Habs play. Either last year or this year. Anyone who knows anything about hockey and actually watches the games with a critical eye can *CLEARLY* see the difference in play. I don't need statistics to tell me the Habs are much better in terms of puck possession. I just open my eyes, look at the play, and see them penning in the opposition for long stretches. I see them winning puck battles. I see the defence not looking scared when there's a mistake.

(Question to the masses: last time we had a fourth line that cycled for as long as our present line is managing? Correct answer is Gainey, Carbonneau, Nilan. Circa early 80's. Second question: last time you watched 6 Habs games where there were, shockingly, no passengers? Yeah stats guys, can you show me effort in your numbers? No? Shut up.)

So when these blowhards start pressing their magical statistical analyses I really just want to tear out my eyeballs to make it stop.

Baseball. Stats are pretty good for baseball. But you can't reduce a hockey player to a series of statistics. Doesn't work, never will. It's why the Maple Leafs will NEVER EVER win the Cup with a stats guy in their front office running things. Can't build a team based on stats. Can't do it.

This trend towards advanced stats is beyond irritating. It's irrational. Trying to put numbers on and make sense out of events to make yourself look smarter than you obviously are. It's lazy. In order to get out of actually watching games and doing real scouting and evaluating, you reduce a player to a series of stats and build your team that way. Losers.

And these "reporters" who spout these stats and use them as proofs and as arguments? Go home. Shut up. Stop being so damn lazy and report on what happens, not on what some stat guy pushes across your desk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say that those who say the stats don't matter are just as misinformed as those who say stats are the be all and end all.

There is a lot of value in advanced stats, yes you still have to watch the game, but the stats are also a good tool for understanding what is happening out there.

Why you think that using less information (eye test only) is better than using more information (advanced stats plus eye test), i dont' understand.....

Fact is NHL teams are using these stats, why? because they are one more tool in the scouting tool box, and the more knowledge you can get the better.

So when these blowhards start pressing their magical statistical analyses I really just want to tear out my eyeballs to make it stop.

Baseball. Stats are pretty good for baseball. But you can't reduce a hockey player to a series of statistics. Doesn't work, never will. It's why the Maple Leafs will NEVER EVER win the Cup with a stats guy in their front office running things. Can't build a team based on stats. Can't do it.

This trend towards advanced stats is beyond irritating. It's irrational. Trying to put numbers on and make sense out of events to make yourself look smarter than you obviously are. It's lazy. In order to get out of actually watching games and doing real scouting and evaluating, you reduce a player to a series of stats and build your team that way. Losers.

And these "reporters" who spout these stats and use them as proofs and as arguments? Go home. Shut up. Stop being so damn lazy and report on what happens, not on what some stat guy pushes across your desk.

You've set up a dichotomy here that doesn't actually exist... not in the Leafs front office, and not with most of these reporters either.

Do you truly believe that an NHL team (the Leafs) will just use stats and not watch the games? Really? Its complete bullshit to think that using stats means we abandon all other ways of scouting and analyzing, cause you don't.

You want to know the two leading teams in using stats? The Blackhawks and Kings... seems to have worked pretty well for them and thats why so many other teams are adding stats as part of the scouting.... not as their sole way of scouting, but as part of it

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best stats can give you is a guide. I'll grant that. But taken out of context - which they always are? Pointless.

"which they always are?"

yeah i don't believe that is the case at all.

Speaking in unprovable and frankly untrue absolutes like that isn't helping your argument.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The eye test is susceptible to Rashomon effect.

The stat test is susceptible to logical fallacies.

Neither is perfect, but both make invisible pictures clearer.

If you don't care, that's fine. Nobody should force you to pay attention to statistics or pay attention to their viewpoint. But you can't disregard one or the other because you don't like it.

I suck at math and originally Analytics were used around circles I frequented as ways to make excuses for Horcoff and Hemsky to supposedly be elite NHLers unsupported by traditional stats. It wasn't appealing. Even today, a lot of stats are just re-affirming common sense hockey plays that were downplayed by decades of goon coaches that preferred grind hockey to possession hockey. The Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames of the 80s were possession gods. They always had the puck. A lot of that stuff got passed in favour of defence first grind strategies due to the trap.

The game of hockey is changing and analytics are just a magnifying glass as to why. It's not supposed to replace the eye test but compliment it. It's to allow you to see things you might not have seen, to re-affirm things that are clear and to sharpen the edges of the overall picture. That said, like science, nothing is 100% concrete. Stats are evolving and changing. Stuff we considered the rule two years ago isn't anymore. Stats are getting more advanced and considering more to the game.

The biggest thing you have to remember is that advanced statistics are not about what's right and what's wrong but what habits are more likely to set you up for success. Breakout players, game changers, hot goalies, strong special teams, intimidation, all of this stuff can still overturn the best laid possession plans. But from sports to Magic: The Gathering card playing, the best strategists are all about removing chance and risk as much as you can. That's what it is about. Stop relying on the goalie, have the puck as long as possible, the more shots to the net the better, get the puck out of your zone when it is there as quick as possible, score your most goals when you're usually on the ice.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The eye test is susceptible to Rashomon effect.

The stat test is susceptible to logical fallacies.

Neither is perfect, but both make invisible pictures clearer.

If you don't care, that's fine. Nobody should force you to pay attention to statistics or pay attention to their viewpoint. But you can't disregard one or the other because you don't like it.

I suck at math and originally Analytics were used around circles I frequented as ways to make excuses for Horcoff and Hemsky to supposedly be elite NHLers unsupported by traditional stats. It wasn't appealing. Even today, a lot of stats are just re-affirming common sense hockey plays that were downplayed by decades of goon coaches that preferred grind hockey to possession hockey. The Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames of the 80s were possession gods. They always had the puck. A lot of that stuff got passed in favour of defence first grind strategies due to the trap.

The game of hockey is changing and analytics are just a magnifying glass as to why. It's not supposed to replace the eye test but compliment it. It's to allow you to see things you might not have seen, to re-affirm things that are clear and to sharpen the edges of the overall picture. That said, like science, nothing is 100% concrete. Stats are evolving and changing. Stuff we considered the rule two years ago isn't anymore. Stats are getting more advanced and considering more to the game.

The biggest thing you have to remember is that advanced statistics are not about what's right and what's wrong but what habits are more likely to set you up for success. Breakout players, game changers, hot goalies, strong special teams, intimidation, all of this stuff can still overturn the best laid possession plans. But from sports to Magic: The Gathering card playing, the best strategists are all about removing chance and risk as much as you can. That's what it is about. Stop relying on the goalie, have the puck as long as possible, the more shots to the net the better, get the puck out of your zone when it is there as quick as possible, score your most goals when you're usually on the ice.

Yeah. All this. I was trying to think of how to explain this, but you did it far better than I ever could.

Stats are all flawed in some way in hockey - the game doesn't boil down to pure numbers the same way that baseball can be. But they're still the best tools we have for analyzing play. They just can't be used in isolation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too many quite meaningless cherry-picked stats get quoted so frickin often as being 'so' important, they get to be mind numbing and I really can do without the vast majority of em and be happy to stick with eye test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Analytics and scouting tool for sure, but as Commandant mentioned, not the be all end all, and there is no doubt that more information is better.

The boiled down facts as to whether a player is good or not, still has to be determined by the eye test, and in correspondence with stats, and the consideration of his role on the team.

MoLG said it best, both methods are flawed in a way, but both are relevant.

That said, I am with Colin on the over usage and overstating, by the stats blinded idiots forcing their opinions, with half the information needed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. All this. I was trying to think of how to explain this, but you did it far better than I ever could.

Stats are all flawed in some way in hockey - the game doesn't boil down to pure numbers the same way that baseball can be. But they're still the best tools we have for analyzing play. They just can't be used in isolation.

The stats we have now are good.

The stats we will have five years from now will be even better.

In ten years we will know even more.... as technology progresses, as the analysis progresses, as we learn more the stats are getting even better ,and thats exciting to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonderful!

So down the road we can simply have virtual games and let computer tell us who won, yeehaw...look forward to that day.

A computer has been able to tell us who won for decades...

I know some stat guys and they still enjoy the games immensely. They just have to do some school work in between and follow what players are doing. It's after the game they have to crunch numbers. Then someone else puts the numbers together to give you the stats we see. It's absolutely no different to what has happened for decades with shot counters. Just now? They don't just count shots. They count passes and zone entries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A computer has been able to tell us who won for decades...

I know some stat guys and they still enjoy the games immensely. They just have to do some school work in between and follow what players are doing. It's after the game they have to crunch numbers. Then someone else puts the numbers together to give you the stats we see. It's absolutely no different to what has happened for decades with shot counters. Just now? They don't just count shots. They count passes and zone entries.

Clearly the solution is not even to keep track of how many pucks enter each teams net or any other stats, we'll just all use the eye test, and not have a scoreboard.... can't have any silly stats to tell us who won. Those who watch the game can decide for themselves who played better and won.

Of course my argument is just as silly as the virtual game one, and just goes to show what happens when both sides take things to extremes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to know the two leading teams in using stats? The Blackhawks and Kings... seems to have worked pretty well for them and thats why so many other teams are adding stats as part of the scouting.... not as their sole way of scouting, but as part of it

Exactly how do you know the Blackhawks and kings are the two leading stats teams? Are you just baseing your opinion on the fact they've had the most success?

personally love stats as a compliment to actual watching and analyzing the game/ player. We can only gain more knowledge with more information!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly how do you know the Blackhawks and kings are the two leading stats teams? Are you just baseing your opinion on the fact they've had the most success?

personally love stats as a compliment to actual watching and analyzing the game/ player. We can only gain more knowledge with more information!

Leading as in early adopters... there were articles written on both at the cutting edge of this movement.

The original chicago sun-times article is no longer available on their website, but here is an article that quotes it.

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/24548618/blackhawks-gm-stan-bowman-says-analytics-give-team-leg-up

Here is an article on the kings being an early adopter.

http://thehockeywriters.com/espn-los-angeles-kings-leader-in-analytics/

Also ESPN's research on how much a team relies on analytics.

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/12331388/the-great-analytics-rankings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who follow advanced stats are losers.

These games are entertainment, and each moment we spend watching I a moment that we can spend with family or accoplishing our goals.

Stats guys have taken all the romanticism out of sports. Read "Fifty Grand" or "Death in the Afternoon" and tell me Ernest Hemingway would be in front of a TiVo counting zone entries.

Sports addiction is a real thing. People who obsess over minutiae to the point of pouring over spreadsheets for hours after games should seek help.

Pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who follow advanced stats are losers.

These games are entertainment, and each moment we spend watching I a moment that we can spend with family or accoplishing our goals.

Stats guys have taken all the romanticism out of sports. Read "Fifty Grand" or "Death in the Afternoon" and tell me Ernest Hemingway would be in front of a TiVo counting zone entries.

Sports addiction is a real thing. People who obsess over minutiae to the point of pouring over spreadsheets for hours after games should seek help.

Pathetic.

I could just as easily say that People who believe that stats have taken the romanticism out of sports are losers and pathetic...

To each their own.. you don't like them, fine... don't pay attention, but why criticize what someone else might like? if someone finds digging deeper into the game entertaining, who are you to judge them for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By far one of the greatest hockey teams of all time was the Russian red army. 1970 to 1990. They didn't shoot unless it was almost a guaranteed goal. Their corsi and Fenwick would have been horrible. I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could just as easily say that People who believe that stats have taken the romanticism out of sports are losers and pathetic...

To each their own.. you don't like them, fine... don't pay attention, but why criticize what someone else might like? if someone finds digging deeper into the game entertaining, who are you to judge them for that?

Agreed

Stats don't lie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't care if the teams use these advanced stats, I just don't really need to do it. I want to watch the game, enjoy myself, win a Cup or 2 more in the next few years. These stats may be wonderful for the guys who understand them, I don't and I don't care to learn anymore about them than I know about trigonometry. Which I know nothing about other than a general knowledge that it exists. The old saying is stats are for losers, well that is still true, if you win you don't care about the stats (other than the score) if you lose they are paramount. Well that is my 2 cents worth, going to go drink beer now. Good night all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By far one of the greatest hockey teams of all time was the Russian red army. 1970 to 1990. They didn't shoot unless it was almost a guaranteed goal. Their corsi and Fenwick would have been horrible. I think.

Except they always had the puck on their sticks, so other teams didn't get many shots on their net..... They were as puck possession as puck possession gets. The wouldn't have given up many shot attempts against.

New advanced stats would have captured their dominance in other ways too..... Hextally (shots from dangerous scoring areas for and against), ie shots that come from the hexagonal area in front of the net... theres would have been through the roof, while their opponents very low... for a huge HSCF%

I really don't care if the teams use these advanced stats, I just don't really need to do it. I want to watch the game, enjoy myself, win a Cup or 2 more in the next few years. These stats may be wonderful for the guys who understand them, I don't and I don't care to learn anymore about them than I know about trigonometry. Which I know nothing about other than a general knowledge that it exists. The old saying is stats are for losers, well that is still true, if you win you don't care about the stats (other than the score) if you lose they are paramount. Well that is my 2 cents worth, going to go drink beer now. Good night all.

Thats fine, No one is saying that every fan needs to learn them.

What I object to is someone saying that fans are losers and pathetic if they want to learn them as L's Magnatones did

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except they always had the puck on their sticks, so other teams didn't get many shots on their net..... They were as puck possession as puck possession gets. The wouldn't have given up many shot attempts against.

New advanced stats would have captured their dominance in other ways too..... Hextally (shots from dangerous scoring areas for and against), ie shots that come from the hexagonal area in front of the net... theres would have been through the roof, while their opponents very low... for a huge HSCF%

I have a feeling if someone tried crunching the stats for the Russian Five they'd be blown away by their shooting percentages and the fact they were sustainable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...