Robert Ethan Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 The analytics come after the fact. That's when the geeks rush in to read the entrails. Habs had a good year in 2014-15 and the analytics were good. Last year they sucked and the analytics were bad. Surprise, surprise. But first you have to build a TEAM to send out on the ice before there are any stats to analyze. It's not a difficult concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trizzak Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 It's only idiots who don't accept them. This new guy is clearly in that category. All the insults he throws at dweebs and nerds, just shows exactly how stupid he actually is. Bruh... put him on your Ignore list and move on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 The analytics come after the fact. That's when the geeks rush in to read the entrails. Habs had a good year in 2014-15 and the analytics were good. Last year they sucked and the analytics were bad. Surprise, surprise. But first you have to build a TEAM to send out on the ice before there are any stats to analyze. It's not a difficult concept. Except none of that is true. The analytics of 2015-16 were actually better than 2014-15. The difference was 900 goaltending vs 930.... You are pulling shit out of your ass, and its clear you don't understand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Ethan Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 So if the analytics were better the year they had 82 points vs. the year they had 110 points WTF good are they? It's geeks hiding in geek world and locking their bedroom door so Mom has to shove the food underneath it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovett's Magnatones Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 So if the analytics were better the year they had 82 points vs. the year they had 110 points WTF good are they? It's geeks hiding in geek world and locking their bedroom door so Mom has to shove the food underneath it. Yawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Ethan Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 Send a bunch of printouts onto the ice with the picture of a player's face on the top and rows of numbers below. That'll be exciting. No one gets hurt at least. No aching muscles. No one has to clean the ice or wash the equipment. Everyone performs the same way each time according to formula. No surprises or disappointment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 The analytics of 2015-16 were actually better than 2014-15. The difference was 900 goaltending vs 930.... I've bolded the reason why one season was 110 points and the other was shit. I know, reading comprehension is hard for you. This also involves math, another area you really seem to struggle with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 This explains things https://twitter.com/AATHabs/status/755621933203517440 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 This is Farnham related or just more on Weber-Subban trade? This explains things https://twitter.com/AATHabs/status/755621933203517440 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 This is Farnham related or just more on Weber-Subban trade? Its related to how a team can have better analytics in a losing season than in a 110 point one. The difference between having the best goalie in the game behind you, and the worst goaltending in the NHL behind you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 26, 2016 Author Share Posted July 26, 2016 So if the analytics were better the year they had 82 points vs. the year they had 110 points WTF good are they? It's geeks hiding in geek world and locking their bedroom door so Mom has to shove the food underneath it. You've made it abundantly clear you're not a fan of analytics. Some are though and don't need to be ridiculed for it each time you post about them. Guys, can we get back to avoiding the insults please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 Its related to how a team can have better analytics in a losing season than in a 110 point one. The difference between having the best goalie in the game behind you, and the worst goaltending in the NHL behind you. But, you cant simply do that. If Gallagher didn't break his hand, what difference would that make, if Subban could score on the PP, if Petry wasn't hurt, etc. There are a lot more variables than simply who is goalie. But, of course can cherry pick whichever stat you want to help make a point easy enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meller93 Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 But, you cant simply do that. If Gallagher didn't break his hand, what difference would that make, if Subban could score on the PP, if Petry wasn't hurt, etc. There are a lot more variables than simply who is goalie. But, of course can cherry pick whichever stat you want to help make a point easy enough. Yes there are many intangibles that contribute to success. I don't think many here would even argue that. But I don't see why or even how you can't concede that a .30 sv% difference absolutely crushes your year. We probably wouldn't have ~20 less goals scored on us. That = wins. Quite a simple concept. So if the analytics were better the year they had 82 points vs. the year they had 110 points WTF good are they? It's geeks hiding in geek world and locking their bedroom door so Mom has to shove the food underneath it. The reason you don't like stats as far as I can tell is that you have zero idea of how they work. If I flip a coin twice and they're both heads do you give up and say "Oh I guess when you flip a coin heads happens every time!" No. There are allllllways anomalies. I could flip a coin 50 times and get all heads, because unlikely S*** does happen from time to time. But guess what? I bet if I flip it 950 more times the result will be damn near 500 heads and 500 tails. The exact same concept applies to stats about possession, save percentage, etc. They regress to the mean with time. Want a consistently good team? hope for one with great underlying stats. Any team can be an aberration. I don't want the Habs to blow with the wind, I want them to BE the wind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Ethan Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 Then flip coins, record the results, and publish your findings somewhere. This is a HOCKEY message board. No one even knew the Habs analytics guy until he got turfed. Or cared about him. He was probably paid less than the janitor cleaning Bergevin's office, and apparently less useful. The janitor is probably still employed by the team. But everyone here trashing Habs management because of some nonsense numbers cobbled together under highly questionable circumstance by stuck at home "experts". I know exactly how statistical research is conducted, I work at a University and participate in some of the projects. What's being tossed out here is garbage, it isn't worth anything except on the internet where the people who are shut out of decision making gather. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meller93 Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 Then flip coins, record the results, and publish your findings somewhere. This is a HOCKEY message board. No one even knew the Habs analytics guy until he got turfed. Or cared about him. He was probably paid less than the janitor cleaning Bergevin's office, and apparently less useful. The janitor is probably still employed by the team. But everyone here trashing Habs management because of some nonsense numbers cobbled together under highly questionable circumstance by stuck at home "experts". I know exactly how statistical research is conducted, I work at a University and participate in some of the projects. What's being tossed out here is garbage, it isn't worth anything except on the internet where the people who are shut out of decision making gather. Ever hear of an analogy? That's what the coin example was. It's a shame you don't know how to use them and put up an actual argument. You know why those "experts stuck at home" use stats to document real life things? Because IT WORKS. Just because hockey is a sport doesn't make it immune to experiment; in fact the rules make for a test with a damn high validity because of all the controlled variables. If anything sports are where the link between coorelation and causation are easiest to deduce. I would have have thought all that time at university would have opened your eyes a bit to this. But maybe it's cause you're that janitor. I suggest you check with your employer next time you take out the "garbage" because you obviously haven't grasped what that is yet either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 26, 2016 Author Share Posted July 26, 2016 Then flip coins, record the results, and publish your findings somewhere. This is a HOCKEY message board. No one even knew the Habs analytics guy until he got turfed. Or cared about him. He was probably paid less than the janitor cleaning Bergevin's office, and apparently less useful. The janitor is probably still employed by the team. But everyone here trashing Habs management because of some nonsense numbers cobbled together under highly questionable circumstance by stuck at home "experts". I know exactly how statistical research is conducted, I work at a University and participate in some of the projects. What's being tossed out here is garbage, it isn't worth anything except on the internet where the people who are shut out of decision making gather. Like it or not, analytics are a part of the discussion in the hockey landscape. (And there really isn't much of it here compared to elsewhere.) It's fair game to consider that element when discussing the team or a specific player. If you don't want to talk about them, it might be worthwhile if you didn't continually post stuff deriding the posters who do consider analytics. Don't bring up the subject and odds being odds, there won't be much discussion about it, especially in a thread about a fourth line/minor league guy which this was at some point before we got wildly off topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 Haha. This has been a twisty Turney thread. At one point I tried to veer it toward the scandanavian economic model but darned if it didn't go the opposite direction. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Yes there are many intangibles that contribute to success. I don't think many here would even argue that. But I don't see why or even how you can't concede that a .30 sv% difference absolutely crushes your year. We probably wouldn't have ~20 less goals scored on us. That = wins. Quite a simple concept. But why was it 30% difference? Because Habs played 20+ different and some barely capable NHL d-men in front of Condon? Missing top 4 d-man in Petry? Or was it all on Condon/Scrivins? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Ethan Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 (edited) The .930+ save % were the best of Price's career though. He's had a few season down in the low .9 area, similar to what Condon and Scrivens managed last season. To reduce it to that one stat you have to assume that goaltenders put up the same percentage every season regardless of the team around them, which is demonstrably untrue. That''s the biggest problem with trying to reduce the game to stats, they vary so much depending on the situation. No player in the league puts up identical stats year to year and team to team if they are traded. Obviously Price is a better goaltender than Condon or Scrivens, but his numbers are dependent on what's happening around him as well. If the team isn't scoring they have to open up to try to get goals and that comes at the expense of defensive coverage. If they're taking dumb penalties that leaves room for more powerplay goals against. If they aren't clearing the front of the net that leads to more tip ins and screens which no goalie is athletic enough to overcome. But to get back on topic, I'd love to see Farnham play in the NHL this season, he would be exciting to watch. If he doesn't he will still give value for his wages as a leader and an example for the younger players in the organization. Edited July 27, 2016 by ethan raphael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meller93 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Yes there are many intangibles that contribute to success. I don't think many here would even argue that. But I don't see why or even how you can't concede that a .30 sv% difference absolutely crushes your year. We probably wouldn't have ~20 less goals scored on us. That = wins. Quite a simple concept. But why was it 30% difference? Because Habs played 20+ different and some barely capable NHL d-men in front of Condon? Missing top 4 d-man in Petry? Or was it all on Condon/Scrivins? If all you're arguing is why that 30% difference existed then I'm right on board that it wasn't all Condon's fault. I was simply agreeing with the fact that a 30% higher save percentage would have likely turned us into a playoff team. Injuries to Price, Petry, Gallagher, Subban all certainly had impacts on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 If all you're arguing is why that 30% difference existed then I'm right on board that it wasn't all Condon's fault. I was simply agreeing with the fact that a 30% higher save percentage would have likely turned us into a playoff team. Injuries to Price, Petry, Gallagher, Subban all certainly had impacts on it.As well as le genius not making any adjustments, given the loss of Price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Yes there are many intangibles that contribute to success. I don't think many here would even argue that. But I don't see why or even how you can't concede that a .30 sv% difference absolutely crushes your year. We probably wouldn't have ~20 less goals scored on us. That = wins. Quite a simple concept. But why was it 30% difference? Because Habs played 20+ different and some barely capable NHL d-men in front of Condon? Missing top 4 d-man in Petry? Or was it all on Condon/Scrivins? Why was it such a big difference? Cause Price is the best goalie in hockey and Condon is a lower tier backup and Scrivens is an AHL level player. That was a huge difference, and the difference was there in December, before the injuries, before missing Petry, before all those defencemen went in the lineup. Condon was never meant to be a starter, and a guy like that is going to get fatigued when he was originally slated to play 15-20 games and suddenly had to play 50+. This isn't hard to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovett's Magnatones Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Why was it such a big difference? Cause Price is the best goalie in hockey and Condon is a lower tier backup and Scrivens is an AHL level player. That was a huge difference, and the difference was there in December, before the injuries, before missing Petry, before all those defencemen went in the lineup. Condon was never meant to be a starter, and a guy like that is going to get fatigued when he was originally slated to play 15-20 games and suddenly had to play 50+. This isn't hard to see. For sure. A full season of Gallagher is 2-3 more wins, Price would be 7-10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.