View Single Post
04-03-2012, 03:19 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,255
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
The starting point for the SABR people is that hits don't win games... runs do. It matters how many times you score.

In hockey it's the same principle. Scoring is all that matters.
Incorrect. In hockey, outscoring matters. Unlike baseball, players do both offense and defense at the same time, and at any time a play can turn with one to the other. A goal prevented has exactly the same value as a goal scored.

What analytics do is work on what generates outscoring, what is in a player's control, and what isn't and is more a matter of circumstance and chance.

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Points in hockey aren't the equivalent to RBIs in baseball.
Actually, if we're discussing bad cross-sport analogies, assists would be like RBIs. Goals would be runs scored. Shot-based metrics would be things like OBP and slugging percentages.

And really, the fact is that baseball just doesn't have the combined offense and defense makes those analogies godawful, but that's at least illustrative.

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
We've seen Crosby's CORSI lower than Gomez and Tanguay's and yet he's ten times the players they are. How do we know this? Because he scores points (the objective of hockey is to score more than your opponents) at a much higher rate.
Heh. I'll let you guess who leads the league in Corsi right now.

Incidentally, Corsi on its own only tells you part of the story. It's important to consider context such as strength of opposition and teammates as well as where the player starts his shifts. Current score is also a factor.

Corsi, and this is important, Corsi does not purport to predict who is a good scorer. Corsi is a measure of puck possession, and it is about measuring the main factor that drives outscoring. It also restricts itself to even-strength, so it has no predictive power on special teams. There is more to analytics than Corsi.

Total points lump goals, assists, special teams, even strength together and makes exactly zero provision for defense which is half the game. As a measure of player ability, it is very deficient, regardless of what one might think of other metrics.

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
A colour blind person wouldn't know to look for red to begin with. He'd have to be told by somebody else that 'red' actually existed in the first place.
I'll make sure to tell physicists that they can't possibly have discovered infrared and ultraviolet light, since we're all blind to those.

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Maybe he's the designated scapegoat for good reason. Maybe he doesn't hustle to get back into plays or just flat out doesn't care if he helps the team win. Maybe he can't score a goal to save his life.
Maybe, but in my experience, it's because someone has to be the designated scapegoat and whoever doesn't score as much as people think they should will end up being it. From then on, they're either a lazy bum or hopelessly immature, regardless of actual performance or anything they might actually do.

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
It's not about 'looks' though. Nobody has brought up 'looks'...
That is the ONLY way anyone has ever brought up work ethic. By saying, implicitly or explicitly, that the player looks like he's not working.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote