View Single Post
Old
04-04-2012, 01:06 PM
  #146
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Fair, but the problem is that you don't seem to be interested in going into the research about it (such as the list of links I posted above). If you're going to challenge everything, maybe you need to understand analytics at least at the FAQ level, if not deeper.
I've looked at the links. I've seen the math. I haven't seen anything though that suggests that these formulas are worth anything. THAT is what I'm trying to get at. Apparently there are some clubs who've begun using this kind of analysis. I'm just trying to figure out how useful these kinds of analytics actually are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
The evidence you want is also there. I'll admit that it's not necessarily well-organized at all and there isn't really such a thing as a FAQ (though arcticicehockey.com has a primer that comes close), but everything is there.

If you want to learn about it at the level you seem to demand, it's going to take effort because there's a lot of material and it can't be easily spoon-fed. And you need to look at it with an understanding of general probability as well.
The fact that it's not well organized is part of the problem. Not only from an information gathering standpoint but also from the standpoint that it just doesn't seem to be there yet. It's in its infancy right now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Here's the thing about those subtleties: they're subtle. They do make a difference, but it's a small difference. The Big Things That Matter have been understood for a while, and now things are being refined, but as more and more refinements happen, they don't challenge the basic stuff, they just make it more accurate. Formulas aren't being "discarded". They are being "refined". This is true both in hockey and in baseball.

A subtlety that explains maybe half a percent of winning is valuable to research, but that doesn't mean you can point to that subtlety not being completely analyzed as invalidating the whole model.
I don't think it invalidates the model and I don't think I said this. If I did then I mispoke. I do think that those 'subtle' differences are 'subtle' because they're hard to capture if not impossible on a spreadsheet. The force of a Chara hit does more to win than I think you believe. And I think it's going to be really hard to capture this. You say that it's subtle because it doesn't really have an effect on the game... maybe it does. I say it's subtle because it can't be measured... doesn't mean the effect isn't there. Stats will try to capture WAR in baseball and I suppose you can try to do this in hockey. There are problems with WAR to begin with but in hockey I'd think it would be even harder. I'm not sure how else you really try to capture the force of those hits though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
It might, but here's the thing: there's some stuff you need to understand that you don't, among other things a basic understanding of general probability, which underpins all sports analytics. And if you're not interested in learning that, then there's not much point in discussing the analytics. And you're certainly giving me the impression you're not really interested in learning.

Until you understand why the notion of one player being the primary element in three different teams to the Cup Finals or the notion that a baseball team making a few trades can directly lead to a 20-game win streak as the main factor is silly (not questionable, silly), this discussion is not going to be very fruitful. And if you hold to those notions too closely for them to be challenged, then no, analytics and probabilities are not for you.
See... this kind of thing is where you really lose me. I'll use a more extreme example here. Look at Gretzky. The guy goes to LA and leads them to a cup final. You think it's sillly to cite him as the principle reason they got to a cup after trading for him? You think it's coincidence that he was on that club? You don't think that one player can make a huge difference to a clubs' fortunes? Seriously... you believe this?

If thats' what your analytics are telling you then one of the following is going on here.

1. Analytics offers little value in the way of predicting how good a team is going to be and is not a useful tool in building your team.
2. Analytics is not developed enough to provide meaningful analysis.
3. You don't understand the analytics yourself and are misinterpreting the data or drawing the wrong conclusions.
4. I've misunderstood what you're saying here. Because what I think you're trying to say doesn't make any sense.

Right now I've got to go with number 3. There's no way that any meaningful analysis would suggest that a player like Gretzky wouldn't be a primary reason for LA getting to the finals. You've got to be missing or misinterpreting something there. Ditto with Pronger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
And now you know how I feel whenever I debate with you.
The difference is that I have the results on my side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I'm pretty sure when I talked about Gomez getting 70 points I called it a best-case scenario, which was based on the notion that he'd get 40ish points and benefit from the Habs' continually strong powerplay. Only half of that equation happened in 2009-2010. Setting up straw men by misrepresenting what I say is another favorite tactic of yours, I've noticed.
It's not a straw man argument. When we dealt for him you told me he was a lock for 70+. I asked you about declining point totals, I told you that it was very possible that he was on the decline and you dismissed it. I'm not trying to 'rub it in your face' man... I'm trying to force you to confront what you've argued on here for a long time now. These stats have not produced the results that you've continuously told us it would. I'm giving you the reasoning for my skepticism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
By the way, you didn't exactly predict a lottery finish for the Habs this year, did you? How come?
Because I thought we'd have Markov, he'd go down and we'd get a decent replacement. Didn't happen. And we were far worse than I thought we'd ever be. Think about it though man... you continuously say that I"m too hard on the club. If anything, I've overrated them. And if that's the case, doesn't it just make your opinion on the club that much more absurd? If I'm overestimating them and you feel like I've been 'doom and gloom' about them as you've argued many times, then you're really way, way off here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Hilarious. And while you were trying to make a joke, it also tends to show that you don't really understand what an important concept like "regression to the mean" means...
I"m doing the best I can. I thought it was kind of witty but uh... enjoy the veal.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote