I think it works better in baseball because there are so many more stats, and more singular events in a game that can be analyzed. I saw the movie and it was very good, but I still don't see a real application or magic formula for hockey yet. What stat will become the equivalent of Moneyball's OBP?
I'll jump in here briefly - hits are not advanced stats.
And the other four that you reference are not subjective in any way. They're all based on data coming out of games. Whether or not you're on the ice for an offensive or defensive zone faceoff is not subjective. Same goes for Corsi (on the ice for shots for or against), qualcomp (on the ice against certain players) or PDO (on the ice for shooting and save percentages).
Desjardins is simply using the game data compiled by the NHL to create these metrics.
Giveaways and takeaways are absolutely subjective... and I don't think he has a category for them, either. Just like he doesn't have a category for scoring chances, I don't think.
I think it works better in baseball because there are so many more stats, and more singular events in a game that can be analyzed. I saw the movie and it was very good, but I still don't see a real application or magic formula for hockey yet. What stat will become the equivalent of Moneyball's OBP?
I think it works better in baseball because there are so many more stats, and more singular events in a game that can be analyzed. I saw the movie and it was very good, but I still don't see a real application or magic formula for hockey yet. What stat will become the equivalent of Moneyball's OBP?
This minor league equivalency stat looks interesting. Applied to baseball it says that any hitter going from AAA to the bigs is going to have his numbers drop 18%.
I think that would be an interesting number to start at to see what the MLE from the AHL to the NHL is.
This minor league equivalency stat looks interesting. Applied to baseball it says that any hitter going from AAA to the bigs is going to have his numbers drop 18%.
I think that would be an interesting number to start at to see what the MLE from the AHL to the NHL is.
Again though, there really isn't as much fluctuation between leagues that the MLB experiences. It would be harder to determine the MLE for hockey with a smaller sample size. You would have to come up with some type of criteria that would give you enough data to work with. If a player plays a game or two in the NHL without a point, that could skew it all...
There is something out there that correlates age/points in juniors to NHL success, that is a pretty neat statistic.
I last saw it on the Winnipeg Jets SBNation site when comparing their pick to Couturier.
Again though, there really isn't as much fluctuation between leagues that the MLB experiences. It would be harder to determine the MLE for hockey with a smaller sample size. You would have to come up with some type of criteria that would give you enough data to work with. If a player plays a game or two in the NHL without a point, that could skew it all...
There is something out there that correlates age/points in juniors to NHL success, that is a pretty neat statistic.
I last saw it on the Winnipeg Jets SBNation site when comparing their pick to Couturier.
If they could come up with reliable variables to come up with that stat for juniors they should be able to do it for the NHL. I think the one thing you need to do is factor it all into an average per 60 minutes of ice time though. That's what they've been doing for years with goals against average and with spread sheets it should be cake to track that.
Again though, there really isn't as much fluctuation between leagues that the MLB experiences. It would be harder to determine the MLE for hockey with a smaller sample size. You would have to come up with some type of criteria that would give you enough data to work with. If a player plays a game or two in the NHL without a point, that could skew it all...
There is something out there that correlates age/points in juniors to NHL success, that is a pretty neat statistic.
I last saw it on the Winnipeg Jets SBNation site when comparing their pick to Couturier.
In case you were wondering, the top left-hand corner is empty because there aren't a whole lot of guys who put up a point-per-game at age 16. But the key takeaway is that as you get closer to that top left-hand corner, you're more likely to become an NHL regular. Mark Scheifele projects to play 100 games between now and age 26 - that's perhaps a 25% chance of becoming a real NHL player. Couturier, on the other hand, is almost off-the-chart, and might have a 75% chance of doing the same.
There are obviously other factors here - Scheifele was on a much weaker team, and we have no way of knowing a player's intangibles - but all things being equal, Couturier was a much better pick at the #7 spot. Time will tell if he's the right choice, but you'd better have a damned good reason to play against the odds.
Again though, there really isn't as much fluctuation between leagues that the MLB experiences. It would be harder to determine the MLE for hockey with a smaller sample size. You would have to come up with some type of criteria that would give you enough data to work with. If a player plays a game or two in the NHL without a point, that could skew it all...
There is something out there that correlates age/points in juniors to NHL success, that is a pretty neat statistic.
I last saw it on the Winnipeg Jets SBNation site when comparing their pick to Couturier.
That isn't how anyone with an iota of statistical understanding uses stats.
I understand that it is an advanced statistic, but what I meant is there is no magical one like OBP. Like if you lost Alex Ovechkin, would you be able replace him with someone of the same Corsi number and still be as competitive?
I understand that it is an advanced statistic, but what I meant is there is no magical one like OBP. Like if you lost Alex Ovechkin, would you be able to equally replace him with someone of the same Corsi number and still be as competitive?
...on what planet can you simply replace player A with player B based purely on OBP?
I don't think you understand how the moneyball OBP argument actually worked... the argument wasn't that you can simply plug-n-play OBP. The argument was that OBP was undervalued by teams, so you could get more bang for your buck by looking at OBP.
...on what planet can you simply replace player A with player B based purely on OBP?
I don't think you understand how the moneyball OBP argument actually worked... the argument wasn't that you can simply plug-n-play OBP. The argument was that OBP was undervalued by teams, so you could get more bang for your buck by looking at OBP.
The argument was that OBP is what matters most in generating runs. This challenged the HR/RBI argument that people initially thought. So yes, they wanted guys who could get on base, which in their analysis was more likely to lead to runs scored, and therefore wins. To them that was the most important stat, not just for value of a player, but for runs scored.
The argument was that OBP is what matters most in generating runs. This challenged the HR/RBI argument that people initially thought. So yes, they wanted guys who could get on base, which in their analysis was more likely to lead to runs scored, and therefore wins. To them that was the most important stat, not just for value of a player, but for runs scored.
No, that isn't what they were arguing... and they certainly don't undervalue HR (it was actually OBP v. SLG). Moneyball was about economizing the game. Where can I get the most bang for the buck. They value OBP not because they viewed it as inherently leading to more runs (though, if you're talking about prospects they felt it was a better indicator of long-term success), but because it was CHEAP compared to SLG. Scouts overvalued the SLG of prospects, so you could get a "better" value based off of OBP.
No one in their right mind EVER thought you could replace Barry Bonds (an extreme example) in his prime with someone else with a high OBP and get anywhere near the same production.
And this goes in cycles. In recent years, OBP has become overvalued... so what have teams started to do? Go after defense.
Goalies might be one. The Flyers were ahead of the trend of undervaluing goalies - perhaps to a fault... they too undervalued the position and now they may have overvalued, but then again we do not have Ed Snider screaming in our ear.
My choice for undervalued right now are Russian draft picks. I think they are undervalued from a draft position. I do see the Russian Federation supporting their star youngsters coming over here because they need them to become "STARS" for their league to do well. Thus, now would be a good time to invest in Russians.
The Flyers sort of had the right idea when undervaluing goalies, but they missed the mark by thinking they could just toss anything in net in order to spend as few dollars as possible on the position. Now they have swung to the opposite extreme and paid far more than was necessary. It's very frustrating to watch.
No, that isn't what they were arguing... and they certainly don't undervalue HR (it was actually OBP v. SLG). Moneyball was about economizing the game. Where can I get the most bang for the buck. They value OBP not because they viewed it as inherently leading to more runs (though, if you're talking about prospects they felt it was a better indicator of long-term success), but because it was CHEAP compared to SLG. Scouts overvalued the SLG of prospects, so you could get a "better" value based off of OBP.
No one in their right mind EVER thought you could replace Barry Bonds (an extreme example) in his prime with someone else with a high OBP and get anywhere near the same production.
And this goes in cycles. In recent years, OBP has become overvalued... so what have teams started to do? Go after defense.
The Flyers sort of had the right idea when undervaluing goalies, but they missed the mark by thinking they could just toss anything in net in order to spend as few dollars as possible on the position. Now they have swung to the opposite extreme and paid far more than was necessary. It's very frustrating to watch.
I agree Russians are very undervalued.
Russians aren't necessarily "undervalued," they're just viewed as risky.
They value OBP not because they viewed it as inherently leading to more runs (though, if you're talking about prospects they felt it was a better indicator of long-term success), but because it was CHEAP compared to SLG. Scouts overvalued the SLG of prospects, so you could get a "better" value based off of OBP.
Side note: from a statistical perspective, OBP does inherently lead to more runs than SLG. If you could pay $10,000 for a point of SLG or $10,000 for a point of OBP, OBP is the better bet. This can be confirmed by plugging the values into a Markov run estimator.
Side note: from a statistical perspective, OBP does inherently lead to more runs than SLG. If you could pay $10,000 for a point of SLG or $10,000 for a point of OBP, OBP is the better bet. This can be confirmed by plugging the values into a Markov run estimator.
Yes, because men on base leads to runs, but this is a larger point than the real priority of "moneyball".
I read it as they were looking for players to replace the lost OBP. The value came in when they chose players who were not 'prototypical' or desirable because of age/injury/athleticism who had poor traditional stats but fulfilled the OBP requirement.
