HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2011-12 Minnesota Wild II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-12-2011, 01:28 PM
  #51
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Morbid curiosity got the best of me, and I looked at the user comments for that. Good god that wings fan is mad. I also got a kick out of the one guy's personal rankings:

1) Buffalo
2) Wild
3) Wings
Literally LOL'd.

Jarick is online now  
Old
12-12-2011, 01:32 PM
  #52
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
I've been replying to a lot of these types of articles and the only response I've gotten was forwarding me to an article about the Pythagorean Equation being a good predictor of success. And I'll agree. 85% r-squared is pretty solid.

Haven't heard back on an shots/Fenwick crap though.



I stand by my thought that shot based statistics only make sense if all teams play the same system. In that case, talent would be the only variable (getting more shots and giving up fewer). But with different systems, shots have more or less value for some teams. The Wild just don't care about shots against. They care about quality of shots.

Scoring chances I'm sure would be a better predictor but we don't have them. So we just go with goals.
Scoring chances would be much better, but as bad as stat keepers are with shots and hits, they're way worse with scoring chances. The problem there is we're still dealing with pretty small sample sizes. There's just way too much belief in "one stat to rule them all, one stat to find them, one stat to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them." It's unfortunate that so many of the stats freaks are completely uneducated insofar as statistics are concerned.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-12-2011, 01:40 PM
  #53
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,604
vCash: 500
I don't think that's the case about small sample sizes...post lockout I've got 211 team seasons with 15,628 games played, 44,114 goals, and 467,707 shots.

It's just that not all shots are equal. If all systems and goalies were equal, you could look at shots. But they aren't.

I just don't understand how they don't look at whether or not the stat is a good predictor or not. They have theory after theory after theory that doesn't bear out.

Jarick is online now  
Old
12-12-2011, 02:02 PM
  #54
mnwildgophers
Registered User
 
mnwildgophers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Country: United States
Posts: 4,497
vCash: 500
All the articles are interesting to read, but there's just no way to quantify why a team wins a game. They don't win a game because of the stats, and as you guys were saying, there just isn't one stat that can tell you everything and it will predict whether a team wins or not. We get outshot, but like I said before, it really doesn't feel like it. It would be awesome to see something done with scoring chances, but it's so hard to quantify that. Is a scoring chance simply shooting a puck at the goal (that would technically be a scoring chance IMO).

It just seems to me people just have to try to find a way to explain why things happen in sports, but you can't use stats to explain it. Sometimes it's will, sometimes it's momentum, sometimes it's just plain old luck. First it was complaining we didn't score enough, now we're up to 2.63 GF/G which isn't super high, but the goals are starting to come. Rarely do we make mistakes giving up prime scoring chances such as odd man rushes, guys in front of the net with no one around. I'm sure there have been some, but there have been few games where we haven't been close to winning. We keep all the games close and wear down an opponent, a stat can't quantify that.

I'm just enjoying the ride and hoping we can keep it up in Winnipeg.

mnwildgophers is offline  
Old
12-12-2011, 02:04 PM
  #55
Averman
Ya, Yeo Betcha
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 96
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
I don't think that's the case about small sample sizes...post lockout I've got 211 team seasons with 15,628 games played, 44,114 goals, and 467,707 shots.

It's just that not all shots are equal. If all systems and goalies were equal, you could look at shots. But they aren't.

I just don't understand how they don't look at whether or not the stat is a good predictor or not. They have theory after theory after theory that doesn't bear out.
Even if all systems and goalies were equal, I'm not sure shots would be the best thing to look at, at least with how the statheads in hockey do. Lumping all shots into one category seems pretty ridiculous/lazy to me. It's like if baseball kept track only kept track of hits without differentiating between singles, doubles, triples and homers.

Averman is offline  
Old
12-12-2011, 02:12 PM
  #56
Dee Oh Cee
Registered User
 
Dee Oh Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Farmington
Country: United States
Posts: 6,378
vCash: 500
Also, shots are subjective and at the discretion of the official scorer (or whoever does that). And as people have said earlier, the hot goalie argument is lame as well because the stats our guys have aren't that much better than their best years.

Dee Oh Cee is offline  
Old
12-12-2011, 02:36 PM
  #57
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Averman View Post
Even if all systems and goalies were equal, I'm not sure shots would be the best thing to look at, at least with how the statheads in hockey do. Lumping all shots into one category seems pretty ridiculous/lazy to me. It's like if baseball kept track only kept track of hits without differentiating between singles, doubles, triples and homers.
So far as I can tell, the sole reason shot quality isn't taken into account is that team shooting percentage is not predictive in a year over year fashion. That is to say, a team shooting at 9.0% (1.5% greater than average) in 2010 has almost exactly equal odds of shooting at 7.5% in 2011 as a team that shot at 6.0% in 2010. I've seen analysis after analysis either referencing or quantifying this stat. However, none of these stat freaks ever ask "is this correct methodology?"

If you examine it from that perspective, it falls apart very quickly. Shots are an individual stat, that are tracked on an individual level. Teams are a grouping of 23 diverse individuals. Even if team shooting percentage trends to the mean, that doesn't tell us anything.

For example, Dany Heatley's career shooting percentage is 15.1% with a low of 12.0% and high of 18.3%. Mikko Koivu's career shooting percentage is 9.0% with a low of 6.3% and high of 12.3%. Nick Schultz's career shooting percentage is 4.6% with a low of 1.2% and high of 8.5%. All three of these players have widely ranging shot per game stats. On an annual basis, Schultz varies from 0.57 shots/game to 1.04 shots/game. Heatley ranges from 2.46 to 3.78. If Heatley's shooting near his high rate, but Schultz is shooting near his low rate, the team shots/game figure remains at the average, but the team shooting percentage jumps way above average. If the inverse is true, it will fall below average. Since the composition of team shots is not consistent, team shooting percentage is not consistent. However, individual shooting percentage is still predictive.

Quite literally, the only thing shown by proving team shooting percentage is not predictive, is that multiplying a predictive stat by a non-predictive stat is non-predictive. We already know this. This is probably the best example of a strawman argument that has ever been made.

I would like for someone to do analysis on an individual player level, and attempt to determine there whether it's predictive or not. I think you'll find that it is.

Interestingly enough, the only research I've seen that uses a different technique than "team shooting percentage" found that shot quality absolutely exists. As far as I can tell, they did not research whether it was predictive year over year, but for the time periods they looked at, it perfectly corrected for every team that "statistically should have missed the playoffs" under the shot differential model, without adding any new errors. For this research, rather than use something blase like shooting percentage, they actually reviewed shot charts. They determined that shots from certain areas (like the slot) offer higher scoring percentages. Likewise, shots from the outside have much lower scoring percentages. They reviewed every shot from several years by this method, and determined that teams that kept opponents to the outside, but were outshot (like Colorado in 09-10) moved higher in their predictive ranking, which matched the real life outcomes. Likewise, those who took a lot of shots from the outside (like Detroit in 09-10) feel in the rankings.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-12-2011, 02:36 PM
  #58
NHL1674
Whatever...
 
NHL1674's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 11,132
vCash: 97
Seriously?!!! WTH guys!! Stop hurting your own goalies!!

Youngblood Tweet
Quote:
Ouch! Hackett hit in head -- near ear -- by Staubitz. Hunched over, he leaves the ice.
Quote:
Hackett has not returned to ice.

NHL1674 is offline  
Old
12-12-2011, 02:40 PM
  #59
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,319
vCash: 500
If there's more of a reason to get rid of Stauby, it's that.

thestonedkoala is offline  
Old
12-12-2011, 02:50 PM
  #60
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,604
vCash: 500
Well the save percentage "hot goalie" think is bunk because of the same reason, shot quality. Save percentage and GAA aren't goalie stats but a combination of goalie and team defense.

Look at it this way...if there are no goalies, like in a shootout, save percentage drops to 60-70 percent. With a bad defense, it's closer to 90. Quality defense, rises up to 92+%.

Jarick is online now  
Old
12-12-2011, 02:55 PM
  #61
Northland Wild Man
Finnesotans?
 
Northland Wild Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Country: United States
Posts: 7,462
vCash: 500
Too much quantitative information and not enough qualitative information. The number of shots don't mean as much as the number of scoring chances.

Northland Wild Man is offline  
Old
12-12-2011, 02:59 PM
  #62
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,604
vCash: 500
Squidz I just ran the r-squared on team shooting percentage (goals/shots on goal) and it's only 16.77%. Even worse than shot differential.

Jarick is online now  
Old
12-12-2011, 03:06 PM
  #63
Averman
Ya, Yeo Betcha
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 96
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
So far as I can tell, the sole reason shot quality isn't taken into account is that team shooting percentage is not predictive in a year over year fashion. That is to say, a team shooting at 9.0% (1.5% greater than average) in 2010 has almost exactly equal odds of shooting at 7.5% in 2011 as a team that shot at 6.0% in 2010. I've seen analysis after analysis either referencing or quantifying this stat. However, none of these stat freaks ever ask "is this correct methodology?"

If you examine it from that perspective, it falls apart very quickly. Shots are an individual stat, that are tracked on an individual level. Teams are a grouping of 23 diverse individuals. Even if team shooting percentage trends to the mean, that doesn't tell us anything.

For example, Dany Heatley's career shooting percentage is 15.1% with a low of 12.0% and high of 18.3%. Mikko Koivu's career shooting percentage is 9.0% with a low of 6.3% and high of 12.3%. Nick Schultz's career shooting percentage is 4.6% with a low of 1.2% and high of 8.5%. All three of these players have widely ranging shot per game stats. On an annual basis, Schultz varies from 0.57 shots/game to 1.04 shots/game. Heatley ranges from 2.46 to 3.78. If Heatley's shooting near his high rate, but Schultz is shooting near his low rate, the team shots/game figure remains at the average, but the team shooting percentage jumps way above average. If the inverse is true, it will fall below average. Since the composition of team shots is not consistent, team shooting percentage is not consistent. However, individual shooting percentage is still predictive.

Quite literally, the only thing shown by proving team shooting percentage is not predictive, is that multiplying a predictive stat by a non-predictive stat is non-predictive. We already know this. This is probably the best example of a strawman argument that has ever been made.

I would like for someone to do analysis on an individual player level, and attempt to determine there whether it's predictive or not. I think you'll find that it is.

Interestingly enough, the only research I've seen that uses a different technique than "team shooting percentage" found that shot quality absolutely exists. As far as I can tell, they did not research whether it was predictive year over year, but for the time periods they looked at, it perfectly corrected for every team that "statistically should have missed the playoffs" under the shot differential model, without adding any new errors. For this research, rather than use something blase like shooting percentage, they actually reviewed shot charts. They determined that shots from certain areas (like the slot) offer higher scoring percentages. Likewise, shots from the outside have much lower scoring percentages. They reviewed every shot from several years by this method, and determined that teams that kept opponents to the outside, but were outshot (like Colorado in 09-10) moved higher in their predictive ranking, which matched the real life outcomes. Likewise, those who took a lot of shots from the outside (like Detroit in 09-10) feel in the rankings.
You talking about DIGR?

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/?p=648

http://www.sloansportsconference.com...ntage-Maps.pdf

I couldn't watch the video without laughing, but that's just because Schuckers has a Mr. Mackey-esque vocal tic.

Averman is offline  
Old
12-12-2011, 03:17 PM
  #64
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
Squidz I just ran the r-squared on team shooting percentage (goals/shots on goal) and it's only 16.77%. Even worse than shot differential.
I assume you're just doing least squares on shooting percentage vs winning percentage? Can you do a least squares on winning percentage vs shooting percentage and shots differential? I don't remember how to do any of the regressions as I haven't had to actually calculate stats since my junior year of college.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-12-2011, 04:44 PM
  #65
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,604
vCash: 500
Actual Standings & Team Stats
RankTeamGPWOTLPtsPPGProjG/GGA/GS/GPP%PK%
1MINNESOTA30203431.4311822nd3rd30th19th9th
2CHICAGO30184401.331094th20th4th9th27th
3DETROIT28181371.321085th5th1st7th22nd
4ST LOUIS29173371.2810524th1st16th29th20th
5VANCOUVER29181371.281052nd9th6th1st4th
6SAN JOSE27152321.199714th7th1st15th28th
7DALLAS28161331.189719th17th23rd22nd12th
8PHOENIX29153331.149317th12th10th29th14th
9NASHVILLE29144321.109015th14th27th3rd11th
10CALGARY29142301.038520th16th22nd22nd14th
11LOS ANGELES29134301.038530th6th17th21st7th
12EDMONTON30143311.038512th13th27th6th13th
13COLORADO30131270.907423rd21st6th5th25th
14ANAHEIM2985210.725929th24th29th17th10th
15COLUMBUS2984200.695726th28th9th26th30th

2011-12 and On-Pace
NameGPGAPts+/-SPGPctOP GOP PtsOP +/-
Mikko Koivu274172162.266.6%126418
Dany Heatley27891712.8510.4%24523
Matt Cullen27881632.4811.9%24499
Pierre-Marc Bouchard254111542.047.8%134813
Kyle Brodziak27861402.0714.3%24430
Devin Setoguchi278513-62.2213.3%2439-18
Cal Clutterbuck25841252.4413.1%263816
Nick Johnson23461031.4312.1%143410
Jared Spurgeon2727911.196.3%6273
Guillaume Latendresse1444872.3612.1%203935
Marek Zidlicky1806600.940.0%0240
Marco Scandella23235-21.436.1%717-7
Nate Prosser1404400.500.0%0200
Darroll Powe27224-21.116.7%612-6
Colton Gillies25022-30.600.0%06-10
Justin Falk1602230.880.0%0913
Nick Schultz27022-20.560.0%06-6
Warren Peters9011-10.220.0%07-7
Clayton Stoner2001180.650.0%0430
Greg Zanon1110150.6414.3%6630
Brad Staubitz23000-20.390.0%00-7

Prior Year Comparison
NameGPGChangePPGChangeSPGChangePctChange
Mikko Koivu0.15(38%)0.78(11%)2.26(16%)6.6%(26%)
Dany Heatley0.30(9%)0.63(21%)2.855%10.4%(13%)
Pierre-Marc Bouchard0.16(21%)0.60(7%)2.0423%7.8%(36%)
Matt Cullen0.3093%0.5919%2.4829%11.9%49%
Guillaume Latendresse0.295%0.575%2.3644%12.1%(28%)
Kyle Brodziak0.3048%0.5212%2.0732%14.3%13%
Devin Setoguchi0.30(3%)0.48(15%)2.22(20%)13.3%20%
Cal Clutterbuck0.3228%0.487%2.44(3%)13.1%32%
Nick Johnson0.17(30%)0.43(42%)1.43(43%)12.1%21%
Jared Spurgeon0.07(2%)0.3347%1.1965%6.3%(40%)
Marek Zidlicky0.00(100%)0.33(36%)0.94(18%)0.0%(100%)
Nate Prosser0.000%0.290%0.500%0.0%0%
Marco Scandella0.090%0.22117%1.43121%6.1%0%
Darroll Powe0.07(14%)0.15(29%)1.113%6.7%(16%)
Justin Falk0.000%0.13(8%)0.88175%0.0%0%
Warren Peters0.00(100%)0.1122%0.22(78%)0.0%(100%)
Greg Zanon0.090%0.096%0.64(5%)14.3%0%
Colton Gillies0.00(100%)0.08(44%)0.6040%0.0%(100%)
Nick Schultz0.00(100%)0.07(68%)0.56(11%)0.0%(100%)
Clayton Stoner0.00(100%)0.05(68%)0.65(7%)0.0%(100%)
Brad Staubitz0.00(100%)0.00(100%)0.39(4%)0.0%(100%)

Jarick is online now  
Old
12-12-2011, 05:24 PM
  #66
Foxlockbox
:laugh: is my period
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,858
vCash: 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
Tables
Your player stats are 3 games short.

Foxlockbox is offline  
Old
12-12-2011, 05:46 PM
  #67
Fel 96
JFC
 
Fel 96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Little Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 56,874
vCash: 2037
Send a message via MSN to Fel 96
Quote:
Watch Russo deliver the coffee in Phoenix after savaging us on Twitter.
http://twitter.com/#!/benznasty/stat...74493718331393


Fel 96 is offline  
Old
12-12-2011, 07:52 PM
  #68
Avder
Global Moderator
Sleep? What's that?
 
Avder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The ANGRY DOME
Country: United States
Posts: 31,471
vCash: 50


Staubitz, you big sack of fail...why would you do something like that?

Avder is offline  
Old
12-12-2011, 08:08 PM
  #69
BigT2002
Registered User
 
BigT2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: some other continent
Country: United States
Posts: 12,524
vCash: 50
WOW....VS just talked about us for like a whole 5 minutes during the NJ/Tampy game

BigT2002 is offline  
Old
12-12-2011, 08:10 PM
  #70
FUBAR McDangles
Registered User
 
FUBAR McDangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Country: United States
Posts: 6,779
vCash: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT2002 View Post
WOW....VS just talked about us for like a whole 5 minutes during the NJ/Tampy game
I only saw like 30 seconds of it during the game after they talked about the new Patrick Kane thing. Did they talk about it longer during the intermission or what?

FUBAR McDangles is online now  
Old
12-12-2011, 08:27 PM
  #71
BigT2002
Registered User
 
BigT2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: some other continent
Country: United States
Posts: 12,524
vCash: 50
Yup. Went into detail about Scandella and such....and of course NBC's obligatory nod to Pittsburgh in any way they can.

BigT2002 is offline  
Old
12-12-2011, 08:37 PM
  #72
FUBAR McDangles
Registered User
 
FUBAR McDangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Country: United States
Posts: 6,779
vCash: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT2002 View Post
Yup. Went into detail about Scandella and such....and of course NBC's obligatory nod to Pittsburgh in any way they can.
Oh nice. Were they mostly positive about our team or did they get the usual "but they can't sustain it" somewhere?

And Pitty deserves just that today, pity, because Crosby is going to be out for a while. That sucks for the game, no matter anyone's opinion.

FUBAR McDangles is online now  
Old
12-12-2011, 08:49 PM
  #73
Mancini79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Eden Prairie, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 264
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Mancini79 Send a message via Yahoo to Mancini79
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8bandarmadillo View Post
If there's more of a reason to get rid of Stauby, it's that.
Have to agree, what a waste of a roster spot .......IMO. I see no use for him. If somebody wants to defend the guy, I'll certainly listen though. Frankly I'm shocked he's still around.

Mancini79 is offline  
Old
12-12-2011, 08:50 PM
  #74
Mancini79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Eden Prairie, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 264
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Mancini79 Send a message via Yahoo to Mancini79
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyratoku View Post
I only saw like 30 seconds of it during the game after they talked about the new Patrick Kane thing. Did they talk about it longer during the intermission or what?
Really? Was it good or bad?

Mancini79 is offline  
Old
12-12-2011, 08:53 PM
  #75
FUBAR McDangles
Registered User
 
FUBAR McDangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Country: United States
Posts: 6,779
vCash: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mancini79 View Post
Really? Was it good or bad?
I made a little transcript in the wild respect thread. It was good.

FUBAR McDangles is online now  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:30 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.