HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Hockey Prospectus Predicts Rangers Can't Sustain Winning in 2nd Half of Season

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-28-2012, 02:50 PM
  #51
DM Smiths
Rookie User
 
DM Smiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,253
vCash: 500
Meaningless, definitely, but in all actuality it could definitely happen. If we don't have things like our PP down and get on top of our forecheck on all 4 lines we could easily fall off.

DM Smiths is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2012, 03:12 PM
  #52
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,239
vCash: 500
Hockey is not a numbers game. You can't rely solely on numerical data to judge how a team or player has performed/will perform.

I do think the Rangers may run into a bit of trouble in the second half, but it has nothing to do with statistics or numbers. The Rangers play a grinding style that may take a toll on its players, and players such as Girardi and McDonagh may be exhausted by the year's end. That's an assessment that anyone who follows the team can make without running the numbers.

OverTheCap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2012, 03:13 PM
  #53
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NoVA / NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 67,419
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by sousuffer View Post
Sabremetrics in hockey should not be completely blasted or ignored.
Yes, they should.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
Sestito still on the make a wish tour. - rholt168
"Okay, Joel. You've had your fun. Give your brother his pads back." - Trxjw
Bird Law is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2012, 03:15 PM
  #54
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NoVA / NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 67,419
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHRangerfan View Post
I think the issue with trying to apply statistics to hockey as they are used in baseball is that at it's most base level baseball is a one on one battle, pitcher vs batter, batter vs fielder (as you mentioned balls a fielder should have gotten to)...in a team game like hockey there are things you can't quantify, a guy who takes a hit to make a play doesn't show up on a score sheet, Callahan taking a pounding in front of the net providing a screen doesn't show up on a score sheet...and the majority of stats, not all are team driven...exhibit A would be Marek Maliks +32 in 06/07.

Are statistics in hockey valid, in some context they are, but they need to be taken in context of team success/failure among many other factors.
One of the main problems with any of these stupid advanced metrics is most of them place weight on +/-. Any stat that even remotely considers +/- is inherently useless.

Bird Law is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2012, 03:16 PM
  #55
Rangers Fail
4 8 15 16 23 42
 
Rangers Fail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverTheCap View Post
Hockey is not a numbers game. You can't rely solely on numerical data to judge how a team or player has performed/will perform.

I do think the Rangers may run into a bit of trouble in the second half, but it has nothing to do with statistics or numbers. The Rangers play a grinding style that may take a toll on its players, and players such as Girardi and McDonagh may be exhausted by the year's end. That's an assessment that anyone who follows the team can make without running the numbers.
Yes. Thank you. It's like when Dubi's shooting percentage was 2%. it's not like he was getting robbed by goalies every night. He just wasn't in the right position. His first goal came off a juicy rebound. He was just there. That's an easier goal to score than something where you use the defenseman as a screen and snipe it. All these "advanced stats" get annoying really easily.

Rangers Fail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2012, 03:22 PM
  #56
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NoVA / NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 67,419
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henriks Broadway Hat View Post
Yes. Thank you. It's like when Dubi's shooting percentage was 2%. it's not like he was getting robbed by goalies every night. He just wasn't in the right position. His first goal came off a juicy rebound. He was just there. That's an easier goal to score than something where you use the defenseman as a screen and snipe it. All these "advanced stats" get annoying really easily.
There is also no way for these stupid advanced stats to know when a guy is pressing. It's obvious to someone watching the game. Not obvious to a nerd who looks at stats instead of watching the game.

Bird Law is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2012, 03:26 PM
  #57
Rangers Fail
4 8 15 16 23 42
 
Rangers Fail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
There is also no way for these stupid advanced stats to know when a guy is pressing. It's obvious to someone watching the game. Not obvious to a nerd who looks at stats instead of watching the game.
It's as if they look at the stats and go: "hmm...Brad Richards has a higher shooting percentage than usual...guess he's just getting lucky." when he was scoring goals, it was because he put himself in the right position. When he was on his cold streak, he wasn't where he was before in terms of positioning. Now he snapped out of his goal drought by being parked in front of the net. That's how it works. Simple

Rangers Fail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 04:25 PM
  #58
KingWantsCup
United we stand
 
KingWantsCup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,574
vCash: 50
It's so stupid when people take predictions like this very seriously.

KingWantsCup is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 05:01 PM
  #59
rickyrod
Registered User
 
rickyrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: nyc
Country: United States
Posts: 1,294
vCash: 500
Print it out, stick it up on the board in the locker room.

rickyrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 05:39 PM
  #60
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,111
vCash: 500
Eh, I think you guys are kinda missing the points of stats, even though I don't agree with advanced hockey stats being too predictive at this point

Like talking about Richards' high shooting percentage, yes of course it's not taking into account how he's playing positionally, but it's supposed to indicate a general average over the course of the season, through the times when he's playing bad positionally and therefor not scoring goals/getting good shots, and when he is getting into good shooting position, etc.

it's just pretty much an average and to some degree it is reasonable to expect that a player will trend towards his average over the course of a season

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 10:27 PM
  #61
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,245
vCash: 500
I think Lundy's high save percentage is due to the team blocking shots from the point, keeping the front of the net clean, no rebounds, players staying between the net and their man(team defense). No reason why that shouldn't continue.

DarthSather99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 10:46 PM
  #62
Rangers Fail
4 8 15 16 23 42
 
Rangers Fail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSather99 View Post
I think Lundy's high save percentage is due to the team blocking shots from the point, keeping the front of the net clean, no rebounds, players staying between the net and their man(team defense). No reason why that shouldn't continue.
No man. Don't you know? It's all luck.

Rangers Fail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 11:05 PM
  #63
Tawnos
Moderator
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
Eh, I think you guys are kinda missing the points of stats, even though I don't agree with advanced hockey stats being too predictive at this point

Like talking about Richards' high shooting percentage, yes of course it's not taking into account how he's playing positionally, but it's supposed to indicate a general average over the course of the season, through the times when he's playing bad positionally and therefor not scoring goals/getting good shots, and when he is getting into good shooting position, etc.

it's just pretty much an average and to some degree it is reasonable to expect that a player will trend towards his average over the course of a season
There is truth to what you're saying. However, the opposite is completely ignored as well. If you are going to say that Richards goal-scoring should come down based on his own historical numbers, doesn't that mean that his assists should increase? And shouldn't Dubinsky's shooting percentage progress towards his mean as well? My problem with that article is that it doesn't account for the potential positive averaging that could happen while solely focusing on the negative averaging that could happen.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 11:35 PM
  #64
Sean Aviary
Chirp! Chirp!
 
Sean Aviary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 154
vCash: 500
Richards' goal scoring is more a result of not having a sniper on his line. Stronger goaltending has been due to the improved overall defensive coaching and greater forward depth as far as defense. The situation with defensemen has been exceptional due to how they manage the system and bring in depth based on strong scouting. Some offensive players have been above their past pace, but some capable guys have been in tough slumps.

Several factors could cause a second-half slump, but they also have been down in the first half on their top defensemen and secondary scoring. This analysis misses a lot of key factors.

Sean Aviary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 05:35 AM
  #65
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
There is truth to what you're saying. However, the opposite is completely ignored as well. If you are going to say that Richards goal-scoring should come down based on his own historical numbers, doesn't that mean that his assists should increase? And shouldn't Dubinsky's shooting percentage progress towards his mean as well? My problem with that article is that it doesn't account for the potential positive averaging that could happen while solely focusing on the negative averaging that could happen.
Yes, I totally agree.

I'd also be more suspicious of Lundqvist keeping up his stats if there wasn't precedent for goalies playing great and having great stats all season and I think him going without a prolonged slump this season has more to do with him playing fewer games and the team playing more consistently in front of him, not just some random luck factor

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 06:50 AM
  #66
bubba5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,975
vCash: 500
Let's get the pp going, if we can score some there the rest looks good. Who cares what the outsiders say. They are mostly wrong anyway.

bubba5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 10:35 AM
  #67
DekeR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 484
vCash: 500
I say our team D adds to Henriks .937 sv% as well as Biron stellar goaltending. The NYR's control the puck less because our team D forces opposing teams to play perimeter hockey. Cycle all you want and take your shots from distance and from bad angles. Our team concept is gap control and in your face hockey. It suits us well with one of the lowest GAA in both conferences and I think our record is more of a statement of our style being a sucessful style than that of, we have been a lucky hockey club for the last 3 months.

DekeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 01:13 PM
  #68
sousuffer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Yes, they should.
Wow....deep. Lots of supporting evidence there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
There is also no way for these stupid advanced stats to know when a guy is pressing. It's obvious to someone watching the game. Not obvious to a nerd who looks at stats instead of watching the game.
You sound like a baseball scout from 1999 and are exactly the kind of person I called out in my first post...you clearly don't understand what these statistics actually portray or you would have a better argument than "stupid advanced stats"....just because the best to measure something may not have been established yet doesn't mean there is or never will be a good way to do it. Also, just because a stat is harder for you to understand doesn't make it useless or "stupid". There will be improved ways of measuring factors towards winning hockey games in the future just as it happened in baseball....perhaps not to the same degree (due to individual battles in baseball that was brought up previously), but definitely moreso than before.

The human eye plays tricks...people bias their opinions of player skills based on anecdotal evidence...useful stats (and I emphasize USEFUL) help eliminate that bias and have a place in this game. You should read (or watch) Moneyball...scouts in all sports rave about "nice swings" and "good attitudes" or "good hands" but these players cannot hit major league pitching to save their lives. Performance based stats help to eliminate these kinds of mistakes.

Will you ever quantify "hockey desire"? One might say "no", but I say if you came up with a score where blocked shots, hits, hits taken, penalty kill minutes, penalty kill efficiency, fighting majors, and perhaps some kind of metric to measure how many high quality shots are prevented (we'd need a way of measuring high quality scoring chances) when player X is on the ice (taking into account the skill of the players he faces when he's on the ice, you could probably measure the "intangibles" with some kind of metric. You could even include playoff performance (aka "guts"). The stuff would have to be measured somehow, but don't tell me it's impossible when there is no basis for such a statement.

sousuffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 03:03 PM
  #69
NHRangerfan
enfoonts
 
NHRangerfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Hampshire
Country: United States
Posts: 3,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sousuffer View Post
Wow....deep. Lots of supporting evidence there.



You sound like a baseball scout from 1999 and are exactly the kind of person I called out in my first post...you clearly don't understand what these statistics actually portray or you would have a better argument than "stupid advanced stats"....just because the best to measure something may not have been established yet doesn't mean there is or never will be a good way to do it. Also, just because a stat is harder for you to understand doesn't make it useless or "stupid". There will be improved ways of measuring factors towards winning hockey games in the future just as it happened in baseball....perhaps not to the same degree (due to individual battles in baseball that was brought up previously), but definitely moreso than before.

The human eye plays tricks...people bias their opinions of player skills based on anecdotal evidence...useful stats (and I emphasize USEFUL) help eliminate that bias and have a place in this game. You should read (or watch) Moneyball...scouts in all sports rave about "nice swings" and "good attitudes" or "good hands" but these players cannot hit major league pitching to save their lives. Performance based stats help to eliminate these kinds of mistakes.

Will you ever quantify "hockey desire"? One might say "no", but I say if you came up with a score where blocked shots, hits, hits taken, penalty kill minutes, penalty kill efficiency, fighting majors, and perhaps some kind of metric to measure how many high quality shots are prevented (we'd need a way of measuring high quality scoring chances) when player X is on the ice (taking into account the skill of the players he faces when he's on the ice, you could probably measure the "intangibles" with some kind of metric. You could even include playoff performance (aka "guts"). The stuff would have to be measured somehow, but don't tell me it's impossible when there is no basis for such a statement.
As I stated in an earlier response, stats in hockey or any other sport not named baseball need to be related back to team performance...so I would agree with your statement that because a formula hasn't been developed doesn't mean one can't be. However there is one caveat, any new stat must need to be regression tested, simply stated if you applied it to a TGO or Messier or Mary-O or Howe, etc what would the stat tell you about them?
I say that it needs to be regression tested because of the way the NFL developed that god-awful QB rating, Johnny Unitas is tied for 67th All-Time QB rating, he shares the same rating with Otto Graham, Jim McMahon and Bert Jones.

NHRangerfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 03:32 PM
  #70
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calad View Post
Thats a pretty large regression they are assuming there. They assume that every single excellent statistic is an anomaly and will regress to the mean, while also assuming that our "average" stats will remain average. That doesn't even take into account our below-average powerplay. There is no basis for their predictions, it kind of reminds me of how a fan of a team chasing us would act to justify why their team would win the division.

Let the haters hate, **** em.
They don't just rely on a regression to the mean, they expect a regression to the levels of last season as if they are our standard. "Gaborik has already reached last season's total" and they pass it off as if that is some career high or top production level.

What if Dubinsky and Boyle get going? What if our system creates these stats, instead of it being a product of overachievement? Lundqvist has always boosted the Rangers' numbers, this season he actually has a competent defense. They want us to drop and created an argument to support that prediction.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 03:34 PM
  #71
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NoVA / NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 67,419
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
They don't just rely on a regression to the mean, they expect a regression to the levels of last season as if they are our standard. "Gaborik has already reached last season's total" and they pass it off as if that is some career high or top production level.

What if Dubinsky and Boyle get going? What if our system creates these stats, instead of it being a product of overachievement? Lundqvist has always boosted the Rangers' numbers, this season he actually has a competent defense. They want us to drop and created an argument to support that prediction.
That is why advanced metrics are retarded for team sports. They work great for baseball.

Bird Law is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 04:12 PM
  #72
sousuffer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHRangerfan View Post
As I stated in an earlier response, stats in hockey or any other sport not named baseball need to be related back to team performance...so I would agree with your statement that because a formula hasn't been developed doesn't mean one can't be. However there is one caveat, any new stat must need to be regression tested, simply stated if you applied it to a TGO or Messier or Mary-O or Howe, etc what would the stat tell you about them?
I say that it needs to be regression tested because of the way the NFL developed that god-awful QB rating, Johnny Unitas is tied for 67th All-Time QB rating, he shares the same rating with Otto Graham, Jim McMahon and Bert Jones.


I agree completely...in baseball, they've tried to do this with the WAR stat, but I feel like it undervalues power hitters like Adam Dunn and overvalues fast players that can steal bases and field well like Brett Gardner. The problem with stats in hockey is the vast differences in eras, equipment, goaltending advances, defenseman blocking more shots, and many other fcators. Either way, statistics has ways to adjust for this in a way similar to park factor (Citifield is where homers go to die, where Citizens bank park is a bandbox). The key to any stat or metric is to identify the variables that contribute the most significant aspects to team success (as you said). This is similar to the "Wins" concept in baseball...you don't look to reproduce 100 RBI or 30 homers...you factor in TOTAL contribution and decide how to replace the wins that a player contributes. The key to assigning the value of intangibles (in addition to goals and assists) to wins is by looking at correlations between things like "hustle" plays and team success. Also interesting is assigning value to secondary assists, which in many cases, contribute nothing.

For instance, does a team that block a lot of shots correlate with team success? Or does it mean they spend too much time in their own zone and therefore NEEDS to block a lot of shots? I remember when the Rangers were terrible before the lockout, they always seemed to lead the "hits" category...all that seemed to mean is that they never had the puck and needed to hit people to try and get it back (their record reflected this).

In baseball, it was always thought that stolen bases and sacrifice bunts were critical to team success...after statistical analysis, it was shown that giving away outs (even to advance a player a base) almost NEVER benefits the team and is NOT good baseball (despite what every "baseball mind" would tell you). In addition, they found that your stolen base success rate needed to be a certain percentage (I believe it's 80%) before the team positively benefits from it. Just because "experts" from a sport tell you that specific actions are "playing the right way" doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. Again...it's anecdotal evidence...people remember a sac bunt that led to a walk-off win in the playoffs a lot more than unproductive sac-bunts that lead to nothing in a weekday regular season loss.

On a different note, "hockey experts" always give the Rangers credit for blocking shots. It would also be interesting to see whether or not Tortorella's "block all shots at all costs" mentality leads to increases in injuries (which obviously reduces overall future team success).

sousuffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 05:06 PM
  #73
KreiMeARiver
PHI has potential!
 
KreiMeARiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere in Time
Posts: 6,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno272 View Post
i kinda agree with the sentiment here. i think the Rangers fall down to earth a lil bit. 4th in the NHL? I'd take that any day of the week.

1)Detroit
2)Bawstun
3)Vancouver
4)NYR


done.
I'm getting slightly sick of everyone saying Boston is better than us.

They aren't..

If anyone is going to "come down to Earth" it's Boston. I'd be much more afraid of Detroit. Vancouver isn't better than us, either.

KreiMeARiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 06:24 PM
  #74
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightide85 View Post
I'm getting slightly sick of everyone saying Boston is better than us.

They aren't..

If anyone is going to "come down to Earth" it's Boston. I'd be much more afraid of Detroit. Vancouver isn't better than us, either.
They are better than us. Their goaltending and defense is just as good as ours, and their offense is much better. Objectively, I really don't see how you can argue with that.

Doesn't mean we can't beat them in a 7 game series, but overall they are the better team.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 06:49 PM
  #75
sousuffer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
They are better than us. Their goaltending and defense is just as good as ours, and their offense is much better. Objectively, I really don't see how you can argue with that.

Doesn't mean we can't beat them in a 7 game series, but overall they are the better team.
I disagree about the offense...the +33 goal differential between the teams can be explained by five games: 6-0, 6-0, 7-0, 8-0, and 9-0.

We beat them.
We have more points than them.

Until otherwise proven, we are better.

sousuffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 10:41 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.