HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Sabremetrics/Microstats in Hockey

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-03-2012, 04:03 PM
  #101
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
The point was always that Gomez's production would turn around because his puck possession hadn't changed, his shot generation hadn't changed, his chance generation hadn't changed only the shooting percentage had changed and that had been shown to regress to the mean. Of course, that implied "all other things being equal". Which didn't turn out to be the case: notably, he's on his fourth significant injury this year.

His on-ice shooting percentage, however, regressed right to the mean as predicted.
But it didn't turn around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Again, the implicit, unsupported assumption that points total is more significant than microstats.

This is tantamount to saying "microstats don't agree with me and therefore are valueless".
In regards to CORSI? Yeah... I'm saying that point total IS more significant. Of course it is if you're looking at top offensive players. Would you rather have Grabvowski or Crosby on your team? Simply because something can be quantified doesn't mean that it's effective in telling us how 'good' a players is.

Would you trade Clarke MacArthur for Malkin? Neither would I. You'd have to be brain dead to take a player based on his CORSI vs. a player with much better production.

What value is CORSI supposed to give me when Clarke MacArthur is 3rd in the league in this stat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I'm taking this as seriously as it deserves. It's a terrible example and I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate with it. We've discovered any number of things we didn't know existed 100, 50, 20, 10 years ago. Notably infrared and ultraviolet light, which are explicitly ranges of color that are not perceived by the human eye. Nobody knew that existed yet they went looking for it and they found it.

And do we know what the "true nature" of ultraviolet light is? I think we have a pretty damned good idea, yes.
Right... and it took them 100 years. As I said, we are at the dawn of SABR for hockey. More forumlas will be developed and some that are relied on now will probably be refined or even discarded.

Runs Created for example didn't exist 40 years ago. The numbers were there but the formula hadn't been invented yet. Then when it was invented... it was refined by others. They are STILL coming up with new forumlas now. OPS+ was developed recently over at Baseball Reference. But OPS has it's critics too. It's a combination of On Base and Slugging Percentage but treats them equally... some feel On Base should be given more weight. Again, it offers some illumination but no formula is going to be perfect and I'd say it's going to be less perfect in hockey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I'm avoiding most of the baseball arguments (Giambi, especially) because I'm not familiar with them, but I'm curious about this: which "howling failure" are you referring to here?
Billy Beane's Oakland A's. He built exclusively from a spreadsheet and ignored tangibles altogether. The team was a complete disaster. He then fired half the team and came back with guys who didn't carry the same baggage. They were still SABR guys but he looked at outside factors and the team took off on a 20 game win streak. On a fraction of the budget from the 'big' teams out there he made the playoffs. He didn't win the series but that's more a reflection of lack of resources than anything.

He proved SABR could work with baseball and it's easy to see why. Baseball was made for SABR. Those advanced stats are easy to quantify because it's such a stat driven game. I don't think hockey is impossible to quantify but I doubt that we're there yet.

Go watch Moneyball, you'll enjoy it.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 04-03-2012 at 04:17 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 04:04 PM
  #102
habitue*
 
habitue*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Cop-out.



Are you seriously saying that you honestly believe that a single player can singlehandedly make a Cup contender of an otherwise non-playoff team? Do you have any idea how much such a player would be worth?

Was Halak such a player, or was that a fluke but Pronger wasn't?

Seriously, you do realize that the playoffs are a small sample and that a player or team can get hot on small samples, right? Pronger is a very good player, but he's not that intrinsic to his team's success. If he were, the Flyers would have crashed by now. Pronger isn't why Pisani scored 14 goals in 24 games, or why Roloson goaled at .927 (and if he were why were, why wasn't he able to do the same thing for Markkanen)?



If it were me, I'd wonder why the Sens were so infamously plagued by bad goaltending during all the years they had Chara in.
Get real, man ! Sens had average and bad goaltending (giving bad goals at the very wrong time) + Chara was way less experienced.

Bevause you like maths and stats, try to explain me how come the habs are about mid-pack in the difference between goal for and against and are 29th in the standings...

Explain me how come St-Louis has 1 or 2 guys over 50 points 9 1, 20 goals scorer) and are in the top-three teams in the league ....

Explain me how come Florida have less goals than Habs, more allowed goals, huge negative differential, 15 games OT/SO losses... and are 1st in their Division ....

habitue* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 04:09 PM
  #103
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitue View Post
Bevause you like maths and stats, try to explain me how come the habs are about mid-pack in the difference between goal for and against and are 29th in the standings...
Too many one-goal losses. You know what? This has no predictive power from year to year. A team that loses (or wins) a lot of games by one goal says very little about whether that will happen again the next year.

What, you think they (or maybe Price) isn't "clutch" enough?

Quote:
Originally Posted by habitue View Post
Explain me how come St-Louis has 1 or 2 guys over 50 points 9 1, 20 goals scorer) and are in the top-three teams in the league ....
St-Louis is the poster child for puck posssession. They're easily one of the best "Corsi" teams in the league.

Quote:
Originally Posted by habitue View Post
Explain me how come Florida have less goals than Habs, more allowed goals, huge negative differential, 15 games OT/SO losses... and are 1st in their Division ....
They're a weak team, but they play in the worst division in hockey.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 04:11 PM
  #104
Goldthorpe
Meditating Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitue View Post
Bevause you like maths and stats, try to explain me how come the habs are about mid-pack in the difference between goal for and against and are 29th in the standings...
We won a lot of blowouts compared to comparatively losing a lot of games by 1 goal.
Quote:
Explain me how come St-Louis has 1 or 2 guys over 50 points 9 1, 20 goals scorer) and are in the top-three teams in the league ....
Because hockey is about outscoring your opponent, not just scoring goals. St Louis is a very good defensive team. This is actually the point that was being made just a few posts above.
Quote:
Explain me how come Florida have less goals than Habs, more allowed goals, huge negative differential, 15 games OT/SO losses... and are 1st in their Division ....
Their division is relatively weak, and they won a lot of games by a goal while comparatively losing a lot by blowouts.

Those are easy questions, no need microstats to explain that.

Goldthorpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 04:21 PM
  #105
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
But it didn't turn around.
Yah, it did. Gomez ended up being on the ice for about as many goals for as Plekanec, but couldn't get points for them. He didn't manage to collect second assists, notably, which was almost as freakish as his inability to get a goal but didn't get nearly as much attention. His first-assist total is perfectly in line with what little icetime he's had.

More importantly, he also had four different injuries, which do affect performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
In regards to CORSI? Yeah... I'm saying that point total IS more significant. Of course it is if you're looking at top offensive players.
And yet again: points total is a very broad-brushed metric that hides any number of important factors and completely ignores half the game. Point totals tell us that Kaberle is a much better player than Josh Gorges and that Mark Streit is way more valuable than Drew Doughty.

Sigh. I've had this argument with you before. Oh, the particulars change, but it's basically always the same structure. You have an assumption that you believe to be impeachably correct. The assumption is challenged. You defend the assumption by asserting the assumption without support and dismissing all opposite facts because they contradict the assumption. In reality, you've not actually done anything but put window-dressing on the fact that you believe you're right simply because you're right. And yet another promising thread has devolved in this futility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Billy Beane's Oakland A's. He built exclusively from a spreadsheet and ignored tangibles altogether. The team was a complete disaster. He then fired half the team and came back with guys who didn't carry the same baggage. They were still SABR guys but he looked at outside factors and the team took off on a 20 game win streak. On a fraction of the budget from the 'big' teams out there he made the playoffs. He didn't win the series but that's more a reflection of lack of resources than anything.
Interesting. I wonder if that's the true story.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 04:23 PM
  #106
Roke
Registered User
 
Roke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Billy Beane's Oakland A's. He built exclusively from a spreadsheet and ignored tangibles altogether. The team was a complete disaster. He then fired half the team and came back with guys who didn't carry the same baggage. They were still SABR guys but he looked at outside factors and the team took off on a 20 game win streak. On a fraction of the budget from the 'big' teams out there he made the playoffs. He didn't win the series but that's more a reflection of lack of resources than anything.
Exclusively? Not even close. The A's still employed scouts, they still used scouting and video work. Beane may not have watched his team play games but they had staff doing that, watching other teams play, and writing scouting reports.

I also don't recall him firing half the team sometime between 2001 and 2002 (2002 was the year where they had the 20 game win streak).

The 2001 A's lost a lot of talent to free agency (Jason Giambi, Miguel Tejada, Johnny Damon, and if you overvalue closers like most people still do Jason Isringhausen) but the 2001 team won 102 games and made the playoffs. The 2000 A's won 91 games and made the playoffs.

The teams before 2002 were hardly disasters.

Roke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 04:25 PM
  #107
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roke View Post
Exclusively? Not even close. The A's still employed scouts, they still used scouting and video work.

I also don't recall him firing half the team sometime between 2001 and 2002 (2002 was the year where they had the 20 game win streak).
Thanks. That seems much more plausible.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 04:41 PM
  #108
SaskRinkRat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy
The result may be in the win column. It's just hard to show the direct link because hockey is a fluid game with lots of variables. But those hits in the corner have an effect. We just can't measure it. It's just a limitation that currently exists. It doesn't mean that the effect isn't there or isn't important... we just don't know how important it is.
I'll ask a seemingly obvious question that I've yet to see asked in this thread: if you can't measure the effect of "hits in the corner", how do you know for certain they have an effect?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy
Billy Beane's Oakland A's. He built exclusively from a spreadsheet and ignored tangibles altogether. The team was a complete disaster. He then fired half the team and came back with guys who didn't carry the same baggage. They were still SABR guys but he looked at outside factors and the team took off on a 20 game win streak. On a fraction of the budget from the 'big' teams out there he made the playoffs. He didn't win the series but that's more a reflection of lack of resources than anything.

He proved SABR could work with baseball and it's easy to see why. Baseball was made for SABR. Those advanced stats are easy to quantify because it's such a stat driven game. I don't think hockey is impossible to quantify but I doubt that we're there yet.

Go watch Moneyball, you'll enjoy it.
This comment leads me to believe that maybe you didn't watch the movie closely enough (and certainly didn't read the book). The first half of the movie was essentially spent describing this whole concept of "regression to the mean" that MathMan has been talking about. The team was "built with a spreadsheet", as you put it, but the results predicted in the spreadsheet weren't manifesting on the field. It's not that the spreadsheet was wrong (i.e., it's not that the wrong stats were taken into account when evaluating the players), it's that those stats weren't being produced during the early part of the year due to small sample size.

Eventually, the team's performance regressed to the mean (i.e., reverted to what the spreadsheet predicted) and they won the division.

SaskRinkRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 04:48 PM
  #109
Bronn
Registered Sellsword
 
Bronn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Highest Bidder
Posts: 10,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaskRinkRat View Post
I'll ask a seemingly obvious question that I've yet to see asked in this thread: if you can't measure the effect of "hits in the corner", how do you know for certain they have an effect?
Because you can see the end results.

Getting hit by Scott Stevens and getting hit by Brian Gionta aren't the same thing. One will hurt more than the other and thus it does have an effect.

Would you rather go in the corner with Tomas Kaberle or Chris Pronger ?

Bronn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 04:53 PM
  #110
SaskRinkRat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reem View Post
Because you can see the end results.

Getting hit by Scott Stevens and getting hit by Brian Gionta aren't the same thing. One will hurt more than the other and thus it does have an effect.

Would you rather go in the corner with Tomas Kaberle or Chris Pronger ?
I'm not denying that there is a difference in literal, immediate effect (i.e., one hurts more than the other), what I'm questioning is how you guys can be sure that one is more likely to result in a win than the other.

In other words, is there a way to measure the effect of the extra pain on winning? And if not, how do you know it makes any difference?

SaskRinkRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 05:10 PM
  #111
Bronn
Registered Sellsword
 
Bronn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Highest Bidder
Posts: 10,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaskRinkRat View Post
I'm not denying that there is a difference in literal, immediate effect (i.e., one hurts more than the other), what I'm questioning is how you guys can be sure that one is more likely to result in a win than the other.

In other words, is there a way to measure the effect of the extra pain on winning? And if not, how do you know it makes any difference?
Having played hockey for almost 15 years i can tell you that getting hit constantly hard can wear a player down. Some guys handle it better and others become less effective after getting banged up a few times but it certainly can have an effect , both mental and physical and that's something stats aren't going to tell you.

Bronn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 05:19 PM
  #112
EllertoKostitsynGoal
Registered User
 
EllertoKostitsynGoal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Mtl
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reem View Post
Having played hockey for almost 15 years i can tell you that getting hit constantly hard can wear a player down. Some guys handle it better and others become less effective after getting banged up a few times but it certainly can have an effect , both mental and physical and that's something stats aren't going to tell you.
Actually the stats would tell you Kaberle is lights years away from Chara/Pronger as far as on-ice value goes while their boxcars (raw points) would tell you they're close.

EllertoKostitsynGoal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 05:28 PM
  #113
Talks to Goalposts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reem View Post
Having played hockey for almost 15 years i can tell you that getting hit constantly hard can wear a player down. Some guys handle it better and others become less effective after getting banged up a few times but it certainly can have an effect , both mental and physical and that's something stats aren't going to tell you.
We seem to be running in circles here. Like its been saidIf it makes you play worse against you then it should show up in higher order metrics. If it doesn't make you play worse then it won't show up in those measurements but also isn't having a meaningful effect.

Being able to outskate your opponent wouldn't be directly quantifiable either but if its helping it would also show up on the higher level stuff.

The value of a method of play should be in how it produces better playing results rather than for its own sake.

Talks to Goalposts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 05:42 PM
  #114
Mathletic
Registered User
 
Mathletic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Augustin, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,853
vCash: 500
not sure where to start with all the messages

Quote:
Originally Posted by habitue View Post
Bevause you like maths and stats, try to explain me how come the habs are about mid-pack in the difference between goal for and against and are 29th in the standings...

Explain me how come St-Louis has 1 or 2 guys over 50 points 9 1, 20 goals scorer) and are in the top-three teams in the league ....

Explain me how come Florida have less goals than Habs, more allowed goals, huge negative differential, 15 games OT/SO losses... and are 1st in their Division ....
As for the Panthers. They have won 47% of their games while their pythagorean expectation for W% is 45%, kinda close . Main difference between the Canadiens and Panthers was that Florida made it to OT far more often then the Canadiens have. Like Mathman said, a large part of it is due to luck. Though it's not an easy concept to grasp, luck plays a big part in hockey. Not only in the game itself but other factors influencing a team's performance. Simply how a schedule is organized will have an impact on a team.

St. Louis has one of the best goal differential in the league. At that, they play games in which few goals are scored, so the goal differential is even more important. Stats doesn't equal scoring 20 goals makes you the better player than the 16 goal guy. Preventing goals is just as important as scoring goals.

As for the Canadiens, although luck wasn't on their side for the season there's still plenty of info you can get from stats. First, if you use adjusted +/- and use it as a skill evaluator. That is, adjusted +/- will typically account for how many more goals a player creates over another player. You can use the same idea and adjust it for say hits, faceoffs, assists or turnover. One thing you learn from topological data analysis is that teams are better suited if they have a widespread of skills at hand. It just so happens that the Habs isn't widespread at all, there are too many duplicates on the Habs team. Some of it may be due to injuries obviously.

Also, statistically, the Canadiens play a more defensive game. This style of play makes a game shorter and is more sensitive to a single event say a goal scored. A goal scored in a low scoring game has more impact on the result than say in a 6-4 game. On many occasions the Canadiens would have benifited from playing a more open game against opponents they had the advantage.

Typically you will tell a team to play a defensive game when they're at a disadvantage. I'll use a basketball example since it makes it easier to understand. Say the Charlotte Bobcats were to play the Miami Heat. The Bobcats, being the worst team in the NBA gain from making the game shorter.

Say the winner of the game was the team that scored the first basket of the game. Then the Bobcats would have a very good chance of winning since very few events will qualify the winner. Say you made it, team that wins the first half, wins the game or at best for the Heat. The team that wins a best-of-7 series wins the match. The more events that take place. The more the favorite team is at an advantage.

Teams that play more defensive hockey are more subject to a wide variance in results. Though on average they get the same results, the spread of the data is greater.

Hope that's somewhat clear and helps a bit

...

On a different note, I often hear that we need hockey people because they don't judge players based on stats. This couldn't father from the truth. You can simply use goals, assists, time on ice, and +/-, run a regression and you'd come very close to predicting players' salary. GM's base their decisions on those stats even though they tell very little. This causes tons of players to be undervalued because their value doesn't show up in those stats. Whether that's Mike Weaver, Adrian Aucoin, Willie Mitchell or who have you. Brian Burkes of this world will tell you that there's some sort of mystical analysis that takes place to analyze players while this couldn't be farther from the truth.


Last edited by Mathletic: 04-03-2012 at 05:50 PM.
Mathletic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 05:49 PM
  #115
SaskRinkRat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reem View Post
Having played hockey for almost 15 years i can tell you that getting hit constantly hard can wear a player down. Some guys handle it better and others become less effective after getting banged up a few times but it certainly can have an effect , both mental and physical and that's something stats aren't going to tell you.
What you really should be arguing is that these affects (physical and mental wear down) are hard to isolate. When you combine them with a slough of other affects (some of which can be isolated, others of which probably cannot) they can be measured inside a player's defensive rating, if in fact they make a difference.

Chara's hitting "power" (for lack of a better term), as part of a package of abilities, influences his ability to defend (measured by his defensive rating), which influences his impact on net goals. If his hitting power doesn't influence his ability to defend, then it wouldn't impact his defensive rating, or his ability to defend (and therefore his impact on net goals).

If you wanted to take this a step further, you could try to come up with a way to actually isolate his hitting power (and everyone else's), which might allow you to directly determine whether hitting power actually impacts ability to defend (defensive rating) and net goals.

SaskRinkRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 05:51 PM
  #116
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,031
vCash: 500
Stats are great for water-cooler discussions among fans and allow GM's to make generalizations about players based upon past performance.

Stats (especially micro-stats) are not the true predictors of a team's performance though. Never have been and never will. There is a reason why the St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series. And a reason that the New York Giants won the Super Bowl. Neither of those teams had the best stats (nor players with the best stats either).

And in hockey, the Vancouver Canucks were winners of the Stanley Cup last year.........right? They had the most points. They scored the most goals and had the fewest goals against.

What happened? Boston had the 7th most goals for and the 3rd fewest goals given up.

Micro stats should have pointed the way to the Bruins winning it all. But did it? Hell no.

Statistics reveal tangible results that serve as a guide to a player's or a team's past performance. That's it.

Come up with a stat that shows chemistry, heart, "coming together as a team", streaking, peaking as a team or as a player or any other intangible and you will have something that is worthy of a thread with this many pages.

Until then, intangibles will forever trump tangible statistics. In players and in coaches. That is the reality and the beauty of sports from kids starting to play all the way to professionals.

"Its why they play the game on the ice/field/court instead of on paper."

Now back to your analysis of minutia that ends up being pretty much irrelevant in the entire scheme of team sports.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 05:55 PM
  #117
SaskRinkRat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Stats are great for water-cooler discussions among fans and allow GM's to make generalizations about players based upon past performance.

Stats (especially micro-stats) are not the true predictors of a team's performance though. Never have been and never will. There is a reason why the St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series. And a reason that the New York Giants won the Super Bowl. Neither of those teams had the best stats (nor players with the best stats either).

And in hockey, the Vancouver Canucks were winners of the Stanley Cup last year.........right? They had the most points. They scored the most goals and had the fewest goals against.

What happened? Boston had the 7th most goals for and the 3rd fewest goals given up.
Right here, you actually just made a really effective argument in favour of microstats. It was traditional stats that would have predicted the Canucks victory (and the Giants) loss, not microstats. What you did here was lump all types of stats together and say that because traditional stats didn't predict the outcome, microstats wouldn't either.

SaskRinkRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 06:00 PM
  #118
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,031
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaskRinkRat View Post
Right here, you actually just made a really effective argument in favour of microstats. It was traditional stats that would have predicted the Canucks victory (and the Giants) loss, not microstats. What you did here was lump all types of stats together and say that because traditional stats didn't predict the outcome, microstats wouldn't either.
Alright, the stats for 2010-2011 are out there and available. Dig into them and produce a summary showing where microstats predicted a Bruins Stanley Cup victory. And at the same time, use microstats to show that the Canucks were going to inevitably lose.

Shouldnt be too hard, eh?

I can easily pull up a few YouTube videos of the Bruins physicality completely taking the Canucks off of their game. Damned intimidation, an intangible, changed that Series around completely.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 06:06 PM
  #119
SaskRinkRat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Alright, the stats for 2010-2011 are out there and available. Dig into them and produce a summary showing where microstats predicted a Bruins Stanley Cup victory. And at the same time, use microstats to show that the Canucks were going to inevitably lose.
I'm not saying that microstats would have necessarily predicted the exact outcome. I'm saying that your contention - traditional stats predicted the wrong outcome and therefore microstats did too - is incorrect, since traditional stats and microstats are different things.

Quote:
Shouldnt be too hard, eh?

I can easily pull up a few YouTube videos of the Bruins physicality completely taking the Canucks off of their game. Damned intimidation, an intangible, changed that Series around completely.
It's entirely possible that the Bruins physicality did turn the series in their favour, manifesting in increased puck possession and more net shots on goal / scoring chances. And all of these stats would have been measured using microstats.

SaskRinkRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 06:09 PM
  #120
Mathletic
Registered User
 
Mathletic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Augustin, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Stats are great for water-cooler discussions among fans and allow GM's to make generalizations about players based upon past performance.

Stats (especially micro-stats) are not the true predictors of a team's performance though. Never have been and never will. There is a reason why the St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series. And a reason that the New York Giants won the Super Bowl. Neither of those teams had the best stats (nor players with the best stats either).

And in hockey, the Vancouver Canucks were winners of the Stanley Cup last year.........right? They had the most points. They scored the most goals and had the fewest goals against.

What happened? Boston had the 7th most goals for and the 3rd fewest goals given up.

Micro stats should have pointed the way to the Bruins winning it all. But did it? Hell no.

Statistics reveal tangible results that serve as a guide to a player's or a team's past performance. That's it.

Come up with a stat that shows chemistry, heart, "coming together as a team", streaking, peaking as a team or as a player or any other intangible and you will have something that is worthy of a thread with this many pages.

Until then, intangibles will forever trump tangible statistics. In players and in coaches. That is the reality and the beauty of sports from kids starting to play all the way to professionals.

"Its why they play the game on the ice/field/court instead of on paper."

Now back to your analysis of minutia that ends up being pretty much irrelevant in the entire scheme of team sports.
That's funny because I actually had the Cards as favorite in the NL to play in the World Series to play Texas simply based on stats. There's more to statistical analysis than just picking the best record from each league and say, well if this team doesn't win, it means analytics don't work.

Also, the Cards rely on analytics. The new Astros GM used to work for the Cards and was part of their analytics department. Their analytics told them to draft players like Allen Craig, Jon Jay, Lynn and others. It also told them to make the Rasmus trade and so on.

As for the Canucks, I hope you understand that even though the Canucks had the better regular season record, the Bruins weren't that far behind. A team with the Canucks record would beat the Bruins about 55% of the time in a 7-game series. That's basically a coin flip. Not sure how that proves that anlytics can't help you in hockey.

As for chemistry. Like I said to somone earlier. Stop for a second and explain to me what chemistry is. Simply saying chemistry is so complex that it can't be measured won't lead you far ... so ironic btw, since actual chemistry is a science in itself but anyways ...

So what could account for chemistry. Maybe the n' of games 2 or more players have played together. The number of minutes they have played together. Number of teams they have been on together. Maybe it has to do with complementary skills. For instance, does a passer help a scorer score more. Does a player who creates turnovers helps another player to create even more turnovers. Do 2 playmakers offset one another. Do puck hogs help or stop one another from scoring. All this analysis can take place.

Now, maybe chemistry for you is simply well they like going to the restaurant together, so chemistry is just that. Then yeah maybe numbers won't help you. But then again, there's a science that studies group behaviour, social networks and so on.

Again, what does coming together mean? Does it mean that a team filled with similar players will start complementing one another. Start defining what your intangible is and I'm sure we'll find a way to find that in the data.

Mathletic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 06:10 PM
  #121
EllertoKostitsynGoal
Registered User
 
EllertoKostitsynGoal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Mtl
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Alright, the stats for 2010-2011 are out there and available. Dig into them and produce a summary showing where microstats predicted a Bruins Stanley Cup victory. And at the same time, use microstats to show that the Canucks were going to inevitably lose.

Shouldnt be too hard, eh?

I can easily pull up a few YouTube videos of the Bruins physicality completely taking the Canucks off of their game. Damned intimidation, an intangible, changed that Series around completely.
Goaltending played a huge role in that serie no?

Also, 7 games is a small sample size, especially with the parity we have right now where teams are much closer than they used to be.
The best team in the league doesn't win the cup more often than it does. More often than not, the Cup winners are a very good team that peaked at the right time.


Last edited by EllertoKostitsynGoal: 04-03-2012 at 06:16 PM.
EllertoKostitsynGoal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 06:45 PM
  #122
Talks to Goalposts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Alright, the stats for 2010-2011 are out there and available. Dig into them and produce a summary showing where microstats predicted a Bruins Stanley Cup victory. And at the same time, use microstats to show that the Canucks were going to inevitably lose.

Shouldnt be too hard, eh?

I can easily pull up a few YouTube videos of the Bruins physicality completely taking the Canucks off of their game. Damned intimidation, an intangible, changed that Series around completely.
That's something of a foolish criteria to be working on. The propenents of this kind of analysis will tell you that a playoff series is such a small sample size that just about any result is possible, probabilistic thinking being king here. Lets look instead at what can be accomplished with using them to project the future over the longer term like the regular season. There have been some very good ones such as:

This season Minnesota was at one point first overall. Guys that watch the micros predicted they were in fact on of the worst teams in the league. Look at were they are now. Similarly there was a great deal of skepticism in Toronto keeping up their hot start.

Last year it was predicted based on first half stats that New Jersey (last place) would have a better second half than Dallas (division leader) this came to pass in a dramatic fashion.

That the 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche were a bad team despite finishing in a playoff spot. Next year they were 29th.

That last year's Anahiem Ducks were a bad team despite finishing 4th in the West and having a bunch of star power. This year 25th in the league.

That last year's Blues (20th) were a strong team with some bad luck. This year 3rd in league.

Talks to Goalposts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 06:55 PM
  #123
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,022
vCash: 500
How often does the best team in the league win the cup? This is a good analysis: http://objectivenhl.blogspot.ca/2011...-team-win.html

Given the structure and the samples sizes involved, the best team in the league is much less likely to win the Cup than it is not to.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 07:40 PM
  #124
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Cop-out.
?

Dude, my whole point is that some things can't be qualified. Not sure how that's a cop out. I think the analytics will improve over time but right now I don't think it's there yet.

As for cop-out... I'd say it's a cop out calling it 'bad luck' when a player consistently doesn't do what you predicted he would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Are you seriously saying that you honestly believe that a single player can singlehandedly make a Cup contender of an otherwise non-playoff team? Do you have any idea how much such a player would be worth?
No. Wasn't saying that at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Was Halak such a player, or was that a fluke but Pronger wasn't?
Pronger makes a huge difference to any team. He's proven it time and again. And he becomes MORE effective in the playoffs for the simple reason that the postseason allows a lot more rough stuff than the regular season.

As for Halak, I'm not sure what you're asking me here. If you're asking me if he's the prime reason why we made it as far as we did, I'd say absolutely. If you're asking me if I expect him to do this every year, I'd say no chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Seriously, you do realize that the playoffs are a small sample and that a player or team can get hot on small samples, right? Pronger is a very good player, but he's not that intrinsic to his team's success. If he were, the Flyers would have crashed by now. Pronger isn't why Pisani scored 14 goals in 24 games, or why Roloson goaled at .927 (and if he were why were, why wasn't he able to do the same thing for Markkanen)?
I think the Oilers don't make the playoffs without Pronger much less the final. Never said he did it by himself (any more than I said Halak did) but there's no doubt that the club goes nowwhere without him.

And he also just happenend to be on clubs that appeared in the finals with Anaheim and Philadelphia in short order. No man... that's not a fluke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
If it were me, I'd wonder why the Sens were so infamously plagued by bad goaltending during all the years they had Chara in.
Simple, their goalies flat out sucked. Let in all kinds of dumb goals and Belfour didn't. Jacques Martin also made mind blowingly dumb decisions with who he had on the ice at key moments but that's another story...

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2012, 07:59 PM
  #125
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Dude, my whole point is that some things can't be qualified. Not sure how that's a cop out.
I asked you if the the force of hits matter outside of their immediate impact on the game. You're telling me "I don't know and nobody can find out, but I say it does and you must accept it on faith", which is essentially what you're saying when you say something is 'impossible to quantify'.

You bet that's a cop out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I think the Oilers don't make the playoffs without Pronger much less the final. Never said he did it by himself (any more than I said Halak did) but there's no doubt that the club goes nowwhere without him.
Because he's a super-special in a way that even Lidstrom isn't, or because he's a very good defenseman and very good defensemen help teams win hockey games?

I can buy the latter. The former is an article of faith. You're gonna have to support that claim if you're gonna make it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
And he also just happenend to be on clubs that appeared in the finals with Anaheim and Philadelphia in short order. No man... that's not a fluke.
So was Marian Hossa. So was Ty Conklin. I'm sure Conklin made three different finals because he was so intimidating from the bench or maybe he has magical powers. Or maybe it's just coincidence.

Ty Conklin, man... three Finals on three different teams. No way that's a fluke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Simple, their goalies flat out sucked.
How come Chara didn't make them awesome the way he apparently did Tim Thomas?


Last edited by MathMan: 04-03-2012 at 08:07 PM.
MathMan 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 12:19 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.