HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > By The Numbers
By The Numbers Hockey Analytics... the Final Frontier. Explore strange new worlds, to seek out new algorithms, to boldly go where no one has gone before.

Brian Burke is a Dinosaur

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-10-2013, 06:29 AM
  #176
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrontalLombardomy View Post
Hockey doesn't lend itself too well to advanced statistics. Maybe if you're on a hockey forum and you're trying to justify an argument with more than just your eye quickly. Not really if you are analyzing players in the show. Trained eyes are what counts there. Don't really see what's so controversial about any of his quotes if you limit them to the realm of hockey (which I'm assuming was the context... cherrypicked quotes like this are worthless).
Just because you happen to think that hockey doesn't lend itself to advanced statistics doesn't mean that you're right.

And you're not.

Master_Of_Districts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2013, 06:31 AM
  #177
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilersrule14 View Post
But that still hasn't addressed whether stats can measure the effect of physicality.
Stats can, in fact, measure the effect of "physicality."

Turns out that it's not that important.

Master_Of_Districts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2013, 06:36 AM
  #178
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagorim Jarg View Post
You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying two things:

1) In order for any useful defensive data to be produced, there are many, many variables that would need be accounted for.

2) It is impossible to produce this data in any meaningful way.
Well, players don't seem to have much influence over the save percentage of their own goaltenders.

They do, however, have some influence over how many shots their own goaltender faces.

What else is there?

Enlighten us.

Master_Of_Districts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2013, 07:57 PM
  #179
Vancouver Blazers
1973-1975
 
Vancouver Blazers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,535
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Of_Districts View Post
Well, players don't seem to have much influence over the save percentage of their own goaltenders.
They do... by playing certain ways, players can influence the shot quality that their goalie faces, lowering or raising his save percentage.

Quote:
They do, however, have some influence over how many shots their own goaltender faces.

What else is there?
Measuring what contributed to the shot totals, I would think?

Vancouver Blazers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2013, 10:24 PM
  #180
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagorim Jarg View Post
They do... by playing certain ways, players can influence the shot quality that their goalie faces, lowering or raising his save percentage.
There's probably some influence, but it's a sliver of what people think it is.

No year-to-year correlation for [on-ice EV SV % minus off-ice EV SV %] among defencemen, for example.

Master_Of_Districts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2013, 10:35 PM
  #181
Vancouver Blazers
1973-1975
 
Vancouver Blazers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,535
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Of_Districts View Post
There's probably some influence, but it's a sliver of what people think it is.

No year-to-year correlation for [on-ice EV SV % minus off-ice EV SV %] among defencemen, for example.
I wouldn't think that it would come down to individual defensemen. Overall team defensive strategy for limiting shot quality would likely originate with the coach. I would imagine that some form of relative shot quality decrease has followed Dave Tippett and Ken Hitchcock into whatever team they coach. edit: also Jacques Lemaire!

Vancouver Blazers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2013, 03:24 AM
  #182
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagorim Jarg View Post
I wouldn't think that it would come down to individual defensemen. Overall team defensive strategy for limiting shot quality would likely originate with the coach. I would imagine that some form of relative shot quality decrease has followed Dave Tippett and Ken Hitchcock into whatever team they coach. edit: also Jacques Lemaire!
If that's your position, I don't disagree - I thought you were talking about the player level, rather than the team level.

Master_Of_Districts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2013, 02:37 PM
  #183
Vancouver Blazers
1973-1975
 
Vancouver Blazers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,535
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Of_Districts View Post
If that's your position, I don't disagree - I thought you were talking about the player level, rather than the team level.
Of course elite defensemen will be better at executing the strategy (Lidstrom and his lucky friend Osgood come to mind), but lowering shot quality still comes down to the coach.

Vancouver Blazers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2013, 02:45 PM
  #184
theguyinside*
 
theguyinside*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 59
vCash: 500
I can tell you almost all NHL clubs use advanced statistics when helping make decisions on players. There is no black or white here.

Most general managers use metrics to supplement a decision, not solely decide one. Decisions are based on experience, observation, and statistics.

Some clubs place emphasis on different areas of talent evaluation. It all depends on the philosophy of the brass, and in some cases, the ownership.

theguyinside* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2013, 01:52 PM
  #185
beauchamp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Laval, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Burke is the kind of GM who would have traded Dominik Hasek for scraps in the early 1990s because he doesn't "play the game the right way".
And would never have signed Tim Thomas as a FA from Finland in 2002.

beauchamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2013, 02:33 PM
  #186
Hipster Doofus
Registered User
 
Hipster Doofus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 6,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man Bear Pig View Post
Certainly not here, okay pal, I'd love to debate baseball with you. Moneyball is the title of the book, it's also the term used to describe the market inefficiencies. If you choose to use another term, that's great. Boston used high OBP guys like Youkilis and Ortiz, while Beane was "buying" runs and wins and using far more advanced statistics that others weren't because of the old school mindset. All GM's are and were aware of advanced statistics but back then chose to ignore them and some still do. It's all about market inefficiency. Boston drafted and picked up high OBP players but without the payroll they had, no title. The payroll was the reason they won before anything. Completely different approach from Bean's.
And what metrics was he buying those runs and wins with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man Bear Pig View Post
The post below answers your question. The RedSox bailed on the moneyball approach and went the way of their rivals, the Yankees. Spend tons of cash and pray for the best.

Whats that? I thought you said they looked at OBP guys? Perhaps they didn't bail, but maybe, just maybe, you never read anything about stats besides the blurbs in Moneyball. Theo Epstein is a confirmed follower of using advanced stats to help field better teams. Not even sure why you're trying to argue against that.

http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2...umb-questions/

He just hates Moneyball because it turned what he considered "proprietary information" into public information.


Last edited by Hipster Doofus: 03-12-2013 at 02:55 PM.
Hipster Doofus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2013, 04:22 PM
  #187
No Team Needed
Registered User
 
No Team Needed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 2,486
vCash: 500
Oakland used Moneyball because they didn't have any money. Boston used Moneyball and then made it better by using it with Money.

Oakland had to find scrap players who get on base. Boston were able to attract the best players in the league to get on base.

Why is this so hard to understand?

No Team Needed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2013, 07:17 PM
  #188
CanadianHockey
On the Alfie Wagon
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: uOttawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,309
vCash: 2391
Of Burke's quotes, only the third is useful/spot on. (The second one is pretty damned ridiculous, as no amount of eyeballing could guarantee a Cup, either).

Statistics are useless without some degree of interpretation. No matter what 'data' you have, there's always been some level of subjective thought applied into the hypotheses, the methodologies, the limitations, and the conclusions/interpretations of the data.

Some fields are more developed than others, and consequently have come to be defined by apparently universal laws and relationships. Other fields (like political science or hockey) have been far less developed, and due to a combination of ethical concerns (read: limiting experimental methods), multiplicity of factors, and relatively small number of case studies will likely take a long time to arrive to the same 'universal' conclusions.

Dismissing statistics off hand is just as bad as dismissing eye judgments off hand. Both are invaluable in forming an accurate assessment.

__________________
CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
CanadianHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2013, 10:51 PM
  #189
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,217
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
This thread is crying out for photoshops.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2013, 01:03 AM
  #190
Swarez
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 447
vCash: 500
The Boston Red Sox won the world series because Manny was on the juice! Everyone knows this right? The moneyball aspect was finding him correct dosage to never be caught.

Hockey is probably the hardest to use stats on out of all the major sports, too fast, too many random occurrences (deflections, bad ice, rolling pucks, shot going not where you are aiming). Not saying it can't be done but will never be as effective as a individual match up sport like baseball.

I know in basketball now days they talk about true shooting %, per possession stats are big, taking into account the type of player guarding you and how that changing your numbers (a starter, mis match off a switch, bench guy etc)

Its way over my head, but a few good talks on NPR if people want to go find them.

Swarez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2013, 01:49 AM
  #191
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,217
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swarez99 View Post
The Boston Red Sox won the world series because Manny was on the juice! Everyone knows this right? The moneyball aspect was finding him correct dosage to never be caught.

Hockey is probably the hardest to use stats on out of all the major sports, too fast, too many random occurrences (deflections, bad ice, rolling pucks, shot going not where you are aiming). Not saying it can't be done but will never be as effective as a individual match up sport like baseball.

I know in basketball now days they talk about true shooting %, per possession stats are big, taking into account the type of player guarding you and how that changing your numbers (a starter, mis match off a switch, bench guy etc)

Its way over my head, but a few good talks on NPR if people want to go find them.
All that stuff comes out in the wash. Those random occurences and variance in general, even out with a large enough sample size.

What makes hockey players hard to track statistically is that the game is free flowing. It's not like baseball where there is difinite structure and only so many different situations a player can be in. In hockey there are so, so, so many different "game states", and they're all very different. Where as in baseball the structure is much more rigid, and it's much easier to track and quantify every single thing a player does. In hockey, how do you quantify an accurate and reliable first pass from a defesneman. How many of those is one assist worth? How do you quantify an extremely fast defenseman who's always in position or able to get in position, to discourage opposing forward from attempting to carry the puck to high percentage shooting areas?

Sure, these sorts of things I'm talking about show up in #'s like corsi etc., but those numbers are also tightly tied into the action of team mates. It's just not like baseball, where you're essentially playing alone within the framework of a team. When you bat, run, and field, how you do what you do is impacted very little by your team.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 01:38 PM
  #192
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,748
vCash: 67
I would argue hockey is chaos. One man's dump into the corners turned what could've been a 2-1 game and a 3rd place playoff bout into something else entirely. I think Burke is in a good position to make that statement. I think Burke would've spent his entire career listening to the numbers and watching the game at an analytical level.

I believe statistics are a product, not a predictor. Stats can't factor cognitive processes such as a players motivation after a parent died or after a trade rumor or a coach's speech. Stats can't factor for injuries, training regiment, diet, etc. There's steroids, anger, finding your groove, and everything in between.

I think by not being critical of a given method you're not exercising sound science. I like the numbers because my judgment is subjective, but doesn't mean they're aren't flawed. Maybe they really do lack application in general management

MarkGio 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 11:13 AM.

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.