HFBoards

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

You guys should check this out

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-09-2013, 07:36 PM
  #1
Reverend Mayhem
Registered User
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,845
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
You guys should check this out

http://www.hookedonhockeymagazine.co...p-champions/1/

As a bit of a formula geek myself, I found this very interesting. I had CHI-PIT/BOS but this guy's formula is pretty...clinical. Hey, it worked for him so that's good. I should have kept my formula. Now I'm sad.

Reverend Mayhem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2013, 07:51 PM
  #2
LPH
[hello] :)
 
LPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Granduland
Country: United States
Posts: 44,771
vCash: 50
Impressive, I was focused on how Pittsburgh would be eliminated and it was their PK % that was their downfall in the prediction.

LPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2013, 07:54 PM
  #3
BrandonL
Registered User
 
BrandonL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,235
vCash: 500
Always reassuring to see the Canucks tied for last place with the Maple Leafs

BrandonL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2013, 07:55 PM
  #4
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,094
vCash: 500
"4. This one may seem surprising, but since 2000-2001, 10 of the 11 Stanley Cup Champions have won at least 50.0% of their faceoffs. Therefore, I will eliminate: Anaheim."



what i see is what happens when an academic goes "man, i wanna apply numbers to hockey"

Verviticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2013, 08:03 PM
  #5
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
"4. This one may seem surprising, but since 2000-2001, 10 of the 11 Stanley Cup Champions have won at least 50.0% of their faceoffs. Therefore, I will eliminate: Anaheim."



what i see is what happens when an academic goes "man, i wanna apply numbers to hockey"
yeah, I laughed at that one too. regular advanced stats had Anaheim pegged as a pretender all year, and it had nothing to do with their face offs.

Wisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2013, 08:35 PM
  #6
Reverend Mayhem
Registered User
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,845
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
"4. This one may seem surprising, but since 2000-2001, 10 of the 11 Stanley Cup Champions have won at least 50.0% of their faceoffs. Therefore, I will eliminate: Anaheim."



what i see is what happens when an academic goes "man, i wanna apply numbers to hockey"
90.9% correlation or causation?

Faceoffs do seem to be indicative of puck possession.

Reverend Mayhem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2013, 08:44 PM
  #7
MajorCanuck
Cup Please
 
MajorCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Surrey, BC
Posts: 685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandonlee View Post
Always reassuring to see the Canucks tied for last place with the Maple Leafs
Explains us getting swept.

MajorCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2013, 08:46 PM
  #8
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 16,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
yeah, I laughed at that one too. regular advanced stats had Anaheim pegged as a pretender all year, and it had nothing to do with their face offs.
Their struggles in the faceoff circle would have had a big impact in that actually. You cannot overstate the importance of being good on draws. It's only been magnified now that all man advantages start in the attacking zone.

Drop the Sopel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2013, 08:49 PM
  #9
MajorCanuck
Cup Please
 
MajorCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Surrey, BC
Posts: 685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Their struggles in the faceoff circle would have had a big impact in that actually. You cannot overstate the importance of being good on draws. It's only been magnified now that all man advantages start in the attacking zone.
Well just look at us without manny vs with manny. We were so much better with him.

MajorCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2013, 08:52 PM
  #10
LPH
[hello] :)
 
LPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Granduland
Country: United States
Posts: 44,771
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
"4. This one may seem surprising, but since 2000-2001, 10 of the 11 Stanley Cup Champions have won at least 50.0% of their faceoffs. Therefore, I will eliminate: Anaheim."



what i see is what happens when an academic goes "man, i wanna apply numbers to hockey"
This isn't supposed to be right 100%, but it attempts to find the teams most likely to win based on how the team performed in the past and what types of teams have been successful in previous years.

Even in the article he talks about the randomness of the playoffs.

LPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2013, 09:13 PM
  #11
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
90.9% correlation or causation?

Faceoffs do seem to be indicative of puck possession.
no, they're indicative of a small portion of puck possession. the problem with faceoffs is that people can easily do a calculation assuming 100-0 which is great, winning a faceoff is WAY better than losing it, but on average faceoffs are what, 54-46%?

you cant say "well when a team wins a faceoff its really good so 4% of that is also really good", its just a little bit good

Verviticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2013, 10:52 PM
  #12
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
you cant say "well when a team wins a faceoff its really good so 4% of that is also really good", its just a little bit good
You are trying to make him say something that he hasn't said.

He's just saying that empirically teams who can't win 50% of their draws very likely won't win the Cup and he's running with it.

I won $6k (over two years) betting on something empirically proven despite the fact that there is no one reason I can show for it to be true...at the end of the day, the why doesn't matter (although I wouldn't necessarily trust 9/10).

Scott Cullen's stats analysis on TSN is really interesting (took OTT over MTL and hedged out of my PIT and NYR bets for reasonable profits because of him). I think his stats also said that SJ would beat VAN.


Last edited by DJOpus: 06-10-2013 at 12:16 AM. Reason: Fixed name of TSN guy
DJOpus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2013, 11:23 PM
  #13
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,465
vCash: 500
There's nothing wrong with empirically determined things. Lots of physical 'laws' continue to have an empirical basis.

He could have just included it and given it an extremely low weight in the average.

In some ways this is a more sophisticated analysis than all the current 'advanced statistics' which at their core are nothing more than attempting to apply a single convenient statistic to a whole range of non-discrete events (player performance, team performance, puck possession, etc).

mossey3535 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2013, 12:05 AM
  #14
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
In some ways this is a more sophisticated analysis than all the current 'advanced statistics' which at their core are nothing more than attempting to apply a single convenient statistic to a whole range of non-discrete events (player performance, team performance, puck possession, etc).
which 'advanced statistics' are you referring to

Verviticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2013, 12:27 AM
  #15
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
"4. This one may seem surprising, but since 2000-2001, 10 of the 11 Stanley Cup Champions have won at least 50.0% of their faceoffs. Therefore, I will eliminate: Anaheim."
This playoffs, #1 in FO is Boston. Chicago is #14. Two top-5 teams were bounced in the first round (to lower FO-performing teams), two were dumped in the second round. One conference finalist is top-5, one is dead in the middle, other two are bottom-5.

This sounds pretty tenuous...

  Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2013, 01:30 AM
  #16
Zarpan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
This playoffs, #1 in FO is Boston. Chicago is #14. Two top-5 teams were bounced in the first round (to lower FO-performing teams), two were dumped in the second round. One conference finalist is top-5, one is dead in the middle, other two are bottom-5.

This sounds pretty tenuous...
I suppose that he was looking at regular season stats though. All four conference finalists are in the top 10 for regular season faceoff percentages.

Probably what happens is that if you're below 50% in the regular season, you're likely to be very bad in the postseason since playoff teams are usually above average on faceoffs.

And if you're very bad in faceoffs, you're less likely to win four rounds since losing faceoffs increases the chances of a lucky bounce going in against you. This may catch up to Chicago vs. Boston, which can trot out a lot of players that are generally excellent on faceoffs.

Zarpan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2013, 01:39 AM
  #17
Apple Juice
Registered User
 
Apple Juice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 157
vCash: 500
Pretty damn scary that this guy predicted a Chicago-LA conf final and a Boston-Pittsburgh conf final and now, a Chicago-Boston Cup Final back on April 29....



well technically he didn't predict a Chicago-LA or Boston-Pittsburgh final... I based it off of who was left in the East/West

Apple Juice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2013, 01:40 AM
  #18
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
This playoffs, #1 in FO is Boston. Chicago is #14. Two top-5 teams were bounced in the first round (to lower FO-performing teams), two were dumped in the second round. One conference finalist is top-5, one is dead in the middle, other two are bottom-5.

This sounds pretty tenuous...
its really tenuous. its just a meaningless, arbitrary place he wanted to create a cutoff

Verviticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2013, 01:48 AM
  #19
LPH
[hello] :)
 
LPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Granduland
Country: United States
Posts: 44,771
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
This playoffs, #1 in FO is Boston. Chicago is #14. Two top-5 teams were bounced in the first round (to lower FO-performing teams), two were dumped in the second round. One conference finalist is top-5, one is dead in the middle, other two are bottom-5.

This sounds pretty tenuous...
FO% isn't everything, but it can be a major factor if the teams are really close. Chicago might have poor FO% (11% in the regular season) in comparison to other playoff teams, but they excel in other areas like 5-5 F/FA and special teams.

Anaheim was 26th in FO% during the regular season. Pittsburgh (7th), LA (4th), and Boston (1st).

I don't think the article was suggesting that FO% is the ultimate stat, but it can lead to solid possession stats.

LPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2013, 02:04 AM
  #20
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,437
vCash: 500
Most predictive stats look good this playoffs because the 4 best teams made the final 4. And CHI and BOS are both top 4 in a multitude of useful stats (5-on-5 F/A, Fenwick Close, shot differential, etc.).

It's not like those predictions were really going out on a limb or covering any uncharted territory. Most people knew that teams like Anaheim were paper tigers. Still an interesting read though.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2013, 02:21 AM
  #21
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by live playoff hockey View Post
FO% isn't everything, but it can be a major factor if the teams are really close.
no its really always just a little factor

Verviticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2013, 03:35 AM
  #22
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
no its really always just a little factor
I'd say it hurt us bad in the Sharks series...they won a lot of draws on the PP which helped them a lot IMO (that and having a million PPs).

DJOpus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2013, 04:06 AM
  #23
Iceberg Slim
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Denmark
Posts: 183
vCash: 500
Just out of curiosity a little while back, I checked out the faceoff stats for the winners and losers of the first 60 playoff games this postseason (2013).

What I initially found was that winning teams only averaged 51% on draws while the losers averaged 49%. Nearly a coin flip.

However, when I looked at the games individually, I found that the team that won the individual game's faceoff battle won that game 34 out of 58 times (there were two games in the first sixty where the teams tied on draws).

Teams that won more faceoffs (ie: >50%) won the game 59% of the time. Teams that lost more faceoffs (<50%) won the game only 41% of the time.

Iceberg Slim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2013, 04:21 AM
  #24
Reverend Mayhem
Registered User
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,845
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Well no one can dispute that there isn't strong correlation to faceoff success and post-season success. I think it's an important facet to playoff hockey just based on the fact that centre is the most important position in hockey alone.

Reverend Mayhem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2013, 06:22 AM
  #25
Stories Tales Lies
and Exaggerations
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
Well no one can dispute that there isn't strong correlation to faceoff success and post-season success. I think it's an important facet to playoff hockey just based on the fact that centre is the most important position in hockey alone.
I think I just herd a choir of every goalie on HF in perfect harmony and in unison sing out, "WTF", after you posted that.

Stories Tales Lies 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 11:17 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.