HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Notices

Advanced Stats

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-08-2013, 12:57 PM
  #51
bruyns
Registered User
 
bruyns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Barrie
Posts: 324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achtungbaby View Post
Playing a game of hockey makes you a math expert? How does that work?? If we can model a group of pigeons movements around a park we can certainly model a game with objectives to some degree of accuracy.
I'd hazard a guess this wulfio fits under choice A and not the made up choice C that makes no sense.

There are people who played hockey at a high level who understand the value these stats have to supplement what our eyes see.

My other favourite go to argument of people who try and dismiss advanced stats is "watch the game" or "I use my eyes" or some variant of this. Are people really this ignorant that they believe advanced stats and watching the game are mutually exclusive? There are plenty of people who find andvanced stats useful and also watch WAY more hockey than people throwing up the pathetic watch the game arguments.

I have a PVR and the NHL package last season and watched 48 Leaf games as well other games and more than not what I saw with my eyes lined up with statistical analysis.

This might shock some people, but it is possible to watch games and use advanced stats to back up what you saw.

bruyns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 01:32 PM
  #52
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,233
vCash: 874
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryno23 View Post
So that means Jason Blake should be brought back cause he was full of shots on net. This is where advance stats betray people.....tell me who you would rather have Jason Blake or Tyler Bozak cause Blake would be a stats guy go to guy with tons of shots on net.

Those who have seen both play cane say for sure that Bozak is better than Blake
You do understand that corsi is not the be all and end all of advanced stats, that there's things to consider like quality of competition, zone starts, one ice shooting percentage and a host of others, right?

Yes, if someone says "Blake had a better corsi rel than Bozak therefore Blake is better than Bozak" they're a moron. But that's their fault, not the fault of the stats.

__________________
Come join us on the By The Numbers forum. Take a look at our introduction post if you're new. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.
hatterson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 01:56 PM
  #53
The_Chosen_One
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,608
vCash: 500
You could incorporate both advanced statistics and watch the games. For instance, it was pretty darn obvious that Grabovski wasn't fanning shots. Otherwise, his shoots for total would be drastically higher than Kulemin. By actually watching the game, we could see puck luck wasn't on his side because he did take most of his shots on legitimate shooting lanes.

Use both. From my observations, those who solely "watch the game" tend to get extremely emotional with their analysis. It seems as if they cannot see how players are utilized.

The_Chosen_One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 02:00 PM
  #54
The Legend
Stamkos in 2016
 
The Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryno23 View Post
So why do you have to explain why a player is good? I think Mark Messier has great grit, playoff performer, heart and the best leader in hockey.
Why do you think these things? It's easy to rely on these descriptions when describing a player - but explaining them is completely different. So why do you think Messier was great at grit, playoffs, heart and the best leader in hockey?



Quote:
Originally Posted by ryno23 View Post
For instance how did you put numbers to Scott Stevens when he played. He put the fear in god to forwards who would cross the blueline with their head down.
Theoretically, if Stevens really did put the fear of g-d in forwards as they crossed the line, I'd expect to see far lower puck possession (on a relative basis) by the other team when Stevens was on the ice.

The Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 02:18 PM
  #55
wulfio*
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Burlington
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruyns View Post
I'd hazard a guess this wulfio fits under choice A and not the made up choice C that makes no sense.

There are people who played hockey at a high level who understand the value these stats have to supplement what our eyes see.

My other favourite go to argument of people who try and dismiss advanced stats is "watch the game" or "I use my eyes" or some variant of this. Are people really this ignorant that they believe advanced stats and watching the game are mutually exclusive? There are plenty of people who find andvanced stats useful and also watch WAY more hockey than people throwing up the pathetic watch the game arguments.

I have a PVR and the NHL package last season and watched 48 Leaf games as well other games and more than not what I saw with my eyes lined up with statistical analysis.

This might shock some people, but it is possible to watch games and use advanced stats to back up what you saw.
No i just understand the game of hockey. It's about emotion, momentum, grit, determination, and many other things that have no stats associated with them. It's why you see depth forwards scoring 3rd OT goals, or how a big hit can lead to a turnaround for your team. hell, getting up from a big hit and you go score a big goal the next shift. Or maybe a blocked shot that resulted in you breaking your leg or foot, and your team rallying around it. Or a missed golden scoring opportunity can lead to goal in the back of your own net. The examples go on and on. And none of these things can be quantified. I feel bad for you that you don't know the joy of the game.

I understand the stats, and what you want them to do. But it's a specious argument, because in the end, it won't be a determining factor in hockey.

wulfio* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 02:53 PM
  #56
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,233
vCash: 874
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by wulfio View Post
No i just understand the game of hockey. It's about emotion, momentum, grit, determination, and many other things that have no stats associated with them. It's why you see depth forwards scoring 3rd OT goals, or how a big hit can lead to a turnaround for your team. hell, getting up from a big hit and you go score a big goal the next shift. Or maybe a blocked shot that resulted in you breaking your leg or foot, and your team rallying around it. Or a missed golden scoring opportunity can lead to goal in the back of your own net. The examples go on and on. And none of these things can be quantified. I feel bad for you that you don't know the joy of the game.

I understand the stats, and what you want them to do. But it's a specious argument, because in the end, it won't be a determining factor in hockey.
Do you ever look at a players goals, assists, points, icetime, +/- or any other stats?

hatterson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 02:58 PM
  #57
Spamhuis
Registered User
 
Spamhuis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryno23 View Post
So why do you have to explain why a player is good? I think Mark Messier has great grit, playoff performer, heart and the best leader in hockey. Problem is for the stats guys you can't put a number on it to analyze it to fit in a nice package. Intangibles is a word that I know in baseball the stats geeks hate and laugh at but really that is what a player brings to the team inside the lockeroom and on the ice.

Sometimes you don't need to explain with stats why a player is good or bad you can watch the game as the visual image of his playing will tell you anything before you go and look at a spreadsheet. I don't need stats to tell me Brett Lebda was horrible D

For instance how did you put numbers to Scott Stevens when he played. He put the fear in god to forwards who would cross the blueline with their head down. Most players knew he was on the ice and would dump it in instead of trying to carry it over the blueline in fear of a devastating bodycheck by Stevens. I don't need fancy stats to tell me Stevens is a difference maker out there regardless of his puck possesion numbers or fenwick or corsi. Ask Paul Karyia his number took a beating after the cup final.

And that is where the divide is from the stats people who cannot accept why a player is good by just saying it without backing stats....they cannot rely on the actual watching a player and forming an view of the player.

Now I know the last statement was pretty general but it is mainly true for a good %
You don't need advanced stats to tell you that Stevens is a good hockey player. Truth is though advanced stats would show good possession numbers if he was putting fear into opponents so much so that they would lose the puck make bad plays etc.

I think the biggest thing to understand is that there are different stats for different things. Corsi is a rough possession stat metric. If we still had NHL zone time calculations we would not need it, but we don't. Fenwick is for predicting future success but you have to look at it in certain situations. PDO is an attempt to equalize for luck, which has been shown to predict which players will get 'hot' and which will get 'cold' over an extended period of time

Spamhuis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 04:11 PM
  #58
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7even View Post
They're a useful tool as long as you have context. I suppose that goes for everything.

Too many people freak the **** out when you bring them up.
People freak the **** out when they're brought up because they're brought up as if they're definite view of the game.

TieClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 04:33 PM
  #59
7even
Moderator
Deus Ex Machina
 
7even's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Georgia
Country: United States
Posts: 7,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
People freak the **** out when they're brought up because they're brought up as if they're definite view of the game.
I'm not sure what you mean by "definite view of the game."

They're a lens to look through, nothing more and nothing less. Nobody who's worth the salt (Cam, Desjardins, Zona, etc.) uses them as if they're the one true version of reality. Personally, I use them to support my opinions. That doesn't mean that I don't watch the games or that stats are the only thing I care about.

It just seems to me that there's so much resistance to "advanced" statistics, especially when they're not even advanced. They're all just based around shot attempts, which the NHL itself already tracks. They're not here to replace reality or confine the game to a spreadsheet, just to provide a little bit of insight into very "big picture" areas when you combine them with what you already know.

7even is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 04:40 PM
  #60
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7even View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by "definite view of the game."

They're a lens to look through, nothing more and nothing less. Nobody who's worth the salt (Cam, Desjardins, Zona, etc.) uses them as if they're the one true version of reality. Personally, I use them to support my opinions. That doesn't mean that I don't watch the games or that stats are the only thing I care about.

It just seems to me that there's so much resistance to "advanced" statistics, especially when they're not even advanced. They're all just based around shot attempts, which the NHL itself already tracks. They're not here to replace reality or confine the game to a spreadsheet, just to provide a little bit of insight into very "big picture" areas when you combine them with what you already know.
I was going to say they're taken as a fact but figured somebody would come in and say they are "facts" rather than taking my actual meaning.

I agree they are a tool to judge players with, but more so in the curiosity department. It's something where if you have 2 players and you think they're both fairly equal, you can go and look at these things for arguments sake.

There are many people that take them as fact though. James Mirtle for example likes to list off the advanced stats like they're a factual measurement of a player or team. It works pretty well over the internet because it's not a real time discussion, but when you start getting people live on air or face to face the ones that actually understand the game can go on forever while the guys like Mirtle have whatever stats they brought and then that's it.

TieClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 04:44 PM
  #61
Mystifo
Malkin To Kulemin.
 
Mystifo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: YYT
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 2,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman955 View Post
My thoughts exactly.

Advanced stats suck, and don't have much bearing on who wins games.
Can't win the game if you can't keep the puck. Advanced stats can't be the only thing you build your team off of but they sure do paint a picture and are useful in determining certain players worth.

Mystifo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 04:47 PM
  #62
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystifo View Post
Can't win the game if you can't keep the puck. Advanced stats can't be the only thing you build your team off of but they sure do paint a picture and are useful in determining certain players worth.
They don't paint an accurate picture. They paint a picture of a perceived style of play being more successful than others. Do you really think the Cup winning Devils had good puck possession numbers? Not a chance in hell.

TieClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 05:02 PM
  #63
7even
Moderator
Deus Ex Machina
 
7even's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Georgia
Country: United States
Posts: 7,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
There are many people that take them as fact though. James Mirtle for example likes to list off the advanced stats like they're a factual measurement of a player or team. It works pretty well over the internet because it's not a real time discussion, but when you start getting people live on air or face to face the ones that actually understand the game can go on forever while the guys like Mirtle have whatever stats they brought and then that's it.
I don't think you're being fair to Mirtle. He's been covering the Leafs professionally for years. I think he probably understands the game in a capacity that extends beyond what he looks up on behindthenet.

7even is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 05:25 PM
  #64
agropop
Registered User
 
agropop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,192
vCash: 500
They're not the be-all end-all, they're just more information to help understand what's happening on the ice. Corsi is a great proxy for possession and knowing who drives the play in the right direction.

Mentioning Corsi is also a great way to set yourself up for such great counter arguments as 'I watch the game instead' and my favourite, the Jason Blake analogy. Both of which are akin to slamming your head in a car door.

agropop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 06:15 PM
  #65
ryno23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by agropop View Post
They're not the be-all end-all, they're just more information to help understand what's happening on the ice. Corsi is a great proxy for possession and knowing who drives the play in the right direction.

Mentioning Corsi is also a great way to set yourself up for such great counter arguments as 'I watch the game instead' and my favourite, the Jason Blake analogy. Both of which are akin to slamming your head in a car door.
I hear ya but here is where the stats guys just throw a response like that. Why is watching the game argument not good enough. I watch a game see the play understand from playing a high level hockey what should or shouldn't be done in certain situations based on that. Is that not good enough do I need data to back up the argument? Since when was data needed to formulate responses based on what people see.

Now what happens is stats guys will say well Grabbo is better than Bozak cause he has a better Corsi, Fenwick....ok great that may be true but why does that make him better.....say now you involve Jay McClement in that argument...can you say Grabbo was better than McClement last year who just by "watching the games" was probably one of the top 3 Leaf forwards all year due to his PK work and over hustle and compete level.

Many stats guys do not follow up and explain why just throw a stat out and say well the stats say so.

So I guess that is where the non believers have a tough time accepting it as there is no reason behind why. Now like many have said few guys use it as part of overall opinion or statement.

Guys like Mirtle use it so wrong

ryno23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 06:37 PM
  #66
agropop
Registered User
 
agropop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryno23 View Post
I hear ya but here is where the stats guys just throw a response like that. Why is watching the game argument not good enough. I watch a game see the play understand from playing a high level hockey what should or shouldn't be done in certain situations based on that. Is that not good enough do I need data to back up the argument? Since when was data needed to formulate responses based on what people see.

Now what happens is stats guys will say well Grabbo is better than Bozak cause he has a better Corsi, Fenwick....ok great that may be true but why does that make him better.....say now you involve Jay McClement in that argument...can you say Grabbo was better than McClement last year who just by "watching the games" was probably one of the top 3 Leaf forwards all year due to his PK work and over hustle and compete level.

Many stats guys do not follow up and explain why just throw a stat out and say well the stats say so.

So I guess that is where the non believers have a tough time accepting it as there is no reason behind why. Now like many have said few guys use it as part of overall opinion or statement.

Guys like Mirtle use it so wrong
'Watching' is something we all do, 'stats guys' included. Opinions can be formed out of watching but what do you validate and quantify them with? Statistics. Without that they're just opinions.....'because you watch'.

Shot attempt differentials are important. (Corsi)

Zone starts are important.

Quality of competition and quality of line mates is important.

How a player is being utilized by the coach is important (usage charts)

'Because I watch, therefore my opinion has merit' is of no importance to anyone.

agropop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 07:10 PM
  #67
ryno23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by agropop View Post
'Watching' is something we all do, 'stats guys' included. Opinions can be formed out of watching but what do you validate and quantify them with? Statistics. Without that they're just opinions.....'because you watch'.

Shot attempt differentials are important. (Corsi)

Zone starts are important.

Quality of competition and quality of line mates is important.

How a player is being utilized by the coach is important (usage charts)

'Because I watch, therefore my opinion has merit' is of no importance to anyone.
I can get what you just said by "watching the game" but I don't need a chart to tell me that a guy starting all offensive zone draws could score more than guys like Steckel who takes D zone draws. I don't need to quantify that at all I see it plain as day.

Same goes for coach utilization Marc Andre Bergeron scores points as he is a PP specialist but I wouldn't put within 10 miles of defending a lead with 1 minute left to go. I don't need stats to back that up.

I guess what I am saying is those who do not believe in advance stats can form correct opinions based on "watching the game" and just because an advance stat say something doesn't mean much. Grabbo last year had great possesion numbers but he was a black hole offensively who didn't know how to use his linemates and on many nights it was solo rush after solo rush with nothing to show for. I see that watching the "game"

ryno23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 07:21 PM
  #68
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7even View Post
I don't think you're being fair to Mirtle. He's been covering the Leafs professionally for years. I think he probably understands the game in a capacity that extends beyond what he looks up on behindthenet.
To be fair to him all I see is what he posts on twitter, but everything he posts on twitter is related to advanced statistics in some way or another.

TieClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 08:10 PM
  #69
agropop
Registered User
 
agropop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryno23 View Post
I can get what you just said by "watching the game" but I don't need a chart to tell me that a guy starting all offensive zone draws could score more than guys like Steckel who takes D zone draws. I don't need to quantify that at all I see it plain as day.

Same goes for coach utilization Marc Andre Bergeron scores points as he is a PP specialist but I wouldn't put within 10 miles of defending a lead with 1 minute left to go. I don't need stats to back that up.

I guess what I am saying is those who do not believe in advance stats can form correct opinions based on "watching the game" and just because an advance stat say something doesn't mean much. Grabbo last year had great possesion numbers but he was a black hole offensively who didn't know how to use his linemates and on many nights it was solo rush after solo rush with nothing to show for. I see that watching the "game"
Sure you can say that Grabo was a black hole offensively but have you factored in his zone starts and line mates or the competition he was facing? Are you comparing his production to other years when he was utilized entirely differently? Are you comparing him to other players with similar usage charts? If you had you'd realize that no one in the entire league with similar minutes, line mates, and competition produced much. Context is important.

agropop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 08:24 PM
  #70
BIitz
BPA Free Lining
 
BIitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Uptown
Country: Mexico
Posts: 12,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeenSchenn2 View Post
Way too many people see them as the be-all and end-all. I guess they're somewhat useful, but there are so many flaws.

I prefer the good ole eyeballs.
Agreed, fully. I like to check em out, and to a certain extent they do tell you part of the picture. Maybe in the future, more of the game can be quantified, but in hockey it's rarely ever 1 on 1, it's a series of odd man battles, puck battles, and other events like that. Over a large sample size luck plays less of an impact, but it's still there.

BIitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 08:45 PM
  #71
MrLegend28
Registered User
 
MrLegend28's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,328
vCash: 500
the whole point of Advanced Stats is that, over a long season, 82 games for the NHL, and x amount of shifts because of it, it takes into account your bad, your good, your ups, your downs, and finds a number that you will play towards. No one is a robot obviously, but you will find a median of where a player will play.

People try to dispute advanced stats, but theres a reason every sport now employs them and has statistical teams attached to their front offices. Its the future.

MrLegend28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 08:48 PM
  #72
MrLegend28
Registered User
 
MrLegend28's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,328
vCash: 500
People who use the "i use my eyeballs" excuse are naive. There's a reason you're not a scout, a coach, a manager etc, you dont have the "eyeball" to be one. Youre not qualified enough to be a good enough scout, coach etc, thats why you're a fan. Most of you people who make this claim are wrong often, its just no one cares enough to put you under a microscope and examine it.

MrLegend28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 08:49 PM
  #73
LeafOfBread
van Dreamsdyk
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Mississauga, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribouPINE View Post
They can help sure, but with anything, there are limitations and pitfalls. And, like anything, they shouldn't be taken as a whole just part of the puzzle. Another piece.

If you follow James Mirtle though you would think they are essential to evaluating all trades, players, etc. In fact, I think Mirtle should go follow baseball as he's clearly a stathead and has little use for watching the game, rather just look at bar charts and draw Venn diagrams.

And yes, I know James reads this site. Hi James. Shouldn't you be reading Bill James' book on Win Shares to see how you can extrapolate that into the hockey world?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienWorkShop View Post
I am contemptuous of both those who are consider stats like CORSI or Fenwick the end-all-be-all of player evaluations and those who dismiss them entirely as statistical gobbledy-goop. (Okay, I detest the latter far more given my personal penchant for statistical analysis)

The current crop of 'advanced' stats is interesting and I don't see an issue with a sports journalist tossing in a PDO or CORSI reference when discussing a team or player. If you don't like that, then why is posting a defenceman's heavily second-assist assisted assist (woah) totals in an article not questioned? If you don't like a stat, it's easy to ignore it.

However, and people have given him some unwarranted stick for this quote, I think Brian Burke's quote, “Statistics are like a lamp post to a drunk: Useful for support but not for illumination,” is pretty spot on when it comes to hockey stats so far. Any hockey stat I've read about has way too much year-to-year variance (see teams maintaining a 'lucky' PDO for entire seasons) to be relied on without a doubt. There's some interesting work on all-in-one player measurements, but when they've got guys like Tyler Kennedy, who just take a ton of low-quality shots, ranked in the top-10 in the NHL, they've still got some work to do.

HOWEVER, as this Grantland piece details: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...cal-revolution, as SportVU cameras are inevitably installed in NHL arenas and are open to public consumption, there could be a legitimate statistical revolution over the next 5-10 years in hockey. Check out the embedded YouTube clips in the article to get a glimpse of what the Raptors are using right now. Pretty neat stuff.
This is pretty much where I stand. Advanced stats can be quite useful and are valuable tools to evaluate a player, and are the best possible way to quantify areas of the game that can't be directly tracked, like defensive play. I've used QoC and Rel QoC often in arguments, because it provides a very important context and is a good rebuttal for when stupid people trash Dion Phaneuf or trash defensemen because they can't see the value they bring on the ice themselves. At the same time, it has to be used as a support tool and not as a full evaluation. There are things that you can only pick up on by watching the game, and too many underlying variables which are not quantified.

On the flip side, people who completely denounce advanced stats are also being quite ignorant. Try arguing with that Bomber guy about advanced stats to see what I mean

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7even View Post
I don't think you're being fair to Mirtle. He's been covering the Leafs professionally for years. I think he probably understands the game in a capacity that extends beyond what he looks up on behindthenet.
Mirtle is a smart guy and I prefer to read his material over many other Leafs reporters (Simmons, Cox, Feschuk....Siegel is okay but he doesn't provide much insight, he kind of just records what's happening with the team but doesn't give any analysis).

However, he has become more irritating the past year, and while he does give useful stats, sometimes I feel like he goes too far with trying to quantify every detail of the game. You can't quantify everything in hockey.

The way that Mirtle fawned over Grabovski and mourned his loss was embarrassing. Mirtle isn't even a Leafs fan (which is good, I like the objectivity and he's not irrational like Cox and Simmons), yet he acted like Grabovski was killed, and was arguing with people all day about Grabo on his Twitter feed, using Grabovski's playoffs Relative Corsi as the base of his argument. Don't get me wrong, I loved Grabo and was upset when he was bought out, but going forward I just don't see where he fits in the long term plans for this team or where he could be used. Yeah, he's a great possession player, but at the same time he didn't use his teammates the best I felt like and was prone to making selfish plays.

It's also annoying that everyone keeps using advanced stats to downplay the Leafs success this season, saying that the entire season was a fluke and that they won't make the playoffs again because of PDO and Fenwick.

I don't live in some lala land where the Leafs have no problems with their game, I'm well aware that their are aspects that have to be rectified. The Leafs are a poor possession team and it drove me insane at times this season. They don't cycle the puck effectively, and the defense was completely immobile at times. They also have an unnaturally high shooting percentage that likely won't stay the same. However, the team we had this past year is not going to be the team we have going forward. The required personnel changes to suit Carlyle's game plan will play a large factor and will change how the team plays.

When Carlyle was with Anaheim, his teams were very physical, and dominant on the puck; their cycle game was great. The defense was very fluid and mobile and helped quarterback the team's transition game; Niedermayer, Pronger and Beauchemin was the best top 3 in the NHL. Their forwards were also big and physical and effective at carrying the puck, Getzlaf is the kind of player that the Leafs sorely lack, a big, talented centre.

I see Toronto trying to replicate the team they had in Anaheim. Despite the craptastic shot differential the Leafs had during the season, in the playoffs they were able to raise their shot totals to the 3rd best in the NHL. Unfortunately, they still allowed the most shots/had the worst shot differential, but that number is a bit skewed because of game one where the Leafs dominated and outshot 40-20, and also due to certain sequences like the last 15 minutes of game five, or the last 10 minutes of game seven (cringe), where they tried to sit back on the lead and not continue their counter-attack. Carlyle realized this was a coaching error after the series was over, and knows that he should've kept counter-attacking, so I think he knows what to do going forward. As hard-headed as he can be, he seems to eventually learn from his mistakes. Another reason for the poor shot numbers is our crap defensemen, and having d-men play where they shouldn't be playing...Kostka on the first pairing, Holzer on the first pairing, Fraser getting 2nd line minutes for a while...these things will not happen again.

What the Leafs need to improve possession is a big centre who can carry the puck and drive to the net to replace Bozak, as well as more mobility on the back-end and overall just better defensemen. A full season of Gardiner, the addition of David Clarkson (who was the best possession free agent available), as well as David Bolland will help. Also, Franson getting on the 2nd pairing should help too if he's paired with Gardiner; having him with Fraser only held him back. Another top-pairing d-man is essential to make sure they stop getting hemmed in their own zone, Carl Gunnarsson is a great player but is more of a #3 like Nik Hjalmarsson, not a #2 guy. We need a Brent Seabrook type of guy on the first pairing. We have some great defense prospects and I think Nonis is focused on finding a true top flight centre in the future, whether it's Kadri or someone we acquire, so they have the right idea.

I think this team will be competitive and make the playoffs again, and I don't feel that the only reason is because of goaltending like many advanced stats junkies are trying to claim. Reimer was great but was far from the only reason this team made the playoffs.

Hell, according to Fenwick numbers, the Leafs were one of the best possession teams in 2009-2010. Yet, they were in the bottom 10 for goal scoring and finished 2nd last in the entire league standings. Yeah, the goaltending sucked that year, but I'm not convinced that team would've gone anywhere even with a good goalie. That roster was awful and I would much rather have the players we have now, as well as Carlyle over Wilson.

I'm also not convinced that New Jersey would've made the playoffs with good goaltending this year. What good is it being the best possession team yet not being able to score a goal to save your life? (3rd last in goals, to be exact). There were only 5 teams in the bottom 15 of the league in goal scoring that made the playoffs.

So, to sum it up, advanced stats are useful, but are not the be all and end all. If a team has poor advanced stats, it doesn't mean that there's no hope or that the future is a write off, and it can also be said that teams with good advanced stats are not exactly in a good spot either, everything has to be taken with context, and personnel changes as well as coaching adjustments can rectify issues like puck possession.

That's why I don't read Pension Plan Puppets anymore, they have some really smart people over there but the constant reliance and citing of stats gets annoying and the articles all seem to have the same rhetoric/tone, "Carlyle is not a good coach", "Tyler Biggs and Stuart Percy were bad draft picks, especially Tyler Biggs", "Reimer's save % is the only reason the Leafs made the playoffs", etc.

LeafOfBread is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 08:56 PM
  #74
mpolo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
I kinda feel bad for the analysts, who can't watch every team, every player play in every situation. They have to use something to make up their mind on how a player is, and how they will play when things change.

That said, they should really go watch some video before they use stats (advanced or otherwise) before they make their theories and projections. If they can show me some examples of why they are correct, and the lack of examples of why they are wrong, then maybe they deserve my respect, let alone my attention.


Last edited by mpolo: 07-08-2013 at 08:57 PM. Reason: typo
mpolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2013, 10:17 PM
  #75
Kitsy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 181
vCash: 500
Question: Is there a website that tabulated advanced stats per team so we can see how well they work over the course of a season? I see a lot of leaf bloggers state that Grabby's corsi rating shows the leafs are demonstrably a better team with him than without him so I'm hoping I can see the win/loss records that backs up those facts across the board no matter the team or style or play.

Kitsy 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 09:41 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.