HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > By The Numbers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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.

Most useless or inaccurate stat in hockey?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-16-2013, 04:15 PM
  #201
BNHL
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 12,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
Hard to measure, but it does mean you have the puck more often than not...

Faceoffs in either zone are important, but neutral zone faceoffs are less meaningful...
I saw an NHL statistician sitting down with Brian Burke,Mike Milbury,Tony Amonte and Peter Chiarelli and say that less than 2% of faceoffs have direct relationship to goals.

BNHL is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2013, 04:20 PM
  #202
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BNHL View Post
I saw an NHL statistician sitting down with Brian Burke,Mike Milbury,Tony Amonte and Peter Chiarelli and say that less than 2% of faceoffs have direct relationship to goals.
I guess it would depend upon what is meant by "direct relationship to goals".

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2013, 04:35 PM
  #203
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,468
vCash: 50
There really isn't any stats I'll outright complain about but the least for me are ones that end up being total crapshoots in hockey pools, especially head to head. Like a lot of people pick out +/-, but if you draft carefully it's a stat you can intentionally win at. Also while it often gets misused it does have it's value within a certain context, especially when you have a line that consistently plays together (ex: look at Carolina's team player stats for last season). So anyways my main culprits are usually GWG, SO, and to a lesser extent SHP.

GWG is pretty obvious, it's almost completely random and more often than not entirely meaningless in the context of a game. I mean if the game is tied 2-2 and Stamkos scores a clutch goal with a few minutes left in the third, that's noteworthy. But if TBay is winning 6-1 and the other team scores 2 late goals in the third, the fact that Salo happened to score the 4th goal earlier is completely meaningless. If anything this stat would have more meaning if a number of key goals from a few very specific scenario's were all compiled into a single 'Clutch Goal' stat.

For Shootouts? It's again pretty random, and while a noteworthy accomplishment for a goalie is it really much different than a skater scoring a hat trick? If Stamkos and Ovechkin both score 60 goals on a season, you wouldn't award Ovy the Hart because he scored 8 hattricks and Stamkos only had 3. Yet for goaltenders with roughly equal starts, wins, GAA and SV%, SO's can stand out as a factor.

And of course like GWG they're almost impossible to predict in a hockey pool

RandV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2013, 06:05 PM
  #204
SpeedDemon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Classified
Country: United States
Posts: 780
vCash: 491
my main one is shooting percentage. Can be the most misleading

Superstars generally take more shots than grinders but don't score that much more in comparison. Someone who scores 35+ on 250 shots shouldn't shouldn't really be considered less accurate than a player who scores 16 on 64 shots.

SpeedDemon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2013, 02:19 AM
  #205
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,451
vCash: 500
Personally I'm a bit in love with the shooting percentage. It only misleads fools. Who cares if Tom Sestito has a 50 percent shooting percentage on six shots when everyone knows it's because of a limited sample size? On a hot streak anyone can have 50 per cent or more on six shots.

Also everyone should know the shooting percentage were bound to be higher in the 80s and early 90s because the game was more open and it was easier to score goals.

the edler 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 04:39 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.