HFBoards

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

The ripple effect

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-28-2007, 07:01 PM
  #26
Sayuri
Registered User
 
Sayuri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Alberta, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiversQ View Post
Smith was even at 5V5 going into last night's game. He finished last year at -6.
Weren't all the announcers talking at the beginning of the year about Jason never finishing a season in the negative? That's why he was so upset about getting off to a -12 start or something. That being said he's come back very nicely, but still I'm pretty sure they mentioned he had never finished in the minus column.

Sayuri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2007, 09:44 PM
  #27
gabe
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rage View Post
Over a large sample size, you would expect small errors to cancel themselves out.
The rage moderator is exactly right. Zdeno Chara might play 30 minutes a night. Let's say the official scorers always short him and get his shifts wrong by 20 minutes over the course of the season. That sounds like a lot, but it's just 1200 seconds - less than 1% of his total.

Incidentally, if anyone has any suggestions for the site, please post or email me. I am always looking to improve it!

Gabe

gabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 09:49 AM
  #28
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by imkinger View Post
I never suggested they shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt. I objected to your assertion that they are "garbage out".
I said "garbage out" because that is how the saying goes.

If the saying was "mistakes in the data your inputing results in questionable conclusions within the data you are presenting" then I would have quoted that.

Somehow I doubt such as phrase would be quite as catchy though.

It's gotta be taken in context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by imkinger View Post
Fine and dandy. However my point is that for the most part shift charts are reliable and thus for the most part Desjardins findings are reliable. Never mind the fact that they re-enforce what I see with my eyes (Horcoff, Stoll, Smith, Hejda line up against the opponents best).
How do you know the shift charts are reliable though? This isn't about me trying to be antagonizing, it's an honest question.

The way I see it is that in any given game will give you, what? 20 actual points of verifying the data? Depending on the number of goals scored, number of penalties, injuries or real memorable highlight type plays.

Outside of those bench marks we simply have to trust the stats taker. So if there are say 20 verifiable moments and you find 1 or 2 mistakes within them, then is it not fair to say that there is a 10% to 20% margin of error through out? I would even go as far as saying there is probably more when you factor in the just how many shifts and different combinations are played during the course of any given game?

That seems like a pretty significant problem when you are using statistical analysis as proof for one argument or another.

As for what you see, particularily when determining the difficulty of minutes, too me it's a weak argument because I would suggest that you (meaning any fan) don't see enough to actually get a true sense and opinions of the opposition will vary greatly from person to person. But then again this isn't the debate. The debate is about the reliability of the actual data collected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by imkinger View Post
None of which are part of Desjardins numbers. The RTSS stats have very little value, no doubt. There is actually a rule that they can't be used in contract negotiations. But to lump them in the same category as shift charts is a mistake, sure human error can occur in determining who just jumped on the ice; however, unlike the RTSS stats, shift charts are not subject to interpretation. You're either on the ice or you aren't. Again, error can occur, but not the same kind of error (one that occurs to a much lesser extent).
Why is it a mistake to lump them together? I know that they aren't used in Desjardins numbers but they speak clearly about the reliability of the people who are keeping track of all statistics.

In the example I linked to, the stat taker had Tom Gilbert playing a shift in the second period when he was concussed in the first period and taken to the hospital. It's not a case of spotting a guy a few extra seconds on this shift or that shift or short changing another guy, this is a case where a player was credited with time on the ice when he wasn't even in the building.

copperandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 09:52 AM
  #29
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rage View Post
Over a large sample size, you would expect small errors to cancel themselves out. I don't think the stats you mentioned are calculated in the toughness of minutes.
How does making an error in indicating a player lining up against another player 'cancel out' over the course of a game? He either line up against the guy or not. There are 17 other guys that his 'canceled out error' can be credited to and that doesn't speak to the margin of error reducing, it speaks to the margin of error likely increasing.

copperandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 10:25 AM
  #30
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
How does making an error in indicating a player lining up against another player 'cancel out' over the course of a game? He either line up against the guy or not. There are 17 other guys that his 'canceled out error' can be credited to and that doesn't speak to the margin of error reducing, it speaks to the margin of error likely increasing.
A player may be accidently credited with lining up against a strong opponent in one game, and maybe a weak opponent in another. It's very unlikely a player would be consistently falsely credited with lining up against a certain player type. Regardless, error is inevitable, the amount of error is what's important. All you have to do is watch the games closely to see if players are taking on easy/tough minutes and see if that jives with Gabe's site.

The Rage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 03:55 PM
  #31
gabe
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
How does making an error in indicating a player lining up against another player 'cancel out' over the course of a game? He either line up against the guy or not. There are 17 other guys that his 'canceled out error' can be credited to and that doesn't speak to the margin of error reducing, it speaks to the margin of error likely increasing.
Remember that if the stat-keepers are making errors randomly, then over the course of a season, it will tend to pull everyone's stats towards zero (regress to the mean.) Is the magnitude of that error is unlikely to be more than 15% (~5 seconds per shift)? On-the-fly, maybe. For shifts that start at a whistle, it would be way less.

Looking at the 'Quality of Competition' stat for the Oilers' D, does it seem to be in error?

SMITH D EDM 0.1488
HEJDA D EDM 0.1432
TJARNQVIST D EDM 0.0959
SMID D EDM 0.0537
STAIOS D EDM 0.0488
GREENE D EDM -0.0340
BERGERON D EDM -0.0579

We know Bergeron gets PP time but can't be trusted to play even-strength, and Greene also doesn't get the minutes. The other guys play a lot more minutes and match up against the other team's best lines. Things got a little messed up with Tjarnqvist and Hejda not necessarily in the lineup. If the order of these guys is substantially wrong, let me know.

gabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 05:12 PM
  #32
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe View Post
Remember that if the stat-keepers are making errors randomly, then over the course of a season, it will tend to pull everyone's stats towards zero (regress to the mean.) Is the magnitude of that error is unlikely to be more than 15% (~5 seconds per shift)? On-the-fly, maybe. For shifts that start at a whistle, it would be way less.

Looking at the 'Quality of Competition' stat for the Oilers' D, does it seem to be in error?

SMITH D EDM 0.1488
HEJDA D EDM 0.1432
TJARNQVIST D EDM 0.0959
SMID D EDM 0.0537
STAIOS D EDM 0.0488
GREENE D EDM -0.0340
BERGERON D EDM -0.0579

We know Bergeron gets PP time but can't be trusted to play even-strength, and Greene also doesn't get the minutes. The other guys play a lot more minutes and match up against the other team's best lines. Things got a little messed up with Tjarnqvist and Hejda not necessarily in the lineup. If the order of these guys is substantially wrong, let me know.
Believe me when I say this.
I actually applaud the efforts that guys like yourself and Mudcrutch go through in order to put this stuff together and I think that general trends, for most of it, can be used as reasonable indicators.

When I question the results it isn't in an effort to discredit all of what you guys put together but instead it's about putting the information in a more reasonable context.

Again, I know that this specific stat isn't about shots on goal, hits, blocked shots or anything else that can simply be marked off in a series of 1's and tallied at the end of a game but given the number of obvious errors that occur in those simple stats I can only deduce for myself that a much more involved task of tracking who is on the ice at each moment X 10 players (and sometimes 12) that the likely hood of even more errors is a logical conclusion to me.

When you factor in that the whole idea of tough minutes is about assigning (I am assuming based on personal opinion) the quality of opposition in an incredibly unscientific way of measurement then I do wonder how trusting the results are.

As for the margine of error, sure I can buy the idea that 10 seconds at the end of one shift or beginning of another probably evens out over time but I have two problems with that being the end of the discussion. First off, how often does a guy get credited for a shift when he wasn't even out there? An overlap of a few seconds will still give you a reasonable indicator of who any given player is playing with/against but if, and it is an "if", it is common place for a player to be credited with a shift that he didn't actually take then it can skew the results you are looking for. That brings me to my second problem, there is no way to verify any of this stuff with any certainty. There are probably, what?, 800 shifts taken in a game? There are probably 20 verifiable moments that can be looked back on through highlights? during those twenty moments you can confirm 5 - 6? players on the ice? It is a very very small sample to verify accuracy from and when obvious mistakes can still get pointed out then you most certainly have to wonder how accurate the data you are using really is.

Well that's my position. Like I said this isn't about dismissing the premise of your work and certainly not your efforts but instead it is just questioning the accuracy of the results based on the information available.

copperandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 05:29 PM
  #33
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
What's the error in the gamesheet linked?

mudcrutch79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 05:42 PM
  #34
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeComrie'sGhost View Post
What's the error in the gamesheet linked?
Check out Tom Gilbert.

That was the game in which he was concussed by Shelley in the first period. According to the shift chart he is shown as playing a shift in the second period and yet at that time he was in reality probably lying in the fetal position making cooing noises on a gurney somewhere.

copperandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 06:36 PM
  #35
gabe
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
given the number of obvious errors that occur in those simple stats I can only deduce for myself that a much more involved task of tracking who is on the ice at each moment X 10 players (and sometimes 12) that the likely hood of even more errors is a logical conclusion to me.
Usually the NHL has 10 stringers watching the game. Several people are assigned to track ice time. I can't comment as to how it works exactly, but here's some analysis of the accuracy of the shift tables:

http://www.cs.unb.ca/~mwf/habs/details.html


Quote:
When you factor in that the whole idea of tough minutes is about assigning (I am assuming based on personal opinion) the quality of opposition in an incredibly unscientific way of measurement then I do wonder how trusting the results are.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'unscientific.' Someone watches the game, and they record who's on the ice. The NHL does not release the shift charts until about 30 minutes after the game is over. (Everything else is done on the fly.)

Quote:
As for the margine of error...how often does a guy get credited for a shift when he wasn't even out there?...if...it is common place for a player to be credited with a shift that he didn't actually take then it can skew the results you are looking for...there is no way to verify any of this stuff with any certainty...It is a very very small sample to verify accuracy from and when obvious mistakes can still get pointed out then you most certainly have to wonder how accurate the data you are using really is.
Certainly ice time is credited incorrectly at times. I see it all the time in the charts. But it is less than 10%. Is +/- (a stat no one doubts) accurate to within 10%? I don't think so. Are assists accurate to within 10%? Maybe.

Quote:
Well that's my position. Like I said this isn't about dismissing the premise of your work and certainly not your efforts but instead it is just questioning the accuracy of the results based on the information available.
Best estimates put the "accuracy" of the results at at most +- 10%. The implications of +- 10% are not that significant. This stat will never show that Bergeron gets tougher minutes than Smith.

If there is as much uncertainty in these statistics as you claim, then you should be able to find numerous gross errors in the list of players. You should easily be able to find a D who gets easy minutes but is credited with tough opposition, and vice-versa. I've watched discussions on the Flames, Oilers and Pens boards, and no one has said anything of the kind. If you can find an obvious error, then please let me know, because I'd really like to know if the results seem reasonable to people who watch each team regularly.

gabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 06:46 PM
  #36
Hemskyfanboy83
Registered User
 
Hemskyfanboy83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
We really go overboard on "tough minutes"

So what is tougher? Playing agianst Elias or a shutdown guy like Madden?

Just to show how weird this might be. Let's say a team like Anaheim gets Marchant to play the "tough minutes" and Selanne gets the easy minutes. I haven't looked at this formula. But let's say the above is true. If we have guys like Horcoff playing against Selanne, wouldn't that mean Horcoff is getting easy minutes?

Besides, playing against a great offensive player doesn't affect your ability to score. sure you have to play defense but it shouldn't affect your offense more then about 5-8 points.

This is very confusing.

Hemskyfanboy83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 07:02 PM
  #37
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilerlova View Post
We really go overboard on "tough minutes"

So what is tougher? Playing agianst Elias or a shutdown guy like Madden?

Just to show how weird this might be. Let's say a team like Anaheim gets Marchant to play the "tough minutes" and Selanne gets the easy minutes. I haven't looked at this formula. But let's say the above is true. If we have guys like Horcoff playing against Selanne, wouldn't that mean Horcoff is getting easy minutes?

Besides, playing against a great offensive player doesn't affect your ability to score. sure you have to play defense but it shouldn't affect your offense more then about 5-8 points.

This is very confusing.
Have you even looked at the formula?

The Rage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 07:05 PM
  #38
imkinger
Registered User
 
imkinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilerlova View Post
We really go overboard on "tough minutes"

So what is tougher? Playing agianst Elias or a shutdown guy like Madden?
In terms of outscoring, Elias.

Quote:
Just to show how weird this might be. Let's say a team like Anaheim gets Marchant to play the "tough minutes" and Selanne gets the easy minutes. I haven't looked at this formula. But let's say the above is true. If we have guys like Horcoff playing against Selanne, wouldn't that mean Horcoff is getting easy minutes?
No, since Selanne is a great outscorer (33rd league wide), he is considered tough minutes.

Quote:
Besides, playing against a great offensive player doesn't affect your ability to score. sure you have to play defense but it shouldn't affect your offense more then about 5-8 points.

This is very confusing.
It does effect your ability to OUTscore, which is the metric that behindthenet measures.

imkinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 07:19 PM
  #39
Showerhead
Registered User
 
Showerhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilerlova View Post
We really go overboard on "tough minutes"

So what is tougher? Playing agianst Elias or a shutdown guy like Madden?

Just to show how weird this might be. Let's say a team like Anaheim gets Marchant to play the "tough minutes" and Selanne gets the easy minutes. I haven't looked at this formula. But let's say the above is true. If we have guys like Horcoff playing against Selanne, wouldn't that mean Horcoff is getting easy minutes?

Besides, playing against a great offensive player doesn't affect your ability to score. sure you have to play defense but it shouldn't affect your offense more then about 5-8 points.

This is very confusing.
You are correct to point out the difference between a guy like Elias and a guy like Madden. Elias-types are often classified as "high event" players because they're likely to be on the ice for lots of goals for as well as goals against. Rick Nash is a perfect example of this - a guy who can light it up, but whose line gets scored on all the time too. Peca is a good example of a "low event" player, a guy who's not likely to be on the ice for a goal for or against.

In terms of "outscoring" - ie the ability to be on the ice for more goals for than against, +60/-60 is no different from +10/-10 (assuming ice time is the same). It is the coach's job to identify when he's got a high event guy like Nash and put him out on the ice against players he can exploit as well as to keep Nash off the ice against a Forsberg-type who is likely to exploit Nash's defensive shortcomings.

That's why "tough minutes" is brought up a lot - it's important to know in what context a guy is getting his points.

edit: I should add something relevant to Smyth, heaven forbid I say something that isn't about him these days. The fantastically important thing about Smyth that most Oiler fans don't realize is not only was he a very good goal scorer, he did it against anyone and everyone, regardless of how tough the minutes were. The stat for penalties drawn that RivQ brings up is also just an amazing pat on Smyth's back if you ask me.

Showerhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 07:41 PM
  #40
BeingAndNothingnes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 23
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rage View Post
Over a large sample size, you would expect small errors to cancel themselves out. I don't think the stats you mentioned are calculated in the toughness of minutes.
That's definitely the general principal behind statistics.

To claim stats as garbage or to be taken with a grain of salt is ridiculous. Statistics when computed properly are highly accurate (in academia, 5% margin of error or less is most common, although even as high as 10-15% can be useful).

It all depends on the stat, the significance of it, and how it's calculated.

When there are problems, most often it's the method that is garbage, but the formula for tough minutes seems pretty sound. When you look at the output, it intuitively makes sense.

BeingAndNothingnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 09:26 PM
  #41
Matts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
So SH

Quote:
Originally Posted by Showerhead View Post
You are correct to point out the difference between a guy like Elias and a guy like Madden. Elias-types are often classified as "high event" players because they're likely to be on the ice for lots of goals for as well as goals against. Rick Nash is a perfect example of this - a guy who can light it up, but whose line gets scored on all the time too. Peca is a good example of a "low event" player, a guy who's not likely to be on the ice for a goal for or against.

In terms of "outscoring" - ie the ability to be on the ice for more goals for than against, +60/-60 is no different from +10/-10 (assuming ice time is the same). It is the coach's job to identify when he's got a high event guy like Nash and put him out on the ice against players he can exploit as well as to keep Nash off the ice against a Forsberg-type who is likely to exploit Nash's defensive shortcomings.

That's why "tough minutes" is brought up a lot - it's important to know in what context a guy is getting his points.

edit: I should add something relevant to Smyth, heaven forbid I say something that isn't about him these days. The fantastically important thing about Smyth that most Oiler fans don't realize is not only was he a very good goal scorer, he did it against anyone and everyone, regardless of how tough the minutes were. The stat for penalties drawn that RivQ brings up is also just an amazing pat on Smyth's back if you ask me.

Are you saying that 94 is an elite player? Watch out my friend or you will be the next one down in the bowels of Rexall.

Matts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 09:57 PM
  #42
Hemskyfanboy83
Registered User
 
Hemskyfanboy83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by imkinger View Post
In terms of outscoring, Elias.



No, since Selanne is a great outscorer (33rd league wide), he is considered tough minutes.


It does effect your ability to OUTscore, which is the metric that behindthenet measures.
This might be true and I have nothing to back it up. I was just using him as an example.

You say he is 33rd league wide, but maybe that is because he plays the easy minutes for the Ducks? Again nothing to base this on but let's say he is 33rd playing all the easy minutes. Does that really mean that playing against him would be considered tough minutes.

I don't know if that makes sense but I think you can make out what I am trying to say.

Hemskyfanboy83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 10:12 PM
  #43
Matts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
the Pahlsson line takes all the tough min for the Ducks. then marchant. selanne gets the second easy min while Getzlaf, though an admitted fave of min, plus Perry are out there against the Jody Shelly and Cam Janssen's of the world

Matts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 10:18 PM
  #44
Hemskyfanboy83
Registered User
 
Hemskyfanboy83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matts View Post
the Pahlsson line takes all the tough min for the Ducks. then marchant. selanne gets the second easy min while Getzlaf, though an admitted fave of min, plus Perry are out there against the Jody Shelly and Cam Janssen's of the world
That is what I figured. While most people think Selanne is the tough minutes, wouldn't playing against the Pahlsson line be tougher? Maybe Selanne is only up there because he gets easy minutes and therefore playing against him isn't really hard?

I think there are far to many variables for this to be accurate. Better then +/- but it still has many flaws and I wouldn't take it to seriously.

Hemskyfanboy83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 11:24 PM
  #45
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
So... can everyone now agree that there has been a significant "ripple effect" based Smyth's departure. Most of the guys here weren't blowing smoke after all...

momentai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2007, 11:25 PM
  #46
gabe
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilerlova View Post
That is what I figured. While most people think Selanne is the tough minutes, wouldn't playing against the Pahlsson line be tougher? Maybe Selanne is only up there because he gets easy minutes and therefore playing against him isn't really hard?

I think there are far to many variables for this to be accurate. Better then +/- but it still has many flaws and I wouldn't take it to seriously.
You bring up a valid point. I have defined 'quality of competition' as 'does a player face the other team's first line?' or 'does a player face opposing players with the highest +/-?'

Selanne and Jagr will never face each other, so their 'quality of competition' (as defined this way) will be low. That doesn't mean that they don't face a tough checking line - but they don't face a lot of guys who are real offensive threats.

But...

You have to pay attention to the magnitude of these stats:

Selanne - On/Off: +1.50 On-Ice: +1.63 Off-Ice: +0.13 Competition: -0.031
Pahlsson - On/Off: -0.40 On-Ice: +0.26 Off-Ice: +0.66 Competition: +0.141

So while the difference between the competition they faced was 0.17 in Pahlsson's favor, the difference between Selanne's offensive production and Pahlsson's was almost +2 goals per 60 minutes. Some of that is due to Selanne having better offensive teammates than Pahlsson, but it is safe to say that playing against Selanne is way harder than playing against Pahlsson.

gabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 10:04 AM
  #47
Injektilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Taiwan
Country: United Nations
Posts: 2,516
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Injektilo
I just wanted to step in and say how great I think it is that Gabriel has stepped in and made his voice heard here.

HF-Oilers used to have some brilliant discussion, it's threads like this one that keep me poking around here still. Even when i don't have anything to contribute, I still feel like I learn something about the game I can't really get anywhere else.

Injektilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 10:39 AM
  #48
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilerlova View Post
That is what I figured. While most people think Selanne is the tough minutes, wouldn't playing against the Pahlsson line be tougher? Maybe Selanne is only up there because he gets easy minutes and therefore playing against him isn't really hard?

I think there are far to many variables for this to be accurate. Better then +/- but it still has many flaws and I wouldn't take it to seriously.
The ultimate hockey player plays great defensively, and great offensively. Or at the very least, he maintains so much possession of the puck in the other teams end, they can't score on him.

That person is the hardest player to play against. They put up points, and they don't give up any. There's obviously degrees of this sort of player, some put up more points but give up more goals, others less points but less goals.

As a branch off from there, you get players who put up big offensive numbers, but also give up a lot of goals. And you've also got the classic "checking line players" who don't score much, but don't give up much.

Most teams now stay away from a checking line... simply put, the idea is to not get your ass kicked by their first line, and hope your first line kicks the tar out of their checking line. That's sort of died around the NHL. Now it's more go head to head, and let the depth win.

Anaheim sort of goes away from this. The Pahlsson line generally does a pretty good job of matching up, and then Selanne goes out and beats up on the left overs. The problem with this (as we saw in the playoffs last year), is that on the road, Selanne is less effective because he's facing a much tougher matchup. And because the Pahlsson line doesn't score much, if Selanne doesn't score, you don't have a hope in hell of winning.

Against a team with good depth, it takes Selanne's ability to completely dominate away from them.

In terms of who faces the tougher minutes, it's Pahlsson. In terms of who is tougher to play against, it's Selanne.

__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.
dawgbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 10:50 AM
  #49
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by momentai View Post
So... can everyone now agree that there has been a significant "ripple effect" based Smyth's departure. Most of the guys here weren't blowing smoke after all...
Is it because he's gone?

Or is it because he's gone, and the rest of the team knows he's not coming back?

It's not like this team hasn't been without Smyth's services before, and they managed to at least be competitive.

Digger12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 10:54 AM
  #50
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe View Post
Certainly ice time is credited incorrectly at times. I see it all the time in the charts. But it is less than 10%. Is +/- (a stat no one doubts) accurate to within 10%? I don't think so. Are assists accurate to within 10%? Maybe.
I don't get this.

You are prepared to say that ice time is correctly tracked within a 10% margin of error but don't believe +/- is, and are unsure if assists are?

This is a blind faith argument. Good on you for trusting the shift stats but it hardly helps your argument.

As I suggested above, there are only a limited number of varifiable moments in a game. Those moments include when goals are scored. Therefore the chances of catching and changing an error on the +/- stat and assist stat are a hell of a lot greater than verifying if player X was even on the ice at some random minute of some random period.

If there are so many errors made on the +/- log that you can't trust them to be accurate within 10% when it is so much easier to verify it, then how on earth can you argue that less mistakes are made when the shifts are being recorded without some way to verify it?

Your suggesting that I can't prove the numerous mistakes in the shift charts and your right, I suspect that I can't prove to your satisfaction that there are too many mistakes to allow for trusting data.

In the same breath you can't just trot out the response that you did and expect me to buy into it because you are lacking the same proof. Simply saying that it's reliable doesn't prove your point.

Further to that, you suggest that +/- has a greater margin of error than 10% (and you may very well be right) but how can you say that +/- has a greater margin of error than the shift charts when the two are directly associated? Player X is either on the ice when a goal is scored or he isn't. If he is credited with a plus or minus then the shift chart should show him on the ice. If he is mistakenly credited with a +/- because he wasn't on the ice then the shift chart would clearly be wrong as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe View Post
Best estimates put the "accuracy" of the results at at most +- 10%. The implications of +- 10% are not that significant.
Is a 10% margin of error for a stat like +/- more likely to even out over time or is a 10% margin of error for a shift chart more likely to even out over time?

If the error in the shift chart is merely short changing or crediting 15 seconds one way or another then obviously you can reasonably expect it to even out. However, if an entire shift is erroneously charged to, or short changed from players then the chances of that error evening out over time is greately reduced. For starters it effects more than just one guy and secondly, when using the stat for toughness of minutes, the chances of the 'evening out' error being recorded against the appropriate opposite opposition is very slim. If anything, in this case the error snowballs into a bigger one instead of washing out like it would with a couple extra seconds left on the table here or there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe View Post
This stat will never show that Bergeron gets tougher minutes than Smith.

If there is as much uncertainty in these statistics as you claim, then you should be able to find numerous gross errors in the list of players. You should easily be able to find a D who gets easy minutes but is credited with tough opposition, and vice-versa. I've watched discussions on the Flames, Oilers and Pens boards, and no one has said anything of the kind. If you can find an obvious error, then please let me know, because I'd really like to know if the results seem reasonable to people who watch each team regularly.
My intention of posting in this thread was not to tear down your work (nor have I up to this point) it was simply questioning the reliability of the data you have to work with.

So with that said, this comment is starting to transcend into a topic I had no intention of commenting on.

However since you asked, I think some trends can be taken from the stuff you put together but in no way do I believe it is as conclusive as it is often presented as.

The question to me isn't what the chances are that Bergeron will ever show up higher than Smith but more so how Bonk is 166 players higher than a guy like Pronger. As suggested by some others here, there are simply too many variables to consider.

copperandblue 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 08:11 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.