Jump to content

Photo

Kovi


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#21 EdgeControl

EdgeControl

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,368 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 12:03 PM

that would explain why Datsyuk was nominated for the selke for 5 straight years and won 3

he's obviously the reason for "in this case". pasha had to prove himself on the ice, he was no way an "entitled"  star


  • 0

#22 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,263 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 01:29 PM

Sterio:  You used the words incorrectly and someone did not understand what you meant.  It's as simple as that.  Be clearer what you're talking about and you won't have to get things you understand explained to you again.

 

Microstats are very easy to understand, something which I have said 100000 times on this board.  The application of them is not always simple, though.  And I watch plenty of games.  The microstats believers I know watch way more games than the average hockey fan.

What did that last line have anything to do with anything? Sounds like you had too small of a sample to have drawn a conclusion from that set of data. Also, I'm pretty sure sterio's first language is french based on the twitter posts he puts up here that he translates from french to english, so good job jumping on his grammar/syntax....

You really need to work on taking the edge out of your explanations. You want more people to believe in the stats you believe in? Stop being a jerk about it and maybe people will listen.

Sterio - Personally insulting Tri isn't gonna help.


  • 0

#23 DevilMinder

DevilMinder

    Owner / Administrator

  • Admin
  • 9,034 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 01:40 PM

I second both of ATLL's comments. Please tone the vitriol down guys.


  • 0

#24 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,967 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 02:14 PM

What did that last line have anything to do with anything? Sounds like you had too small of a sample to have drawn a conclusion from that set of data. Also, I'm pretty sure sterio's first language is french based on the twitter posts he puts up here that he translates from french to english, so good job jumping on his grammar/syntax....

You really need to work on taking the edge out of your explanations. You want more people to believe in the stats you believe in? Stop being a jerk about it and maybe people will listen.

Sterio - Personally insulting Tri isn't gonna help.

 

well yeah im french as F**k lol 

 

but it's not about the way i phrased what i said or wtv. I will explain this one last time.

 

I've played lot's of sports, all positions, mostly hockey and soccer and at a decent level and i won championships. I have lot's of experience of whats going on in a team and how players work. Im sure a bunch of you guys does too, im not saying im better than everyone here.

 

That being said, i've been on team where guys that would either 

 

1- Shoot the puck / ball ALL GAME LONG from anywhere at the right time or at the wrong time. Anytime they have a chance they'll shoot. Now from those guys, some we're really good and would score or get good scoring chances, which should increase their % of success. Some others would be literally useless, shooting wide or shooting right into the goalies chest or weak shots that'd never go in or directly to the opposing team.

 

2- Then there's guys who really don't shoot often who mostly have a "johnny on the spot tap-in" kind of mentality who have to be sure they are in a good position to take a shot. Those guys mostly have a pass first mentality too. Their game is more about seeing the play and about positioning to produce. Or they are snippers who don't shoot often but know when to do it at the right time or if they think the pass is the best option they'll pass. You can also have that mentality and be terrible at it and don't produce of course.

 

So out of those 2 kind of players, you have the ones who shoots all the time, for some it works cause they are simply good, for some it doesnt cause they don't have a great shot or they can't aim. Or you have the reserved guy who doesnt shoot a lot but can aim.

 

For the last time, you can use stats to prove wtv you want it goes both ways, you can pick examples here and there to make a point, someone will be able to counter attack with other numbers.

 

but the more important thing is that you cannot calculate how dangerous each shots are, of course some could be great shots that the player made room for it or burned 5 guys for a breakaway. Or the dman can just come off the bench and happen to get the puck to the point and take a shot. 

 

There's wayyyyy too much luck and other factor to keep on pinning it on players or especially for Corsi and Fenwick which is even worst, you could have the best shift of your life and get 5 shots against cause the guys on the other side are sh!tting the bed or cause they've been caught in their end and are tired. Or you can have the worst shift or your life but your teammates gets 7 shots off rebounds and you don't touch the puck even once in that whole play.

 

so whats the point of always saying stuff like...

 

"this decent guy" is shooting at a crazy "some%" but obviously there's luck into that its not likely that he'll continue on that pace.

 

or 

 

"this superstar" is only shooting at "super low %" but the puck is just not going in he's unlucky or he's slumping

 

whats the point?!? it could change in the next game? buddy could have the best or worst game of his life or even changing linemates could do the trick or wtv. 

 

I HATE when guys are throwing around those stats especially for guys that they don't even watch so they don't even know the situations and everything.

 

bottom line, stats can prove stuff as they are exactly what they are telling you about a players, as much as they can be misleading. So there's really no point, especially when you just blame "luck" when they are not telling you what you want them to. Cause well that's the only way around it.


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#25 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Assistant Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,846 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:23 PM

well yeah im french as F**k lol

but it's not about the way i phrased what i said or wtv. I will explain this one last time.

I've played lot's of sports, all positions, mostly hockey and soccer and at a decent level and i won championships. I have lot's of experience of whats going on in a team and how players work. Im sure a bunch of you guys does too, im not saying im better than everyone here.

That being said, i've been on team where guys that would either

1- Shoot the puck / ball ALL GAME LONG from anywhere at the right time or at the wrong time. Anytime they have a chance they'll shoot. Now from those guys, some we're really good and would score or get good scoring chances, which should increase their % of success. Some others would be literally useless, shooting wide or shooting right into the goalies chest or weak shots that'd never go in or directly to the opposing team.

2- Then there's guys who really don't shoot often who mostly have a "johnny on the spot tap-in" kind of mentality who have to be sure they are in a good position to take a shot. Those guys mostly have a pass first mentality too. Their game is more about seeing the play and about positioning to produce. Or they are snippers who don't shoot often but know when to do it at the right time or if they think the pass is the best option they'll pass. You can also have that mentality and be terrible at it and don't produce of course.

So out of those 2 kind of players, you have the ones who shoots all the time, for some it works cause they are simply good, for some it doesnt cause they don't have a great shot or they can't aim. Or you have the reserved guy who doesnt shoot a lot but can aim.

For the last time, you can use stats to prove wtv you want it goes both ways, you can pick examples here and there to make a point, someone will be able to counter attack with other numbers.

but the more important thing is that you cannot calculate how dangerous each shots are, of course some could be great shots that the player made room for it or burned 5 guys for a breakaway. Or the dman can just come off the bench and happen to get the puck to the point and take a shot.

There's wayyyyy too much luck and other factor to keep on pinning it on players or especially for Corsi and Fenwick which is even worst, you could have the best shift of your life and get 5 shots against cause the guys on the other side are sh!tting the bed or cause they've been caught in their end and are tired. Or you can have the worst shift or your life but your teammates gets 7 shots off rebounds and you don't touch the puck even once in that whole play.

so whats the point of always saying stuff like...

"this decent guy" is shooting at a crazy "some%" but obviously there's luck into that its not likely that he'll continue on that pace.

or

"this superstar" is only shooting at "super low %" but the puck is just not going in he's unlucky or he's slumping

whats the point?!? it could change in the next game? buddy could have the best or worst game of his life or even changing linemates could do the trick or wtv.

I HATE when guys are throwing around those stats especially for guys that they don't even watch so they don't even know the situations and everything.

bottom line, stats can prove stuff as they are exactly what they are telling you about a players, as much as they can be misleading. So there's really no point, especially when you just blame "luck" when they are not telling you what you want them to. Cause well that's the only way around it.

Stats don't mean anything if they are used with small sample sizes. That's why the "shift of your life" example is invalid
  • 0

#26 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,967 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:37 PM

Stats don't mean anything if they are used with small sample sizes. That's why the "shift of your life" example is invalid

 

I know that and that's my point. Every play is different and there's too many variables and luck that even with a bigger sample it's not giving you the whole story.


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#27 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,793 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:44 PM

Sterio:  This is the last time I'll be explaining my position on statistics and how they help my understanding of the game to you.  If you continue to bait me, I'll be adding you to my ignore list.  I don't want to have to do that, because I do think you're very curious about why teams win games and you have insight about the games you're watching.

 

I don't like using shots either.  I wish I could use goals only.  But hockey seasons aren't long enough to use goals - we've seen that goal differential is much less predictive of future results than Fenwick % when a game is close.  Teams get hot for half a season with great goaltending and shooting luck.  We're seeing it right now with Anaheim.  But there's too much randomness involved in scoring a goal at the NHL level to just consider goals without making gigantic errors in player and team evaluation.  

 

Whatever you're seeing in hockey and soccer, that's at a much lower level than the NHL - the reason why I think Fenwick % is valid at the NHL level is because players as unique as you're describing at your level tend not to make it in the NHL.  Yeah, there are guys like Jason Blake who probably shoot too much and guys like Sergei Kostitsyn who probably pass too much.  These players have to be accounted for, certainly.  It's not perfect.  But if I showed you the Fenwick tied numbers from the last 5 years of the NHL for each team, I'd be showing you pretty much the standings in the NHL. There's some imperfections because of goaltending differences, and certainly those have to be accounted for. Teammates and game situation also have to be accounted for - we know that teams who trail outshoot teams who are ahead.

 

Corsi/Fenwick isn't perfect.  I wish the NHL counted scoring chances.  I wish we had more data about puck touches in the defensive zone, dump-ins versus carrying the puck into the offensive zone, etc.  But we're learning a lot of things about how team s win hockey games, and winning teams control the game by having the puck more than the other team.  That translates into a higher Corsi/Fenwick.  Most of the game is played 5 on 5 - it's real hard to win just through special teams and goaltending.

 

Anyway this was a great article about the subject published today:  http://www.mc79hocke...ey.com/?p=5701

Edited by Triumph, 26 March 2013 - 03:47 PM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#28 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Assistant Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,846 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:49 PM


I know that and that's my point. Every play is different and there's too many variables and luck that even with a bigger sample it's not giving you the whole story.


I'm on my phone, so I may not do the best job explaining this. According the advanced statistics, the Ducks are overachieving big time. They have a negative shots for: shots against ratio and all if their top 6 are shooting a ridiculous %. Now, they are on a three game losing streak. Shooting % is certainly a good stat. Loktianiov and Henrique will definitely come back to earth because no one in the history of the league has maintained such a % throughout their career. I think of anyone who has played over 500 games, Tanguay has the highest and he's at like 18%.
  • 0

#29 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,967 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 04:30 PM

Thats a good article Triumph and Smantzas you're right.

 

I think at this point it's now clear that we all know that stats can demonstrate stuff / be misleading and everything So my question... why do some people keep on bringing it on every single arguments? im serious.

 

seems like any regular talk that goes like this like...

 

"yeah loktionov has been pretty good lately he's really impressive and he's producing"

 

we're 95% sure of getting a reply with "loktionov is currently shooting "some %" and it's not likely that he'll keep putting up those numbers"

 

"Some team is going well lately they are 8-1-3"

 

we'll have a reply... "that team is shooting some % now and are running on luck and good goaltending" 

 

it's like... 75% of your posts needs a shooting % or any kind of stats thrown in it, just for the sake of it. While it's clear that on a small sample (and for most talk it is) it can be misleading, so whats the point?


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#30 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,263 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 04:52 PM

Sterio:  This is the last time I'll be explaining my position on statistics and how they help my understanding of the game to you.  If you continue to bait me, I'll be adding you to my ignore list.  I don't want to have to do that, because I do think you're very curious about why teams win games and you have insight about the games you're watching.

 

I don't like using shots either.  I wish I could use goals only.  But hockey seasons aren't long enough to use goals - we've seen that goal differential is much less predictive of future results than Fenwick % when a game is close.  Teams get hot for half a season with great goaltending and shooting luck.  We're seeing it right now with Anaheim.  But there's too much randomness involved in scoring a goal at the NHL level to just consider goals without making gigantic errors in player and team evaluation.  

 

Whatever you're seeing in hockey and soccer, that's at a much lower level than the NHL - the reason why I think Fenwick % is valid at the NHL level is because players as unique as you're describing at your level tend not to make it in the NHL.  Yeah, there are guys like Jason Blake who probably shoot too much and guys like Sergei Kostitsyn who probably pass too much.  These players have to be accounted for, certainly.  It's not perfect.  But if I showed you the Fenwick tied numbers from the last 5 years of the NHL for each team, I'd be showing you pretty much the standings in the NHL. There's some imperfections because of goaltending differences, and certainly those have to be accounted for. Teammates and game situation also have to be accounted for - we know that teams who trail outshoot teams who are ahead.

 

Corsi/Fenwick isn't perfect.  I wish the NHL counted scoring chances.  I wish we had more data about puck touches in the defensive zone, dump-ins versus carrying the puck into the offensive zone, etc.  But we're learning a lot of things about how team s win hockey games, and winning teams control the game by having the puck more than the other team.  That translates into a higher Corsi/Fenwick.  Most of the game is played 5 on 5 - it's real hard to win just through special teams and goaltending.

 

Anyway this was a great article about the subject published today:  http://www.mc79hocke...ey.com/?p=5701

Edited by ATLL765, 26 March 2013 - 04:54 PM.

  • 0

#31 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,793 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 05:20 PM

You clearly didn't get it either. You bait others just as much with you tone. You make others feel as if once they disagree with you, you feel as if we are below you. So either stop being all snobby about your stats or stfu about it.

 

And again, I believe your stats in many cases do show trends that are otherwise lost through the eye test which has limited memory. I just think you don't need to be be so condescending every time you talk about it.

 

Feel free to ignore me if you like, it's not difficult to do.  Sterio gives as good as he gets, he's called me out either actually or by implication in multiple threads.  If he continues I'll ignore him and the board will likely be better for it, but I hope he doesn't.

 

Sterio:  I don't control what other people post - I don't think I've posted anything about Loktionov's shooting percentage.  It's more about managing expectations, I guess.  Loktionov is real good but he's not likely to be a 30 goal scorer anytime soon, that's all.


Edited by Triumph, 26 March 2013 - 05:22 PM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#32 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,450 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 05:21 PM

Stats are cool because as the article said

honestly, a lot of the time, the data says things that hockey people would believe anyway, with the added benefit of providing some scale as to how significant some phenomenon or tactic is.

 

I was initially turned off to stats because someone with ZERO intuitive power had grabbed on to stats and often attacked me for my intuitive proclamations.  Time has proven me correct tender.gif

 

Tri is different - yeah he wants to be right - we all do, the Virgos anyhow, and he has slowly gone to stats to justify his proclamations.  Maybe because I've read his stuff for about a decade now, I see his stats stuff not know-it-all as much as testing the waters - he gets bolder and bolder as stats qualify his intuition.  

 

I don't see why you need to be irritated with the little stats tossed in.  Consider it your own pet peeve not some irritating sh!t some Devils fans does.  It's not tri's job to make you happy, you know?  What he's saying is harmless - maybe even meaningless.  Relax therapy.gif

 

[edit - you know... or how Tri said it for himself :giggle: ]


Edited by Pepperkorn, 26 March 2013 - 05:24 PM.

  • 0

I'm here for the party


#33 CarpathianForest

CarpathianForest

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,285 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 06:04 PM

This really shouldn't be a gang up on Triumph thread. Everyone know he and I don't get along well. However, his stat analysis is valuable and he contributes to the forum. I learned to just get past his "Holier than Thou" attitude and value his analysis since he typically has something important to add.


  • 0

frabz-Al-Bundy-Sees-Your-New-Shoes-Al-Bu
 


#34 EdgeControl

EdgeControl

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,368 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 06:46 PM

"I wanted to create a sense of the scope of the differences between good and bad X liners, so I took their GD/60 and multiplied it by the average ice time for that line and then by 82 games to convert things into goal difference over the course of a season"

 

goal differential????   Dam, this sure sounds a bit like +/- to me.  an indicator between good and bad X liners???


  • 0

#35 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,450 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 07:26 PM

but +/- doesn't say it all.  Supplementary data - not redundant.


  • 0

I'm here for the party


#36 1Guy3Cups

1Guy3Cups

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 82 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 07:40 PM

I am very good at math.. just throwing it out there.. 


  • 0

#37 Zubie#8

Zubie#8

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 07:40 PM

Tri contributes a lot to this forum, instead of the usual whining moaning and complaining like others.


  • 0

believe-zubrus.jpg

 


#38 EdgeControl

EdgeControl

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,368 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 07:47 PM

but +/- doesn't say it all.  Supplementary data - not redundant.

its goal differential , and thats what the author was using as a criteria   ( how can that possibly be???? lol )  btw all those "good" players mentioned are also top +/-.players      theres a correlation  between all these numbers


  • 0

#39 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,793 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:05 PM

its goal differential , and thats what the author was using as a criteria   ( how can that possibly be???? lol )  btw all those "good" players mentioned are also top +/-.players      theres a correlation  between all these numbers

 

The criteria he used to judge the players was ice time.  Then he looked at things like goal differential.  Taken in the aggregate, or over a long career, yeah, +/- is meaningful.  But it has all sorts of garbage like empty net goals and short handed goals for and against in it, and it doesn't take into account goaltending.  That's why we have things like Fenwick that take out the goaltender.

 

I agree there's a correlation between these numbers - players with higher +/-s tend to be better players - but just like you can't say 'that player's Fenwick is good thus he's good', you can't say 'that player's +/- is good, therefore he's good'.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#40 EdgeControl

EdgeControl

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,368 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:13 PM

The criteria he used to judge the players was ice time.  Then he looked at things like goal differential.  Taken in the aggregate, or over a long career, yeah, +/- is meaningful.  But it has all sorts of garbage like empty net goals and short handed goals for and against in it, and it doesn't take into account goaltending.  That's why we have things like Fenwick that take out the goaltender.

 

I agree there's a correlation between these numbers - players with higher +/-s tend to be better players - but just like you can't say 'that player's Fenwick is good thus he's good', you can't say 'that player's +/- is good, therefore he's good'.

yup, loved the marchand explaination that was good! lol


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users