|
On April 07 2014 05:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2014 05:39 Sub40APM wrote:On April 07 2014 05:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 07 2014 04:33 Sub40APM wrote:On April 06 2014 22:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 06 2014 13:06 Orcasgt24 wrote:On April 06 2014 12:16 Shelke14 wrote:
DET is just one of those teams where even if you aren't a fan you still want them to at least make playoffs to keep it going. Honesty their team is made of glass, always a long injury list yet always making a good run. Well coached, well managed and leaders that lead by example. Best depth and best development system with the best talent scouts. No shock to anyone that Detroit always does good where is that guy that said Holland was over rated? Holland is overrated. His team has actually 0 defensive depth, if you watch the games everyone outside of Kronwall is a 3rd pairing type. And this wasnt an issue that randomly came up because some super star was injured in a fluke accident -- first rafalski left, then lidstrom telegraphed he was leaving and finally stuart. Nothing was done except a hail mary to get Suter and a valuable first round pick traded away for Quincey -- a guy theyll let walk in the FA because he's that awful. In the meantime the people who are actually driving this teams playoff push -- Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco, Gelndening -- would have stayed down in the AHL for another year because room had to be made for Mike Samuelson and Bertuzi and Dan Cleary -- AFTER he already signed somewhere else! Holland only looks like a genius on the background of Canadian team GMs. 17 years now as GM .. i wonder how many teams have won more playoff games than the Red Wings in the past 17 years? Boston and Chicago since the Cap era. and who is in Chicago's upper management team? and who is the GM of Chicago ? who do you think is really running the Chicago Blackhawks.  LOL. if Ken Holland is good enough for Bowman he is good enough for me. but, he might not be as good as Bowman. Scotty Bowman would fix Ovechkin's little red wagon in about 6 months.
It's obvious you have a man crush on Bowman, but it's making you blind bro. Ovechkin is #1 in goals!
|
Got to go to Canucks practice today, Torts is so tiny I had no idea. Some of the players height/weight have to be inflated, there's no way in hell Hamhuis is 6'1 210.
Was kinda cool to sit in the front row since I'll probably never get to in an actual game, my bro got some decent pics of players from a couple feet away. We got a couple pucks they practiced with too.
|
On April 07 2014 06:12 ii.blitzkrieg wrote:
Got to go to Canucks practice today, Torts is so tiny I had no idea. Some of the players height/weight have to be inflated, there's no way in hell Hamhuis is 6'1 210.
Was kinda cool to sit in the front row since I'll probably never get to in an actual game, my bro got some decent pics of players from a couple feet away. We got a couple pucks they practiced with too.
6'1" is short by NHL player standards. Well, not really short, but it's slightly below the average. Sometimes that can fool you. If you saw him in a situation where he wasn't lined up next to a bunch of hockey players, he would probably seem taller to you. Most coaches looks really tiny and skinny for similar reasons.
|
Yeah I know, I was comparing him to other guys on the team like Kesler who is listed at 6'2 and he looks half a head taller than Hamhuis. Just one that stuck out to me. I looked it up and Tortorella is 5'8 so it makes sense, also looked a lot smaller because he had no pads on obviously. Just deceiving when he's on tv because you never see him standing next to players, usually standing while they are sitting on the bench or he's alone in the press room etc...
|
|
|
|
|
hahahahahhahaha that is a straight nerd smashing of simmons and the rest of those fools.
I really want to see what happens with that team in the offseason.
|
On April 08 2014 08:09 QuanticHawk wrote:hahahahahhahaha that is a straight nerd smashing of simmons and the rest of those fools. I really want to see what happens with that team in the offseason.
Hah, that's awesome. All those guys need a solid kick to the nuts.
|
I am a Ranger fan, but I feel bad for the Devils. Schnedier is great, the blueline and team defense is great. But that offense has no scorers at all despite being able to drive possession all day (thanks to players like Jagr and Elias who are great w the puck on their stick). Them with a genuine 30-40g scorer in his prime would be a huge difference. Another decent forward in the top 6-9 wouldn't hurt either. Just too many guys who are playing above their heads or are very good (jags, elias) but not shoot first.
|
Aaaaaand Devils go down.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EoUQyET.gif)
Lots of good chances in the last 3 minutes.
Technically they can still get in, but that fucks them real good . CBJ would need to go something like 1-3 or worse for them to have a chance.
|
Red Wings just need 1 win in their last 4 to clinch a playoff spot. or i guess 2 OT losses.
|
On April 08 2014 08:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2014 08:09 QuanticHawk wrote:hahahahahhahaha that is a straight nerd smashing of simmons and the rest of those fools. I really want to see what happens with that team in the offseason. Hah, that's awesome. All those guys need a solid kick to the nuts.
As much of a nerd I am, and as much as I love stats, I really think Corsi and Fenwick are overrated tbh.
They aren't advanced stats in the traditional sense; baseball advanced statistics said screw batting percentage, screw the home runs column, screw run speed... I can have one statistic that can tell me bar none how much a player contributed to the offense of the club in straight up on-base percentage. You went from having a word problem with a couple different algebraic equations there in order to solve a players worth to pretty well one single integration to find the same thing.
Hockey's "Advanced Stats" do the opposite. I have to take a guy like Shea Weber's awful Corsi and compare it with his team Corsi. And then his qual-comp Corsi. And then rel-Corsi and then I have a decent idea of how many chances he generates in comparison to his teammates and quality of opposition. And that has absolutely no bearing at all how good he is at converting chances, how good he is at limiting chances from going in at all. You have a couple algebraic equations already (Goals, +/-, Shooting percentage etc), and instead you spend all this time gathering raw and subjective data on shots attempted and just guess and check like a 2nd grader for 25 minutes trying to figure out how to make the numbers recorded match what you actually see in the game.
Weber's Corsi is awful. Yet everyone knows he is the best defenceman on his team, maybe even the league.
That being said, Team 'corsi' numbers have shown a large predictive quality (like the leafs for example) but these stats have been collected and analyzed by the NHL since the 50s. If you take a player in his prime and on a rather consistent team like Anze Kopitar, Joe Thornton, Ryan Getzlaf, Patrice Bergeron etc and analyze their Corsi data from year to year on years that are virtually identical, you'd expect to find rather easy to find patterns and similarities in the data. This is 100% not the case.
Kopitar for example has been nearly identical in each of his last five years of play in terms of every other raw number available. You look at his Corsi on the other hand and it is all over the fucking map. Standard deviation is like 1000 times greater. The Kings have been a good hockey club that entire time. Koptar has been consistent that entire time as a player too. Why the hell are his numbers so jumpy? Same with every other name I rattled off before.
Honestly, the only use I have found for Corsi is sorting for players that play for good hockey clubs and those that play for shitty hockey clubs; Its sort of like plus minus just one step removed from actually scoring goals. I can see calling Baseballs' advanced stats advanced. I'd personally call hockeys "advanced" stats something more along the lines of "developmentally challenged" stats.
|
poster above is right about Weber.
all the old men on PTS who never use advanced metrics have been predicting the leafs missing the playoffs since bolland got hurt... i don't think i've heard any one at TSN or SportsNet predicting any kind of long play-off run.
and regarding this "science" word you are throwing around.
compiling any stat or building a scienitific knowledge base requires direct observation...
yep direct observation.. the main method most guys used on PTS all year long to predict the leafs hold on a playoff spot was tenuous.
Their #1 goalie got hurt and surprise surprise.... they fell out of their playoff spot. Wow.. i better go hug my scientific 40 function texas instruments calculator.
as far as "rousing defeat" goes.. the Leafs are on pace to get more points than they have since 2006-2007... 7 years.
looks more like a marginal improvement over business as usual at MLSE rather than a "rousing defeat".
that is if we are going by the STATISTIC of total points accrued in a season. LOL. unless you'd like us to go by your feelings.
if it FEELS like its a rousing defeat in your heart.. well good for you... enjoy your feeling, Peter Keating.
i feel like Scotty Bowman is right and that Ken Holland is a good GM. that is how i feel.
On April 08 2014 11:14 iCanada wrote:
Honestly, the only use I have found for Corsi is sorting for players that play for good hockey clubs and those that play for shitty hockey clubs; Its sort of like plus minus just one step removed from actually scoring goals. I can see calling Baseballs' advanced stats advanced. I'd personally call hockeys "advanced" stats something more along the lines of "developmentally challenged" stats.
i found the first 5 Baseball Abstracts at a used book store for $15... great reading.
i'm not sure if Bill James was a big Blue Jay fan or a big Gillick fan. I think it's the latter because he has no connections to the city at all.
baseball lends itself to stat usage far more than hockey because its far more 1 on 1. Pitcher v. Hitter.
|
Agreed. Hockey is nearly impossible to statistically model as accurately as baseball.
Any Stat in which Shea Weber needs to have a 40 minute comparison and creative narrative accompanied with in order to explain why his is in the bottom quarter of the league is not an advanced stat, imo.
That being said, I am all for statistics. I just really dont like any of the ones thrown out so far. PDO is a good one though, i like PDO.
|
On April 08 2014 12:48 iCanada wrote:
Agreed. Hockey is nearly impossible to statistically model as accurately as baseball.
Any Stat in which Shea Weber needs to have a 40 minute comparison and creative narrative accompanied with in order to explain why his is in the bottom quarter of the league is not an advanced stat, imo.
That being said, I am all for statistics. I just really dont like any of the ones thrown out so far. PDO is a good one though, i like PDO.
Once they get better and better digital cameras into the rinks we'll have better, more relevant data on individual metrics. Obviously its harder now, and obviously a sport that has action in discrete instead of continuous quarters is easier to analyze. But it will get easier.
|
On the topic of advanced statistics:
- Agreed that new camera technologies will really help move things along.
- It's true that Corsi/Fenwick aren't even really advanced statistics. (unless you are TOR) They can be very useful statistics for WOWY (with or without you) in determining a players contribution against his teammates. Yea, Corsi Rel Qualcomp TOI is useful and all, but in no way is on the level of something like baseball's WAR, or basketball's PER. But after using and being immersed in the stats world it should certainly be stated that Corsi/Fenwick is best used as a predictive model for team success. That's obviously very important, because it's the best predictor for future success we have. But for individuals it's difficult to say, there are a lot of factors that affect one player's Corsi.
- The most exciting development right now seems to be zone exits/zone entries. Because it's been shown that entering the zone with possession generates a Corsi event twice as often as dump-and-chase, the neutral zone is really the future emphasis area for coaches. Not that it has been overlooked ever, coaches have always stressed NZ play, but the players and coaches are understanding it in new ways. While teams aren't exactly in full Red Wings or USSR mode - only trying to enter the zone with full possession and dropping it back if necessary - it's clear that players are well aware of the value of possession. The measurement of exits/entries is all done by human scribe now. So when it goes automated, we'll start getting some really wonderful statistics.
|
i dont think anyone has said corsi and the like are the ultimate stats or anything. people who follow that stuff know it is still in its infancy, nothing compared to baseball advanced stats (and as sharky said, it's really not 'advanced' unless you're a shit club like toronto). and most importantly, that hockey's advanced stuff is just simply meant to agument traditional stuff, not be like WAR in baseball. the coolest thing is that it is still very new and very much evolving. it will never be as much like baseball since the game is entirely different, but there is definitely a value to them.
still, team posssession stats are strongly correlated with success. i think it is only overrated if you rely on only the advanced stuff to gauge a team/player.
|
first, every compiled statistic requires DIRECT OBSERVATION.
i'll take Scotty Bowman's opinion on a hockey player over any of the theory gods spouting the latest in fashion letters from the greek alphabet.
any science at its root requires DIRECT OBSERVATION.
the nature of baseball at its core lends itself to "decision theory" style statistical analysis.
each pitch is a decision.
each pitch is essentially a 1-on-1 confrontation.
the pitcher on the mound is a decision by the manager.
who to pinch hit.. etc.
hockey has none of these features... its a game of flow.
there are some stats that are useful in hockey, but nothing like sabremetrics.
a statistical model for hockey never has and never will come any where close to what is already in place for baseball.
plus, i'd rather just watch the hockey game.
with baseball's stop and start and time between action it lends itself to guessing along with the manager and pitcher and catcher and hitter.
hockey does not lend itself to this... in fact the NHL and IIHF is constantly trying to remove as many play stoppages as possible.
|
On April 08 2014 23:05 QuanticHawk wrote:
i dont think anyone has said corsi and the like are the ultimate stats or anything.
Yeah, pretty much. Things like corsi are super simplistic and intuitive so it's hilarious when the Leafs are like "keep ur fancy-ma-stats outta our unfounded opinions, basement-dwelling nerdlingers." It's one thing to be accidentally ignorant, but another thing completely to be intentionally ignorant and proud of it.
It's cute when people dismiss stats outright because they don't give you a complete, binary view of a hockey game. "It doesn't do everything therefore it does nothing!" It's like watching congressmen discuss climate change - the science is only 99%, and since it is not 100% it is therefore 0%. Take that, logic and reason. Those things are for losers.
Hockey is a complicated game and nothing ever exists in a vacuum. It is a game of flow and the situations worth analyzing are much more abstract and harder to define than a sport like baseball. Everyone knows that intuitively. But that doesn't mean a picture can not be formed. A great example are the Vollman charts which give a visual representation of how a player is used and their effectiveness in that role. It's a great entry into seeing if a player is being used effectively and whether they are sinking or swimming.
History always favors the progressives. It has to because human thought can never stop evolving. Eventually, things always move forward. So get on board or get left behind.
|
On April 09 2014 00:31 Flaccid wrote:
History always favors the progressives. It has to because human thought can never stop evolving. Eventually, things always move forward. So get on board or get left behind.
epistemology now? LOL
ok, its 1982!
let's install astroturf in every baseball stadium so that we can stay ahead of the times and not be left behind.
for every "cutting edge innovation" there are 1000 ideas left in the dust bin.
roger nielson was a great innovator... he was at the cutting edge of many new developments in the NHL
he also put pyramids underneath the leafs bench to energize the team.
"pyramid power".
i admire roger's pioneer spirit. some of his new ideas were bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
