Parallel Paths

Jonathan Willis
July 08 2011 10:55AM

 

Objects on a parallel course give us an interesting example of unification and divergence. On the one hand, they are travelling along the same path, moving towards a common destination, and they never diverge from that path. On the other hand, they never converge; that is to say that despite all the similarities of their path they remain as far apart from each other at the end of their course as they did at the beginning.

What on Earth am I talking about here?

The funny thing about advanced statistics is that the ones I find most useful – the ones I consult frequently when evaluating players – are representative of items that any qualified, diligent observer would pick up just from watching a lot of games.

Take Quality of Competition and Quality of Teammates. There probably isn’t a fan of the game that fails to understand the relative value of playing with Ales Hemsky versus the relative value of playing with Steve MacIntyre. It’s an axiomatic truth: line-mates impact performance. Similarly, down through hockey history there has always been a certain cachet that comes with shadowing top players. Don Cherry preached it as a coach and it goes back well before his day.

What QualComp and QualTeam do is put a number to these values. This is important, for a couple of different reasons. The first is that the average fan isn’t especially good at picking out who plays top opposition, all by themselves. For years now – certainly the entirety of the post-lockout era, probably longer – power vs. power (where the top players face each other) has been the preferred matchup for most NHL coaches. Despite this, fans have persisted in identifying third-line as the guys facing the stars. Sometimes it’s true, especially in the past – Todd Marchant held the role for a time in Edmonton, while Anaheim and New Jersey have both had extended periods where they used a checking line – but as a rule it doesn’t happen. Carefully watching matchups is one way of doing it, and in my experience the matchups rather closely mirror QualComp.

The second reason is that even if a fan is careful about watching how a coach runs his lines, it is all but impossible to watch enough games to properly evaluate all 30 teams, particularly as injuries start accumulate and lineups get jigged around.

QualComp is a help in both areas – it serves as a sanity check for personal observations on a team one follows closely, and it provides data for teams that one person simply doesn’t have time to follow in-depth. It shouldn’t be regarded as something alien: it simply condenses a task that any competent observer should be doing in the first place.

Zone Starts are a similar statistic. A competent observer who watches a lot of games can generally tell you which players are relied on for shifts in their own end, and which players get used in a lot of offensive situations. He knows that these things matter – players on the ice in their own end a lot not only have a higher chance of getting scored on (especially off a lost faceoff) but to get a scoring chance of their own they must travel 200 feet, penetrating increasingly sophisticated defensive schemes, all the while knowing that every deke and every pass could be picked off and lead to a chance against. A player having a perfect shift might spend 30 seconds chasing the puck in his own end and 10 seconds getting the puck up ice, but be forced to dump it in to get the line change. He just played a perfect shift but never got an opportunity to score.

The reverse is true as well. A player starting in the offensive zone has a higher chance of scoring a goal (especially following a successful faceoff), and even if his team loses possession he now has 200 feet to reclaim the puck, and any mistake by the opposition can lead to a scoring chance. Off a won faceoff, this player could spend 30 seconds moving the puck around the offensive zone but never threatening, chase it up ice for 10 seconds, and then get the change while the other team is changing – his line played a miserable shift, but they got away with it because the centre won an offensive zone faceoff.

These contextual statistics matter a lot when it comes to evaluating players. Coaches know them without needing to glance at numbers – they’re the ones deciding when and where to use these players. Competent observers that watch a lot of games involving one team know them too, and appreciate the difficulty or ease of the role each player plays – and they probably have a very good idea for teams in the same division and a good idea of teams in the same conference. A casual fan, the guy who watched 15 games this year and was sober for the first period (special exemption for fans of the Oilers/Leafs, where the games encourage drunkenness as a lifestyle choice), probably doesn’t have a clue.

Corsi and Fenwick are a little more esoteric, but they do fit with something coaches have been doing for decades: collecting scoring chances. Even coaching staffs that don’t physically count scoring chances (and these days, I suspect those are rare indeed) consciously evaluate a player’s two-way game. In a battle between Corsi and scoring chances, I’ll always defer to scoring chances, but the fact is we simply don’t have scoring chance data for every team – and both Corsi (shots, missed shots and blocked shots for minus the same against) and Fenwick (shots and missed shots for minus the same against) closely mirror scoring chances – something that’s been shown time and again.

All those fancy numbers really boil down to a very simple concept, something coaches have been doing since the game turned professional – evaluating a player’s two-way game and noting context while doing so.

Getting back to the introduction, I find a lot of the ‘advanced stats vs. watching the game’ style discussions to be unhelpful and rather pointless. If one watches the game closely, think there’s more to playing hockey than scoring goals and adding assists, and believe that how a coach uses a player has a big impact on how successful he is, they won’t disagree with the statistics on much – at most, it will probably be a stylistic argument, on the relative value of hitting and fighting in today’s game, or an argument of degree (‘sure X played tough minutes, but he still ought to have produced more’), or an argument about specific situations ('Y is a good player generally, but can't elevate his game when it counts').

Are those important distinctions? Yes. However, in the main, proponents of both schools are looking for the same thing.

74b7cedc5d8bfbe88cf071309e98d2c3
Jonathan Willis is a freelance writer. He currently works for Oilers Nation, Sportsnet, the Edmonton Journal and Bleacher Report. He's co-written three books and worked for myriad websites, including Grantland, ESPN, The Score, and Hockey Prospectus. He was previously the founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue.
Avatar
#1 shau_co
July 08 2011, 11:01AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
6
props

the only thing I understand here is that I am fist

Avatar
#2 Matt Henderson
July 08 2011, 11:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
3
props

It's all just added context. I'm not a pro scout and I dont have access to behind the scenes info. So why would I shun any kind of added info that's available to me.

Some of the info is presented poorly, IMO, for the average fan, but that's why I appreciate your articles that try to marry those numbers with the things that we see on the ice in a more meaningful way.

Anyone that gets angry at the stats is a goof. They dont have to agree with their relative importance compared to a mainstream stat, but how has getting more info ever hurt them?

Avatar
#3 @Oilanderp
July 08 2011, 11:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
3
props

A time not ages ago, my girlfriend and I went out to lunch. Sitting next to us was a table of 5 boisterous Spaniards. As the meal went on, I became increasingly annoyed at the repetitive 'bada-yada-mada-bada-bada-el-bada' of what I perceived to be gibberish assaulting my ears. Imagine 5 grown men looking at each other and arguing loudly in baby-speak gibberish. It was distracting and annoying.

Eventually they left us to a peaceful meal and I realized that though I was slightly annoyed at the volume, I was mostly annoyed because I didn't understand Spanish. The constant bombardment of information I had no hope of understanding was overwhelming and thus annoying. Kind of like turning up a radio or TV to full volume and leaving it off station. It was full blown noise.

I feel sometimes the same way when bombarded by statistics. All I wanted was to enjoy and discuss my hockey team and here we have all these strange symbols noisily ruining that for me.

But, like the episode at the restaurant, it is mostly because I haven't yet learned enough of the language to realize that it isn't something to be annoyed about. It isn't noise.

Thanks JW for starting the process of understanding for some of us and explaining a few concepts such as Corsi, Fenwick, and Qualcomp. Now if you could just teach that 'chef' how to cook a steak right.

Avatar
#4 gongshow
July 08 2011, 11:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

JW - Nice article to put the advanced stats into proper context.

For any of the anti advanced stats guys, if they still don't see the value after having you laying it out like this, then I assume that they are just mentally lazy. Definitely, it is more fun to be in the 'saw him good' camp and as you point out, I'm sure that competent coaching staffs know alot of this intuitively from seeing how their players perform in the different situations that they are placed into.

However, seeing comparative data, even for the coaching staff, can clear some of the decision making fog. This is valuable, because, as human's, we are not immune to making irrational choices - even when presented with perfectly ordered data (exhibit A: lottery and casino players).

Avatar
#5 the-wolf
July 08 2011, 11:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props
John Chambers wrote:

In the end, most NHL players I would think are only moderately victims or beneficiaries of quality of linemates, quality of opposition, and quality of zonestarts. On home ice, coaches might prefer to match lines (although some at the NHL level don't during the regular season), but everything gets brought back to the mean, more or less, once the road games pile up.

I doubt regression analysis plays a huge role in a team's self-evaluation or pro scouting of players. Maybe this is because hockey GM's are usually former hockey players instead of math or statistics majors, but probably it's because they rely on their instinctive analysis of the game, rather than advanced stats; a dalliance reserved for hockey nerds like you and I.

Is Kovalchuk responsible in his own end? No. Is Dustin Penner too fat to play Centre? Yes. Marc Andre Bergeron has a big cannon and is a lousy defenseman. Basically everone who follows the game could tell you these things without referencing Corsi ratings or zone starts. Coaches evaluate the defensive abilities of players and play them on the penalty kill. That's why they get paid or canned as NHL coaches.

Meanwhile Dany Heatley makes a career banging in powerplay goals, and if he doesn't get pp time he sulks like a child, but stats have a hard time explaining it.

And yet, more and more teams are hiring guys or using software to analyze data, including Calgary.

I don't think computers hsould be picking players at teh end of the day (though in some cases it may be a good idea), but I think the real value si in separating players who are otherwise too close in ability to be judged through simple observation.

Avatar
#6 Chris.
July 08 2011, 11:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

I like to praise Jon Willis when his numbers back my side of an argument... and I like to make fun of him when they don't.

(Is that wrong?)

Avatar
#8 Quicksilver ballet
July 08 2011, 12:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

At first i found it difficult to grasp the message behind this article. After skimming it a second time i decided to whip out my trusty Sublimanator 5000. After entering the data, it appears as though the author of this article is extremely excited that Ryan Smyth has been returned to his rightful place. It brings us all great comfort that he reminds us of this fact in this article.

Avatar
#9 peebos
July 08 2011, 11:01AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

This make my brain hurt...

Avatar
#10 tho318
July 08 2011, 11:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

analysis

analysi

analys

analy

anal

fin.

Avatar
#11 TonyDanzaPervo
July 08 2011, 11:37AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

What does this have to do with Ryan Smyth coming back?

PS: A picture of a half-naked girl wouldn't hurt here, no?

Avatar
#12 Chris.
July 08 2011, 11:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@ Jon Willis:

Don't be stupid Willis. People like me who never played hockey at a high level; sit 34 rows away from the ice; consume vast amounts of alcohol during the game while gawking at the cheerleaders, smooch cam, blackberry, and my bag of popcorn... all the while blaahbabablahing to some random neighbor about the shi**y powerplay... We saw em good! We saw em real good!

You take back everything you said about the casual observer! You owe us an apology sir!

*Lips pressed tight waiting for his apology.*

Avatar
#13 druds
July 08 2011, 11:56AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

.... ? ...?? ....???

Avatar
#14 James
July 08 2011, 11:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

So much of the antipathy against advanced stats is nothing more than kneejerk anti-intellectual resentment.

Willis, keep on rocking in the free world.

Avatar
#15 John Chambers
July 08 2011, 12:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
Jonathan Willis wrote:

@ John Chambers:

This is technical, but I don't think you'll mind and it speaks directly to your point.

Yep - I'm actually a big fan of the literature that gets published where the stats serve to offer a conclusion.

I remember reading where Jay McClement and Mike Richards had the toughest QualityComp in the league and both pushed the puck up the ice in a positive direction. Definitely gives you new angles on guys outside of their boxcars.

We all know these are quality centremen, but the stats can tell you something about changes in their performance before casual observers do. Like when the wheels fall off a good player, the stats could tell you well before Doug McLean is shouting in your face about in on Sportsnet. Same way that analysts began to downgrade RIM's stock based on declining margins - they didn't need to wait to see how slick the iPad 2 was to realize that that Playbooks would damage RIM's profit-per-share.

It's amazing to me that some GM's would fail to adopt this information into their analysis. It's what makes contracts like Huselius' and to a greater extent Kovalchuk's so mind-boggling.

Avatar
#16 Casey
July 08 2011, 01:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

There is definitely a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" side to advanced stats.

A player is going to have a low Qualcomp or CORSI REL QOC if the coach decides to shelter him from elite competition.

Last year Sutter sheltered Babchuk in 5v5 situations, thereby giving him one of the lowest CORSI REL QOC ratings in the league. Does that mean that Babchuk sucks? Or does it mean that his coach just chose not to put him out versus elite competition?

The same can be said of zone starts. Perhaps Sutter gave Babchuk one of the highest offensive zone start ratings in the league (21st overall, among players with > 40 games played) because he gave the Flames the best chance to score? You could also choose to interpret this as Sutter having no confidence in Babchuk in his own end. Perhaps it was a combination. It is difficult to say without actually observing Babchuck play and seeing what patterns emerge.

My point: It is difficult to use stats in a vacuum. They can often tell you the "what", but can rarely tell you the "why". This is not to say that advanced stats are useless, but it does mean that we need to be careful when interpreting them.

Avatar
#18 Number 94 Is FIST In My Heart
July 08 2011, 11:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Good read. To simplify, pretend you're looking at the path of say Sidney Crosby and Ryan Jones. Now they both start miles apart from each other, yet progress at the exact same rate...this is all hypothetical...so at the end of the parallel path Sidney Crosby is the much better player, but both have progressed in the same fashion

Avatar
#19 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
July 08 2011, 11:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

This should be a lightning rod...

Avatar
#20 John Chambers
July 08 2011, 11:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

In the end, most NHL players I would think are only moderately victims or beneficiaries of quality of linemates, quality of opposition, and quality of zonestarts. On home ice, coaches might prefer to match lines (although some at the NHL level don't during the regular season), but everything gets brought back to the mean, more or less, once the road games pile up.

I doubt regression analysis plays a huge role in a team's self-evaluation or pro scouting of players. Maybe this is because hockey GM's are usually former hockey players instead of math or statistics majors, but probably it's because they rely on their instinctive analysis of the game, rather than advanced stats; a dalliance reserved for hockey nerds like you and I.

Is Kovalchuk responsible in his own end? No. Is Dustin Penner too fat to play Centre? Yes. Marc Andre Bergeron has a big cannon and is a lousy defenseman. Basically everone who follows the game could tell you these things without referencing Corsi ratings or zone starts. Coaches evaluate the defensive abilities of players and play them on the penalty kill. That's why they get paid or canned as NHL coaches.

Meanwhile Dany Heatley makes a career banging in powerplay goals, and if he doesn't get pp time he sulks like a child, but stats have a hard time explaining it.

Avatar
#21 ricky p
July 08 2011, 11:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

It becomes painful at times when we always predict the future based on probabilities. Human nature tends to blow most predictions south. How many donairs did Penner eat before the pending game? How late did Eberle stay out chasing his probably pending mate? I find every year probabilities are less than probable and it comes down to wins/ losses and the collection of a series of unfortunate events.

It is probable the Oilers will not make the playoffs next year comparing them to this and that, but then we bring in all variables across the league, the Oilers might just get two playoff dates come next spring. Probably not, but perhaps likely.

Avatar
#22 mayorpoop
July 08 2011, 11:41AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

there is a man who lives alone in a building. one day he decides to leave. so he packs up all his things, waters the plants, and turns off all the lights never to come back again. his actions resulted in the death of 6 men, why

willis i like your stuff and statistical approach to things and i find it very informative, but it hurts and clearly makes me think of riddles. so here is a riddle.

Avatar
#24 DK0
July 08 2011, 11:50AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Great article and I don't have much to add other then cue the 'HERP DERP BUT DID ADVANCED STATISTICS TELL YOU RYAN SMYTH WAS COMING BACK!?!/11?' and 'I have nothing to add so i'm going to personally attack Willis' crowd. All you of you retards should move down to the southern states where you can celebrate your disdain for coherent thought and objective thinking with the other Neanderthals.

Avatar
#25 book¡e
July 08 2011, 11:50AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Let me start by saying that I really believe stats are valuable.

However, there is also a rigidity in them that sometimes is bested by the ability of humans to evaluate complex situations through combining rational (active) thought with intuition (the part of our brain that thinks without our active involvement). Intuition which is carefully combined with rational thought (including the use of stats) may be more effective than rational thought alone. With that said, many individuals who are ineffective at rational thought (and perhaps intuitive thought) are often poor at decision making, such as knowing which is the lucky slot machine

Decision making for things like blackjack, tax investments, precise engineering and so on are most effectivly accomplished through very rational processes - intuitive thought tends to cause problems when brought into these realms.

However, even relatively simple games, such as poker and Chess (simple when compared to many real world situations) often involve the use of intuitive thought alongside of carefully thought out rational strategies. Some of the best poker players in the world indicate that they rely on 'gut instinct' to identify if someone is bluffing or not. In actuality, these individuals are relying on their very effective intuitive ability to read other players - thousands of signals (blinks, sweat, eye movements, card movements, etc) all being observed and run through an intuitive evaluation process that results in a 'gut feeling'. Most of us are not blessed with that intuition for reading other players (and have not developed it through practice) and as such, our gut instincts may be more harmful than helpful when we play poker - particularly if we let it overwhelm the logic of what our cards are telling us.

I have seen this in rigid cost-benefit processes for contracts. A group will set rigid points based criteria for evaluating proposals for a project (such as the development of our Airport lands in Edmonton) and then they will assign points and then add everything up to come to THE answer. Then the result comes up and everyone is a bit shocked and feeling unsatisfied with the result. Pretty soon the discussion turns to how they must have weighted the criteria wrong. Then they start manipulating the weighting of the criteria until they get the result that 'feels right'. Problem solved.

So, I guess what I am saying is that stats are really important, but never count out that old pro that just seems to make the right decision all of the time - even if he can't explain why with the use of advanced stats. Also, keep in mind that sometimes, you just have to go with your gut.

btw - this is not in any way contradictory to JW who indicated that coaches and others inherently know things about their teams and their sport.

Avatar
#26 ricky p
July 08 2011, 11:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@gongshow

I agree stats are helpful data in decisions. However, 14 teams still finish out of the playoffs, even with all the data coaching staffs have. If the data was the be all and end all, why do we have almost 50% of the teams not making it.

Statistically, that is the case, however reality means most data really can't help you beat the odds that half the teams fail.

50% of marriages fail, yet 100% of people enter into then to succeed. Are we mentally lazy to marry, ignoring we might just fail, or is human nature the true predicter of the future. Will Penner be a duff in LA, or do his stats say he will be a 30 goal scoring and lead the team in hard work?

Avatar
#27 big joe grizzley
July 08 2011, 11:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

hey bro....heres a little advice...learn to talk plain, it saves time!!!

Avatar
#28 John K
July 08 2011, 11:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

On OilersNation.com, Willis, really?

This will be rocket science to most of the knuckle draggers around here :)

I mean... FIST YOU VERY MUCH

Avatar
#29 Oilers4ever
July 08 2011, 12:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Ugh.. pass the migraine strength Advil please.. I couldn't even finish reading that as I saw absolute zero hockey purpose to that... where's my beer to go with all them pills...

Avatar
#30 Prairie Chicken by-the-Sea
July 08 2011, 12:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Who knew Oiler fans could be so funny (I mean intentionally...)? Perphaps in another time, another place, we could all be friends...nah.

I don't have much time for the uber stats - and I work in finance. I tried using that stuff for my pools and found that I still do better on gut feel and experience.

As for Smyth going back to Oilerland - that is how it should be. He's a foe I hold in high regard but some players should never play for the Flames (and vice-versa). I still don't understand why the Flames went for him - he just doesn't seem to fit with where we're at right now.

Avatar
#32 @Oilanderp
July 08 2011, 12:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

In the future I forsee the value of statistics in the evaluation of hockey teams and players will be increasingly recognized by the mainstream fan. However, it will require a visual and graphic basis so it can be easily grasped by the intuition.

This is exactly what Hans Rosling does in this 20 minute video. The data is not relevant to hockey, but the method of presentation certainly will be. Book it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w

Avatar
#33 ChiliChunk
July 08 2011, 12:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Excellent article JW.

One thing that has always bugged me is when people use QualComp to qualify a player's offensive output. It seems to me that it would be much more relevant to the their defensive 'production'.

If I had a choice to play against either the Kovalchuk triplets or the Bolland triplets my QualComp would be much higher against the former but I bet my point totals would be much higher too. Am I out to lunch on this?

Avatar
#34 the-wolf
July 08 2011, 12:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
ricky p wrote:

I agree stats are helpful data in decisions. However, 14 teams still finish out of the playoffs, even with all the data coaching staffs have. If the data was the be all and end all, why do we have almost 50% of the teams not making it.

Statistically, that is the case, however reality means most data really can't help you beat the odds that half the teams fail.

50% of marriages fail, yet 100% of people enter into then to succeed. Are we mentally lazy to marry, ignoring we might just fail, or is human nature the true predicter of the future. Will Penner be a duff in LA, or do his stats say he will be a 30 goal scoring and lead the team in hard work?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's becuase only 16 tems are allowed to make the playoffs.

The real questions should be:

1) which teams conistently make it into the playoffs and which ones consistently fail to make it into the playoffs and why?;

2) why are there successful marriages succeed and why do others fail?

Avatar
#35 positivebrontefan
July 08 2011, 12:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Uh...WOW...I feel really inadequate right now...or stupid. I kind of understand what you so marvelously put together there Jon but I have no idea how to traslate that into knowing who to put on the ice at a given time...

*picks knuckles off of ground and looks around self consciously*

Good article Jon, The brighter ones on this blog will understand what you just showed us... that does not include me. I'm not near smart enough.

Ps. your advanced stats Prof must be so proud.

Avatar
#36 Kingervision
July 08 2011, 12:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Willis: lets assume you are right when you assert : "For years now – certainly the entirety of the post-lockout era, probably longer – power vs. power (where the top players face each other) has been the preferred matchup for most NHL coaches". This gets me to my biggest problem with the groupthink in the current NHL - the dreaded "top 6, bottom 6" (what rubbish) If you are right that the top lines square off against the top lines, wouldn't it be a differentiator then to have skill in the bottom 6, rather than 2 lines of garbage, roll players who goon it up, slow vets, checkers, fighters, enforcers, etc that don't create much in terms of scoring chances (and according to you, don't play against other teams skilled players). Right now you have "bottom 6 vs bottom 6", or garbage vs. garbage. Especially since every other team has this "bottom 6" mentality: that in my mind will be a game changer for the first teams that figure that you can beat the groupthink. You get a bunch of relative fast skill guys and shooters who skate around the other teams "bottom-6" grinders, and it will take a few years for the other teams to adjust: makes total sense to me.

Avatar
#37 John Chambers
July 08 2011, 12:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

One last comment (for those few of you who care):

Sabermetrics are an interesting tool that helped to shape new viewpoints on the value of players in baseball. Basically, instead of measuring a player by Homeruns and RBI's, Sabermetrics analyzed players to find value in those who didn't make outs.

This type of analysis is easier to measure in baseball because the impacting variables are few, eg. L vs R handed pitchers, runners on-base, etc.

In measurable performance situations in hockey are dynamic and to have any meaning require complex vectored regression.

My original point is that for the most part, the conclusions drawn from this complex analysis are more or less the same ones drawn from qualitative observation with a few exceptions.

It's all fascinating for those of us who like numbers, and all boring as hell for those of us who don't. It SHOULD be part of the essential kit bag of NHL exectives, and probably serves to reason why Zenon Konopka got a low-paying 1-year deal contrary to how much Gregor loves him.

Avatar
#38 positivebrontefan
July 08 2011, 12:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
ricky p wrote:

I agree stats are helpful data in decisions. However, 14 teams still finish out of the playoffs, even with all the data coaching staffs have. If the data was the be all and end all, why do we have almost 50% of the teams not making it.

Statistically, that is the case, however reality means most data really can't help you beat the odds that half the teams fail.

50% of marriages fail, yet 100% of people enter into then to succeed. Are we mentally lazy to marry, ignoring we might just fail, or is human nature the true predicter of the future. Will Penner be a duff in LA, or do his stats say he will be a 30 goal scoring and lead the team in hard work?

Point one; 30 team league, 16 make the playoffs, wouldn't make a difference if all the teams operated the same.

Point two; people are imperfect.

Avatar
#39 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
July 08 2011, 12:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Hey JW, maybe you can give us(me) a quick coles notes on Qualcomp.

Take Vancouver and the Ducks for example:

Vans centers and qualcomp are:

Sedin .55

Malhotra .46

Kesler .28

Laps .007

Ducks are:

Getzlaf .034

Koivu .034

Marchant -.094

Chipchura -.148

Now I'm assuming the higher the number, the higher the caliber of competition you typically face (and the lower the number the lower the caliber) with anything above 0 being above average competition and anything below 0 being below average competition. Is that correct?

If that is correct, it appears that all Van centers face much harder compition then all the Ducks centers?

Or is the info irrelavant accross teams? ie simply shows us that Getzlaf sees tougher competition then Marchant.... but tells us nothing about Getzlafs compitition vs Sedins?

Avatar
#40 Oilers4ever
July 08 2011, 12:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Well it's a good thing then sir that the coaches need to know them and not us.. Our heads would explode. :)

Avatar
#41 Mike Modano's Dog
July 08 2011, 01:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
mayorpoop wrote:

there is a man who lives alone in a building. one day he decides to leave. so he packs up all his things, waters the plants, and turns off all the lights never to come back again. his actions resulted in the death of 6 men, why

willis i like your stuff and statistical approach to things and i find it very informative, but it hurts and clearly makes me think of riddles. so here is a riddle.

Because he worked as a lighthouse keeper, resulting in the death of the men whose ship crashed.

Thanks - I love these things...

Avatar
#42 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
July 08 2011, 01:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Also, what metrics is used to grade the actual quality of each member of the "competition" or quality of teamate?

We all know you've got a better linemate if you are playing with Hemsky then Stortini, but how is it quantified?

(ie what makes Hemsky a .5 and Stortini a -.5???)

Avatar
#43 shau_co
July 08 2011, 01:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Thanks JW. I also, appreciate your articles, although I am at times skeptical of results that do not include enough of the context because they are limited by insufficient data.

Overall, I agree with the use of advanced stats to supplement decisions made based on intuition. I think they have to be used tightly together though. You can run into trouble if you are too extreme on either side.

For example, there are intangibles that are not measured by stats today and affect a players value to a team and there are personal biases introduced on players that affect a players perceived value to a team.

Avatar
#44 SumOil
July 08 2011, 01:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

It took me a lot of time to understand the advanced stats. Well my first introduction to them was on LT's site when he used to dole out all the numbers in his player evaluation. This is around the 2007 summer sometime in August. Well I had only started watching hockey due to the playoff run(which i missed lol) and watched almost everygame of the 06-07 season. Based on my limited knowledge, I was confident of some predictions i had made regarding oilers/anahiem and others. Many of them came out to be wrong and I realized that there is something I am missing that I am unable to fathom by watching the game multiple times. And there has to be something more than the stats available at nhl.com which would explain the game better. Anywho coming back..So all those stats at LT's did not make any sense to me, but I am was sure that in order to understand the game and its flow, I need to grasp it. And it wasnt until you JW started coppernblue.com that I really grasped the importance of the underlying stats.

I think for me the defining moment was the 'Amicus Brief' in defense of Dustin Penner. My buddy and I were absolutely mad at the fan base/soach making penner the scapegoat when we thought he was helping the team create a lot of chances/goals and that brief did it for us. We were comverted to the stats side.

IMO people who watch the game and think that they now know it all will never accept the advance stats as they are too stubborn to acknwledge that sometimes a guy not watching the game can know more about a player than themselves. Funny thing is that if a stat guy gets his prediction wrong, they will jump all over him. However if they get it wrong then bad luck. I want to know if anyone who called you an idiot for prediction regression in Brule's has apologised to you yet.

However these stats are still incomplete. We dont have time of posession and many other statistics. But these micro stats are a huge step in the right direction and hopefully in the future things will change.

Avatar
#45 mayorpoop
July 08 2011, 01:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Mike Modano's Dog wrote:

Because he worked as a lighthouse keeper, resulting in the death of the men whose ship crashed.

Thanks - I love these things...

bravo bravo, well done sir. extract the crap and you get the relevant, and voila the answer.

i agree about the enjoyment of riddles. they serve to prove/dis-prove my intelligence at any given moment.

Avatar
#46 SumOil
July 08 2011, 01:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F

Qual Comp is a flawed statistic. IMo a better way to determine QOC is to use the rel corse qual comp. That means that the average relative corsi of the opponents a player faced. However this takes in the assumption that best opposition players on the team will have better rel corsi. which too can sometimes be debated. I find this to be more accurate measure than simple Qual comp which is basically the average of differential of on ice/off ice plus minus of the competition

Avatar
#47 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
July 08 2011, 01:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Flipping through the Qualcomp numbers it appears alot of teams do still run a more traditional checking line?

Avatar
#48 A18
July 08 2011, 01:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Interesting piece, statistical analysis is great but needs to be accompanied the fundamentals to get a complete picture. I think you tried to do this in your article.

I can understand the frustration vented by some here. The simple adage that less is more always prevails.

I work in the finance industry and I can throw around convoluted stats and arguments all day at work but unless I can convey the information in a clear and concise manner the effort is in vain.

One last note for all those who are defending stats, it's all historically derived and does not correlate perfectly with what's going to happen in the future. They are important but stats can be manipulated based on the dataused and averages are misleading. Plus it means nothing unless you can convey it to your general audience without confusing the hell out of them.

Avatar
#49 Casey
July 08 2011, 01:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Another example of stats that are true, but can be interpreted in many different ways:

The top 3 in offensive zone starts for 2010-2011 were:

Henrik Sedin Cam Janssen Daniel Sedin

I don't imagine Cam Janssen got 74.4% of his starts in the offensive zone because of his offensive prowess. He was likely put on because he is considered a liability in the defensive zone.

On the other hand, the Sedins likely got almost every offensive zone start that the Canucks received last year. This makes sense as they are obviously great scorers.

Without observation (or a ton of other backing stats) we could make these stats prove just about any point that we wanted to make.

Avatar
#50 Kent Wilson
July 08 2011, 02:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
@Oilanderp wrote:

A time not ages ago, my girlfriend and I went out to lunch. Sitting next to us was a table of 5 boisterous Spaniards. As the meal went on, I became increasingly annoyed at the repetitive 'bada-yada-mada-bada-bada-el-bada' of what I perceived to be gibberish assaulting my ears. Imagine 5 grown men looking at each other and arguing loudly in baby-speak gibberish. It was distracting and annoying.

Eventually they left us to a peaceful meal and I realized that though I was slightly annoyed at the volume, I was mostly annoyed because I didn't understand Spanish. The constant bombardment of information I had no hope of understanding was overwhelming and thus annoying. Kind of like turning up a radio or TV to full volume and leaving it off station. It was full blown noise.

I feel sometimes the same way when bombarded by statistics. All I wanted was to enjoy and discuss my hockey team and here we have all these strange symbols noisily ruining that for me.

But, like the episode at the restaurant, it is mostly because I haven't yet learned enough of the language to realize that it isn't something to be annoyed about. It isn't noise.

Thanks JW for starting the process of understanding for some of us and explaining a few concepts such as Corsi, Fenwick, and Qualcomp. Now if you could just teach that 'chef' how to cook a steak right.

Well said.

Comments are closed for this article.