Jump to content


Photo

Hockey Analytics


  • Please log in to reply
335 replies to this topic

#81 carpandean

carpandean

    If it ain't worth making a chart, it ain't worth saying.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,322 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 22 February 2015 - 07:06 AM

Also, while Corsi might be an important stat for player evaluation, it's still going to be behind Goals/Assists/Points.  So, taking a lot of bad shots might not be worth it, since it will hurt the latter.  As TBP said, it will probably affect marginal players the most, since the won't be scoring anyway, so they might as well pump the Corsi.


Edited by carpandean, 22 February 2015 - 07:07 AM.


#82 rakish

rakish

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 805 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2015 - 08:38 AM

Thanks X, this is all good. My rule is the metric needs to be more than indicating what you are trying to achieve, it needs to actually represent what you are trying to achieve.  If the landowner can manipulate the data, the data isn't very actionable. So, for me, in the end, measuring window space may be accurate regarding your wealth, but it's not an important measurement of wealth because it's not actionable, you can't tax it.

 

So to hockey.  Shots are indicative of how you are playing, but they aren't representative.

 

So how long until players start taking terrible shots all the time during contract years to drive up their Corsi?

 

Lets take a look at 3 charts.  They are Drew Staffords 10-11 (the contract year), 11-12, and 12-13.  In 10-11, he gets to the net.  Following the green line, over 6% of his shots are from 9 feet, 5.5% from 10 feet, 5% from 11 feet, 5.5% from 12 feet, 3.3% from 13 feet.  This is well over league average, the blue line.  If you count up the goals, the green dots, Stafford scored 15 of his 31 goals between 8 and 13 feet from roughly 25% of his shots.

 

In 11-12 his game changes, he is shooting further away from the net.  In 12-13 he is even farther.  He stops scoring.

 

Now the reasons this happened are probably more complex than my analysis (for instance Stafford had very good results playing with Roy, he has terrible results with Hodgson), but I attribute Stafford's decline in production to him being coached to shoot more.

 

Now if Corsi works for you, fine, but Regier failed while being on the forefront of this mindset.

Attached Files



#83 French Collection

French Collection

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 644 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Ontario

Posted 22 February 2015 - 03:25 PM

It would be interesting to see players' possession stats in contract years vs other seasons. The 110% cliche might be accurate in those years.

I'm old school so the analytics seem like too much, but I am intrigued by some of it to contradict plain points and plus/minus.

I hope the chips will be more accurate for possession numbers because I don't see shots, attempted shots as the ultimate possession number. Some players and teams may have the puck for long periods of time in between shots, while others may pepper the opposition from everywhere. An example of time between shots would be a strong cycling line (Getzlaf,Perry) that can hem you in your end for an entire shift but only get one shot. They're setting up for a good opportunity and wearing you down. The Russian teams of the past played a stick handling and passing game until they had a high percentage shot. I don't have the numbers but these guys seemed to have the puck for 40 minutes but only took 30 shots. They didn't dump and chase but would retreat back in the neutral zone to try a carry in.

#84 PASabreFan

PASabreFan

    Jack Eichel Construction

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,019 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:South of your border

Posted 22 February 2015 - 03:41 PM

It would be interesting to see players' possession stats in contract years vs other seasons. The 110% cliche might be accurate in those years.

I'm old school so the analytics seem like too much, but I am intrigued by some of it to contradict plain points and plus/minus.

I hope the chips will be more accurate for possession numbers because I don't see shots, attempted shots as the ultimate possession number. Some players and teams may have the puck for long periods of time in between shots, while others may pepper the opposition from everywhere. An example of time between shots would be a strong cycling line (Getzlaf,Perry) that can hem you in your end for an entire shift but only get one shot. They're setting up for a good opportunity and wearing you down. The Russian teams of the past played a stick handling and passing game until they had a high percentage shot. I don't have the numbers but these guys seemed to have the puck for 40 minutes but only took 30 shots. They didn't dump and chase but would retreat back in the neutral zone to try a carry in.

Excellent. The underpinning of Corsi as a measure of possession seems to be that when you're in possession (control might be the better term), you're supposed to be shooting it toward the goal.



#85 BagBoy

BagBoy

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greensboro, NC via 14052

Posted 22 February 2015 - 06:47 PM

I think the way we approach power play (PP) stats is overly simplistic. Instead of goals per PP attempt, why not goals per PP time? Better yet, why not goal differential per PP time (to penalize teams for allowing shorties)? Anyone seen or done any analysis on the merits of that metric vs. the traditional goals per attempt metric?

#86 PASabreFan

PASabreFan

    Jack Eichel Construction

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,019 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:South of your border

Posted 22 February 2015 - 06:50 PM

I think the way we approach power play (PP) stats is overly simplistic. Instead of goals per PP attempt, why not goals per PP time? Better yet, why not goal differential per PP time (to penalize teams for allowing shorties)? Anyone seen or done any analysis on the merits of that metric vs. the traditional goals per attempt metric?

OMFG. You're a genius. Thumb through the Sabres Media Guide and there's your name. The Gilbert Number. You'll be famous.



#87 Dannepanne

Dannepanne

    Lehner's biggest fan on SS

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 182 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 22 February 2015 - 07:14 PM

Don't know if this is irrelevant to the thread. But I remember someone said that Larssons advanced stats were good relative to the team. Is this true?

Edited by Dannepanne, 22 February 2015 - 07:18 PM.


#88 French Collection

French Collection

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 644 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Ontario

Posted 22 February 2015 - 11:31 PM

Curiosity got the best of me so I went to NHL.com enhanced stats for the first time.
I looked at team stats only. Looked at SAT as the main one, focusing on top teams and some anomalies (Habs, Flames, Canes and Ducks).
I also looked at traditional stats like shots on goal and goal differential. The shots led me to figure out how many actual shots were generated by SAT. Overall goals divided by shots led to team shooting and save percentages.

Interesting findings:

Preds are 9th in SAT 51.5%. Goal differential is 56.1%. Obvious factor is Rinne's SV% but they also have a 9.5 Shooting %.
Habs are 22nd in SAT 48.9%. Price is right because they have the best SV%. Outshot by 1.6 shots per game. 1 trick pony.
Ducks are 15th in SAT 50.3%. Shooting % is an excellent 9.9% while SV% is good. Can they keep it up?
Isles generate and give up tons of SAT. Good goal differential due to 9.6% shooting. .900 SV% is worrisome.
Bolts have a solid SAT 52.9%. Excellent goal differential may be due to whopping 11% shooting.
Red Wings are 53.2% SAT. They don't generate lots but have 300+ fewer SAT against than the next best club. Solid SH and SV %.
Blackhawks have top SAT differential. Goal differential is even better. Their tough division has them lower in the standings.
Kings are a beast at 54.1% SAT (top %). Low goal differential and standing due to low SH % and so-so SV%.Quick rebound?
Flames have 28th ranked SAT 44.5% yet sit in a playoff battle and rank 15th in overall points. Their goal differential is+15! SH% of 10.6 helps as does a decent SV%. Digging down showed that only 56.1% of SAT against led to actual shots on goal. The next best team was 63.2%!!! They are blocking shots and shooting lanes way better than others.
Canes sit 12th in SAT yet 27th in points. Poor goal differential. SH% of 7.4 was even lower than the Sabres. SV% was poor as well.
Sabres SAT is 37%. The only stat I found to be good was that 72.1% of our SAT end up as a shot on goal, tops among the 11 teams I studied.

This was actually a fun exercise for an original six era guy.

#89 rakish

rakish

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 805 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 February 2015 - 08:10 AM

I think the way we approach power play (PP) stats is overly simplistic. Instead of goals per PP attempt, why not goals per PP time? Better yet, why not goal differential per PP time (to penalize teams for allowing shorties)? Anyone seen or done any analysis on the merits of that metric vs. the traditional goals per attempt metric?

Check out behindthenet.ca for this



#90 IKnowPhysics

IKnowPhysics

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,297 posts

Posted 23 February 2015 - 10:55 AM

Great article on analytics on NHL.com today.  Maybe the the best summation of the utility and intentions of the emergent field that I've seen.  It doesn't go into any math, but rather a solid explanation of why hockey has headed this way.

 

http://www.nhl.com/i...id=nhl:topheads

 

It's worth the full read, but here are selected quotes for the lazy.

 

The principles of "Moneyball" apply to hockey as much as any other sport, and in order to claim an understanding of the game, executives must be willing to look at it from every angle. That is where analytics come into play. The willingness to discard preconceived notions which don't stand up to strict scrutiny are already playing a role in separating the most successful teams from the rest.

The first step in embracing analytics is to understand them. Only with that base can the misconceptions and biases that skew hockey decision-making at the highest level be appreciated.

Any analyst would say a player's performance on Thursdays in March or a team's home/road power-play splits are largely meaningless. The misuse of statistics, therefore, is poor analytics, just as taking a player's quote out of context is poor journalism.

Analytics have a ways to go in differentiating variance from talent, but an inability to recognize clustered randomness in extreme cases has led to some of the biggest management mistakes in hockey history. Being wary of chaotic concepts can give a team numerous wins a season. Falling prey to them can waste millions of dollars.

"[Analytics] are about effective decision-making with a high reward," said Thomas, the War-On-Ice founder. "If hiring someone for $100,000 right now can get you a free-agent-value savings of a million dollars and more flexibility under the cap, they've paid for themselves right there."

Dallas Stars general manager Jim Nill told Travis Yost of TSN.ca this summer, "We are all trying to get 3-5 percent better. It's a cap world and we are limited. We are always looking for the next thing."

A team can win without analytics, and many will lose employing them, but the additional information and a scrutinized process provide a greater chance at success. As the metrics improve and attitudes shift, this will become more apparent.

Analytics have led hockey executives, journalists and fans to pose the same question DePodesta asked Beane prior to joining him in Oakland, and they have precipitated a massive shift in the way teams do business.

Rather than exclusively trusting the eye test, condemning players for misfortune in small samples, or labeling players as lazy or enigmatic based on reputation or hearsay, analytics has provided the opportunity to scrutinize decision-making and avoid those characterizations. Dismissing analytics means settling for an obsolete method of evaluation and using an inefficient business practice.



#91 That Aud Smell

That Aud Smell

    That Nostalgic Olfactory Blend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,513 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Bobcaygeon, Ontario

Posted 23 February 2015 - 11:10 AM

I read something over the weekend -- I wish I could find it, recall where I saw it -- but it was a writer (McKenzie?) relating a story from a GM (Coyotes?) who explained how #fancystats helped confirm the organization's understanding of two players between whom the organization needed to choose -- a so-called shutdown D-man and a puck moving D-man who didn't play overly physical. The analytics helped the team understand that the shutdown guy was always lowering the boom on people and mixing it up in tight space because he wasn't moving the puck effectively (and therefore his ratio of defending versus possessing was like 70-30), while the puck mover didn't do a ton of defending because he was so frequently to the puck first and then made a good play with it (and his ratio of defending versus possessing was more like 30-70).

 

I will try to find it. It was just an interesting food-for-thought read.



#92 dudacek

dudacek

    ...browsing the internet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,264 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Listening to offers — eyes and ears

Posted 23 February 2015 - 12:12 PM

I read something over the weekend -- I wish I could find it, recall where I saw it -- but it was a writer (McKenzie?) relating a story from a GM (Coyotes?) who explained how #fancystats helped confirm the organization's understanding of two players between whom the organization needed to choose -- a so-called shutdown D-man and a puck moving D-man who didn't play overly physical. The analytics helped the team understand that the shutdown guy was always lowering the boom on people and mixing it up in tight space because he wasn't moving the puck effectively (and therefore his ratio of defending versus possessing was like 70-30), while the puck mover didn't do a ton of defending because he was so frequently to the puck first and then made a good play with it (and his ratio of defending versus possessing was more like 30-70).
 
I will try to find it. It was just an interesting food-for-thought read.


Subtitle: why Mark Pysyk is better than most of the defencemen ahead of him on Buffalo's depth chart.

#93 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,117 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 February 2015 - 12:14 PM

I read something over the weekend -- I wish I could find it, recall where I saw it -- but it was a writer (McKenzie?) relating a story from a GM (Coyotes?) who explained how #fancystats helped confirm the organization's understanding of two players between whom the organization needed to choose -- a so-called shutdown D-man and a puck moving D-man who didn't play overly physical. The analytics helped the team understand that the shutdown guy was always lowering the boom on people and mixing it up in tight space because he wasn't moving the puck effectively (and therefore his ratio of defending versus possessing was like 70-30), while the puck mover didn't do a ton of defending because he was so frequently to the puck first and then made a good play with it (and his ratio of defending versus possessing was more like 30-70).

 

I will try to find it. It was just an interesting food-for-thought read.

 

I remember a fairly significant debate I was involved in about whether Regehr or Sekera was better...well, this is the core of the reason why I thought Sekera was better. Just very different perspectives on what is valuable.



#94 MattPie

MattPie

    J-Bot, U-Bot, and We-Bot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Strafing some corners

Posted 23 February 2015 - 03:23 PM

I read something over the weekend -- I wish I could find it, recall where I saw it -- but it was a writer (McKenzie?) relating a story from a GM (Coyotes?) who explained how #fancystats helped confirm the organization's understanding of two players between whom the organization needed to choose -- a so-called shutdown D-man and a puck moving D-man who didn't play overly physical. The analytics helped the team understand that the shutdown guy was always lowering the boom on people and mixing it up in tight space because he wasn't moving the puck effectively (and therefore his ratio of defending versus possessing was like 70-30), while the puck mover didn't do a ton of defending because he was so frequently to the puck first and then made a good play with it (and his ratio of defending versus possessing was more like 30-70).

 

I will try to find it. It was just an interesting food-for-thought read.

 

 

I remember a fairly significant debate I was involved in about whether Regehr or Sekera was better...well, this is the core of the reason why I thought Sekera was better. Just very different perspectives on what is valuable.

 

The anti-stats folks hate the concept that "hits" aren't necessarily a good thing, because in order to make a hit you by definition don't have the puck (same for blocked shots). It's easy to say, "well that's stupid, of course hits are good", but the logic is there. As with many things, you shouldn't look at the raw numbers since those are easy to skew. Raw Blocked shots isn't a useful as, say, percent of shots blocked while player X is on the ice crossed with TOI, but the the anti-stats folks are still stuck on "blocked shots ARE always good!". I'll take the guy that blocks 2 of 4 shots while it's on the ice vs the guy who blocks 5 of 10 in the same amount of time.

 

I'm an engineer, I like to think that most of the physical world can be described by math in one form or another. Sometimes we don't understand the math or even know what to measure, but I really do think there are more ways to measure hockey than just goals and "that guy looks good tonight".


Edited by MattPie, 23 February 2015 - 03:25 PM.


#95 LGR4GM

LGR4GM

    from the bottom to the top

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,905 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 23 February 2015 - 03:36 PM

I read something over the weekend -- I wish I could find it, recall where I saw it -- but it was a writer (McKenzie?) relating a story from a GM (Coyotes?) who explained how #fancystats helped confirm the organization's understanding of two players between whom the organization needed to choose -- a so-called shutdown D-man and a puck moving D-man who didn't play overly physical. The analytics helped the team understand that the shutdown guy was always lowering the boom on people and mixing it up in tight space because he wasn't moving the puck effectively (and therefore his ratio of defending versus possessing was like 70-30), while the puck mover didn't do a ton of defending because he was so frequently to the puck first and then made a good play with it (and his ratio of defending versus possessing was more like 30-70).

 

I will try to find it. It was just an interesting food-for-thought read.

This sounds like a good explanation of Mark Pysyk versus Jake McCabe.


Subtitle: why Mark Pysyk is better than most of the defencemen ahead of him on Buffalo's depth chart.

exactly.



#96 That Aud Smell

That Aud Smell

    That Nostalgic Olfactory Blend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,513 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Bobcaygeon, Ontario

Posted 23 February 2015 - 03:38 PM

I remember a fairly significant debate I was involved in about whether Regehr or Sekera was better...well, this is the core of the reason why I thought Sekera was better. Just very different perspectives on what is valuable.

Regehr at the peak of his game would have been a more interesting comparison to Sekera. And I take, and agree with, your point.

 

There's a natural hurrish-durrish man-love response to the D-men whose game features the smearing of opponents into the glass. That response creates a pretty significant bias.  



#97 X. Benedict

X. Benedict

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,807 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 February 2015 - 03:47 PM

Regehr at the peak of his game would have been a more interesting comparison to Sekera. And I take, and agree with, your point.

 

There's a natural hurrish-durrish man-love response to the D-men whose game features the smearing of opponents into the glass. That response creates a pretty significant bias.  

 

Really you need both types in the mix. Brian Campbell and Teppo Numminen could flip the ice in a second with one or two touches, but neither was very accomplished at crease-clearing when things got tight down low. 



#98 That Aud Smell

That Aud Smell

    That Nostalgic Olfactory Blend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,513 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Bobcaygeon, Ontario

Posted 23 February 2015 - 03:51 PM

Really you need both types in the mix. Brian Campbell and Teppo Numminen could flip the ice in a second with one or two touches, but neither was very accomplished at crease-clearing when things got tight down low. 

 

Quite right.



#99 LGR4GM

LGR4GM

    from the bottom to the top

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,905 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 23 February 2015 - 03:51 PM

Really you need both types in the mix. Brian Campbell and Teppo Numminen could flip the ice in a second with one or two touches, but neither was very accomplished at crease-clearing when things got tight down low. 

I agree. I think we actually are seeing Bogosian as a hybrid.  He is a nasty peice of work but his outlet passing and ability to get to the puck are also quite useful. 

 

I think hits for defenders are more valuable than forwards because defenders are typically hitting to seperate someone from the puck who is entering for already in the zone.  Forwards through hits more often in the offensive zone.  This could be wild speculation on my part but I wonder if there is any correlation to hits by a defender and shot attempts by the opposing team. 



#100 That Aud Smell

That Aud Smell

    That Nostalgic Olfactory Blend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,513 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Bobcaygeon, Ontario

Posted 23 February 2015 - 03:53 PM

I agree. I think we actually are seeing Bogosian as a hybrid.  He is a nasty peice of work but his outlet passing and ability to get to the puck are also quite useful. 

 

As with most things, it's not generally all or nothing -- it's a continuum. Bogosian appears to be a nicely balanced D-man.



#101 BRAWNDO

BRAWNDO

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,626 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 February 2015 - 04:26 PM

Some fun facts on GMTM and his use of analytics.

 

 

First an ESPN Article regarding Teams and their use of Analytics  

 

http://espn.go.com/e...lytics-rankings

 

 

Second while speaking on HH earlier he brought up WOWY or With Or Without You when speaking about Dylan Strome and Connor Mc David.  


Edited by BRAWNDO, 23 February 2015 - 04:33 PM.


#102 IKnowPhysics

IKnowPhysics

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,297 posts

Posted 23 February 2015 - 04:55 PM

First an ESPN Article regarding Teams and their use of Analytics  

 

http://espn.go.com/e...lytics-rankings

 

 

Neat.  We haven't yet had a compilation of where each team sits.


Edited by Я знаю физика, 23 February 2015 - 04:56 PM.


#103 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,117 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 February 2015 - 04:56 PM

Some fun facts on GMTM and his use of analytics.

 

 

First an ESPN Article regarding Teams and their use of Analytics  

 

http://espn.go.com/e...lytics-rankings

 

 

Second while speaking on HH earlier he brought up WOWY or With Or Without You when speaking about Dylan Strome and Connor Mc David.  

 

I need to listen to this interview  :wub:



#104 BRAWNDO

BRAWNDO

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,626 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 February 2015 - 05:07 PM

I need to listen to this interview  :wub:

 

Listen at 23:30 

 

http://sabres.nhl.co...imMurray-HH.mp3



#105 SwampD

SwampD

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Jersey, orig. NT

Posted 23 February 2015 - 05:22 PM

So, eventually, every team will be using analytics (if every team isn't already), thus minimizing their effectiveness. How long before we get to complain about it being an unfair advantage because all the really good statisticians go to the big market teams to make more money? :devil:



#106 Kevbeau

Kevbeau

    Spooooooonnnnn!

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 370 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South of the Mason-Dixon

Posted 23 February 2015 - 08:11 PM

I quickly read a few posts, but I haven't read the entire thread so please excuse me if I repeat anything.

 

Unless the data recording methods have vastly improved since I was last exposed to them, the biggest issue facing the use of advanced analytics in hockey is data collection. There's a significant margin of error in the raw data that you can pull from nhl.com, so I would be very wary of doing any sort of in depth trend or explanatory analysis from it. Having said that, simple analyses (such as Corsi) can be used for directional indication. Hence the caution issued when measuring single period/game performance, but generalizations can be made with increased sample sizes...often  referred to as the "law of big numbers."

 

I don't know for sure, but I would imagine the teams advancing their capabilities are using in-game or post-game data collection techniques not associated with the NHL off-ice crews. Whether it's eyeballs on a screen or some sort of visual recording software, I'm not positive. Again, there's too much error in the generic NHL locational stats (shots, hits, give/takeaways) to offer any short term findings as definitive. TOI even has a noticeable margin of error.



#107 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,117 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 February 2015 - 10:59 AM

http://m.espn.go.com...co/KvcdWmtFY5"}

Good stuff here from Stan Bowman.

#108 rakish

rakish

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 805 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 February 2015 - 12:21 PM

I quickly read a few posts, but I haven't read the entire thread so please excuse me if I repeat anything.

 

Unless the data recording methods have vastly improved since I was last exposed to them, the biggest issue facing the use of advanced analytics in hockey is data collection. There's a significant margin of error in the raw data that you can pull from nhl.com, so I would be very wary of doing any sort of in depth trend or explanatory analysis from it. Having said that, simple analyses (such as Corsi) can be used for directional indication. Hence the caution issued when measuring single period/game performance, but generalizations can be made with increased sample sizes...often  referred to as the "law of big numbers."

 

I don't know for sure, but I would imagine the teams advancing their capabilities are using in-game or post-game data collection techniques not associated with the NHL off-ice crews. Whether it's eyeballs on a screen or some sort of visual recording software, I'm not positive. Again, there's too much error in the generic NHL locational stats (shots, hits, give/takeaways) to offer any short term findings as definitive. TOI even has a noticeable margin of error.

The amount of error in the RTSS reports doesn't bother me as much as it probably should. One thing that would have helped a lot is if they used 'line change' and an event.  You end up with 45 seconds between events, different players on the ice, who played those 45 seconds, don't know.  As you say, it evens out with enough data.

 

Yeah, you gotta believe each team serious about this stuff has a flock of interns taking notes gathering data.  And that why I got out of this as an interest, because my lack of data is insurmountable.  How do you know the difference whether a team knows what they are doing or not?  How do I know whether my work is any good?  I moved on to the draft, nice bright lines.



#109 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,117 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 February 2015 - 12:33 PM

The amount of error in the RTSS reports doesn't bother me as much as it probably should. One thing that would have helped a lot is if they used 'line change' and an event.  You end up with 45 seconds between events, different players on the ice, who played those 45 seconds, don't know.  As you say, it evens out with enough data.

 

Yeah, you gotta believe each team serious about this stuff has a flock of interns taking notes gathering data.  And that why I got out of this as an interest, because my lack of data is insurmountable.  How do you know the difference whether a team knows what they are doing or not?  How do I know whether my work is any good?  I moved on to the draft, nice bright lines.

 

Kind of tangental to what you're saying, but this is why I don't put much stock in the argument that the competitive advantage will evaporate once everyone is using the same data. The data might eventually be the same, but the analyses it's used in and the interpretations most certainly will not be.



#110 rakish

rakish

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 805 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 February 2015 - 12:43 PM

Kind of tangental to what you're saying, but this is why I don't put much stock in the argument that the competitive advantage will evaporate once everyone is using the same data. The data might eventually be the same, but the analyses it's used in and the interpretations most certainly will not be.

Absolutely, I think the results from drafting are way more consistent than you do because some teams are using relevant analysis and most teams aren't, but I can measure these things working in the draft, but how much does data matter in the NHL? I have no idea.  I don't know what data people are looking at, or any idea how many games are won or lost because of it.



#111 IKnowPhysics

IKnowPhysics

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,297 posts

Posted 24 February 2015 - 01:03 PM

http://m.espn.go.com...co/KvcdWmtFY5"}

Good stuff here from Stan Bowman.

 

Hmm. I know sports management guys like to keep proprietary secrets, but it really seems as if he believes that if he shares, he loses.



#112 That Aud Smell

That Aud Smell

    That Nostalgic Olfactory Blend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,513 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Bobcaygeon, Ontario

Posted 24 February 2015 - 01:13 PM

http://m.espn.go.com...co/KvcdWmtFY5"}

Good stuff here from Stan Bowman.

 

Stick tap to Ghost for having essentially said this (see below) many times. The distinction that Bowman draws is that everyone is not yet looking at the same things. Again: Not yet.

 

"Bowman: Once anything is widely adopted, there's no advantage. Then you're all looking at all the same things the same way. Right now, I think we're looking at things slightly differently. I don't get into specifics. It's not to be coy; I'm not trying to get accolades."



#113 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,117 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 February 2015 - 01:21 PM

Stick tap to Ghost for having essentially said this (see below) many times. The distinction that Bowman draws is that everyone is not yet looking at the same things. Again: Not yet.

 

"Bowman: Once anything is widely adopted, there's no advantage. Then you're all looking at all the same things the same way. Right now, I think we're looking at things slightly differently. I don't get into specifics. It's not to be coy; I'm not trying to get accolades."

 

I actually think the most important part of that quote is "same way." Especially once SportsVU is widely adopted and the data available, everybody is going to be looking at the same thing. But in no way, shape, or form, does that mean they'll be looking at it the same way--and in my not so humble opinion, what you do with the data is infinitely more important than the equivalence of availability.



#114 LGR4GM

LGR4GM

    from the bottom to the top

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,905 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 04 March 2015 - 09:30 AM

I thought I might put this here. It breaks down the unsustainable shooting percentages of a group of players in the league. Basically it is foreshadowing who is overproducing.  

 


Below, you'll find a data table with an emphasis on shooting percentages. What we know, from years and years of data, is that it is unlikely that a player can maintain a shooting percentage that deviates significantly from his career numbers for long amounts of time (which translates to lots of shots).The aim of this weekly article is to highlight players, that the data suggests, are playing at levels inconsistent with their actual talent. The last column (Dev) measures the deviation from career levels. 

http://leftwinglock....rs-March-4-2015



#115 Taro T

Taro T

    It leads you here despite your destination under the MW tonight.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,526 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 March 2015 - 09:51 AM

I actually think the most important part of that quote is "same way." Especially once SportsVU is widely adopted and the data available, everybody is going to be looking at the same thing. But in no way, shape, or form, does that mean they'll be looking at it the same way--and in my not so humble opinion, what you do with the data is infinitely more important than the equivalence of availability.

Not sure how the league tracks the RTSS, but the teams track their own events very precisely and at least some of them have been doing it for 10+ years now. They've manually tracked when guys hit the ice, when they come off, who has the puck and what was done with it in realtime. What they've done w/ that data definitely varies from team to team.

The SportsVU should increase the accuracy of the data obviously. I'd be interested to see how the league makes that data available both to teams and the general public. Doubt anyone wants their opponents looking at their precise data.

#116 Wraith

Wraith

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 March 2015 - 09:57 AM

I actually think the most important part of that quote is "same way." Especially once SportsVU is widely adopted and the data available, everybody is going to be looking at the same thing. But in no way, shape, or form, does that mean they'll be looking at it the same way--and in my not so humble opinion, what you do with the data is infinitely more important than the equivalence of availability.

 


This is a good time to point out that when "everyone is looking at it the same way" there is an enormous opportunity for the smart and clever people to gain an advantage. That is the real premise of "Moneyball." "Moneyball" was not about adherence to one particular school of analytical thought. It was about identifying the market inefficiencies and exploiting them. When everyone (the "market") is on the same page about what is valuable and not valuable, it becomes very cost effective to find the hidden value in the "not valuable." Sooner or later, everyone else will recognize that hidden value and the "not valuables" become "valuable." In the process, formerly "valuables" will be "not valuables" and the process will repeat. The system is read and react, and therefore will never reach an equilibrium and will be entertainingly dynamic for those not afraid of change.

Edited by Wraith, 04 March 2015 - 09:58 AM.


#117 LGR4GM

LGR4GM

    from the bottom to the top

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,905 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 04 March 2015 - 10:07 AM

This is a good time to point out that when "everyone is looking at it the same way" there is an enormous opportunity for the smart and clever people to gain an advantage. That is the real premise of "Moneyball." "Moneyball" was not about adherence to one particular school of analytical thought. It was about identifying the market inefficiencies and exploiting them. When everyone (the "market") is on the same page about what is valuable and not valuable, it becomes very cost effective to find the hidden value in the "not valuable." Sooner or later, everyone else will recognize that hidden value and the "not valuables" become "valuable." In the process, formerly "valuables" will be "not valuables" and the process will repeat. The system is read and react, and therefore will never reach an equilibrium and will be entertainingly dynamic for those not afraid of change.

I agree.  For instance the perfect hockey example is everyone can look at shooting percentage and yet year after year after year the GM's around the league pay guys based on outlier years when their shot % was sometimes double the norms...



#118 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,117 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 March 2015 - 10:20 AM

Not sure how the league tracks the RTSS, but the teams track their own events very precisely and at least some of them have been doing it for 10+ years now. They've manually tracked when guys hit the ice, when they come off, who has the puck and what was done with it in realtime. What they've done w/ that data definitely varies from team to team.

The SportsVU should increase the accuracy of the data obviously. I'd be interested to see how the league makes that data available both to teams and the general public. Doubt anyone wants their opponents looking at their precise data.


Pretty sure it was reported the NHL plans on paywalling the data a la the NFL's all-22.

#119 Taro T

Taro T

    It leads you here despite your destination under the MW tonight.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,526 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 March 2015 - 10:26 AM

Pretty sure it was reported the NHL plans on paywalling the data a la the NFL's all-22.

The raw data or what they decide to aggregate out of it?

#120 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,117 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 March 2015 - 10:40 AM

The raw data or what they decide to aggregate out of it?


That's an excellent question to which I have no answer. I could have missed it, but from what I remember there weren't any specifics reported, only that the NHL plans to monetize the data.