Arguments Against Advanced Stats?

[RiskyBryzness]

I'm genuinely curious to hear the main arguments against advanced stats.

[Podein25]

Too many intangibles and contingencies in hockey, numerous micro-events in the course of every shift that are difficult to quantify.

For starters.

Also: nerds who've never played the game. At least Billy Beane played the game.

[OccamsRazor]

Too many intangibles and contingencies in hockey, numerous micro-events in the course of every shift that are difficult to quantify.

For starters.

Also: nerds who've never played the game. At least Billy Beane played the game.

 

 

Yes and since every player on the ice gets a plus or a minus after each shot-at-net, Corsi awards plus marks to players even if they did nothing to help create the shot-at net, and the system assigns minus marks to players who made no mistake on the shot-at-net against.

[OccamsRazor]

@Podein25

 

 

If 40 per cent of the time a player is getting a plus or minus mark he doesn’t merit, that builds in a lot of error and randomness into a system of rating a player. That is what Corsi does.

And, for that reason, Corsi  is an unreliable base stat to use in rating players. It’s better than Roth-Irvin, but still has one of the same big warts.

[RiskyBryzness]

The same can be said about  +/-, but that seems to fly on this forum?

[OccamsRazor]

The same can be said about  +/-, but that seems to fly on this forum?

 

The next problem with Corsi is perhaps the most obvious, the shots themselves. Corsi is solely based on counting shots and judges players on the quantity of these shots but not the quality.

[OccamsRazor]

The same can be said about  +/-, but that seems to fly on this forum?

 

The fact that it only encompasses 5v5 play is a major drawback that cannot be overstated. Most people think this only excludes special teams, but it also excludes any and all 4v4 play as well.

[OccamsRazor]

There are no statistics for 4v4 play time but we can assume that per game the average is between 1-2 minutes because of the occurrence of offsetting minor penalties. That is 7-8 minutes of data per game that is blatantly ignored by Corsi.

[OccamsRazor]

It punishes players who are penalty kill or power play specialists. For instance a fourth line player plays three minutes on the penalty kill and another four on 5v5. Is it truly okay to judge this player based solely on that?

 

What about a power play specialist who gets victimized on 5v5 more but makes teams pay on the power play constantly? In the end games are won by goals not shots.

 

So i'm done.

 

It's time to go watch some football.

 

It has many flaws like i said.

 

I like the good ol tried and true eye ball test...the problem with that i hardly have time to follow the Flyers much less watch a lot of hockey today.

 

Your serve.

[OccamsRazor]

And in Tyler Myers case, the final problem with Corsi is simply due to the nature of the sport itself. Is it truly fair to punish a player because he plays on a bad team or reward a player because he plays on a good team?

 

Good players on bad teams will suffer from this statistic simply because they will never be able to muster up enough shots while bad players on good teams will look far better than they actually are.

 

So like plus minus it is just a different gauge but has it's flaws.

[doom88]

The same can be said about +/-, but that seems to fly on this forum?

Not really, and especially not as an anchor for an argument.

[ruxpin]

Yes and since every player on the ice gets a plus or a minus after each shot-at-net, Corsi awards plus marks to players even if they did nothing to help create the shot-at net, and the system assigns minus marks to players who made no mistake on the shot-at-net against.

 

The way I understand it -- and that's not saying a lot, honestly--is there are some teams who allow shots as part of their system but keep them to the outside.  Do the advanced stats compensate for that?  In other words, does player X who plays in such a system look bad against player Y who plays in some other system that limits shots?

 

I don't have any problem with advanced stats.  Anything that helps create a better picture when taken in conjunction with traditional stats and "eye test" is fine by me.  I don't think I'd take any of it to be more important than the rest of the picture, though.  Admittedly, this is from someone who has spent extremely limited time and paid very limited attention to the advanced stats.

[RiskyBryzness]

The next problem with Corsi is perhaps the most obvious, the shots themselves. Corsi is solely based on counting shots and judges players on the quantity of these shots but not the quality.

Agreed. The quality is a problem with corsi, but over time the quality of the shots seems to even out. 

The fact that it only encompasses 5v5 play is a major drawback that cannot be overstated. Most people think this only excludes special teams, but it also excludes any and all 4v4 play as well.

 

There are stats for 4v4 as well.

There are no statistics for 4v4 play time but we can assume that per game the average is between 1-2 minutes because of the occurrence of offsetting minor penalties. That is 7-8 minutes of data per game that is blatantly ignored by Corsi.

There are stats for 4v4 as well.

 

It punishes players who are penalty kill or power play specialists. For instance a fourth line player plays three minutes on the penalty kill and another four on 5v5. Is it truly okay to judge this player based solely on that?

 

What about a power play specialist who gets victimized on 5v5 more but makes teams pay on the power play constantly? In the end games are won by goals not shots.

 

So i'm done.

 

It's time to go watch some football.

 

It has many flaws like i said.

 

I like the good ol tried and true eye ball test...the problem with that i hardly have time to follow the Flyers much less watch a lot of hockey today.

 

Your serve.

Advanced stats are used to judge players both at even strength and on specialty teams. When assessing a player it is important to look at all aspects of his game, which I did with Grossmann.

 

Yes, games are won by goals, not shots. However, wouldn't it be agreed that usually more shots equals a better chance of winning? Usually, obviously not all the time.

 

Advanced stats have a few flaws when looking at small sample sizes, however there are many different aspects to them that try to account for these flaws.

 

The eye test is okay for some plays, but admitting that you don't watch hockey and then saying that Coburn stinks despite what the stats show is not a good argument.

[RiskyBryzness]

And in Tyler Myers case, the final problem with Corsi is simply due to the nature of the sport itself. Is it truly fair to punish a player because he plays on a bad team or reward a player because he plays on a good team?

 

Good players on bad teams will suffer from this statistic simply because they will never be able to muster up enough shots while bad players on good teams will look far better than they actually are.

 

So like plus minus it is just a different gauge but has it's flaws.

Myers is the worst possession player on the worst team. Advanced stats use "Relative" corsi as well to determine how a player performs compared to the rest of his team, this is done in an attempt to minimize team impact. When comparing players across teams I tend to look at their stats relative to their teammates.

 

Furthermore, you can look at how a player impacts his teammates (WOWY stats) to get a grasp of that.

 

Not really, and especially not as an anchor for an argument.

 

I've seen it used as a primary argument by some with no backlash.

 

The way I understand it -- and that's not saying a lot, honestly, is there are some teams who allow shots as part of their system but keep them to the outside.  Do the advanced stats compensate for that?  In other words, does player X who plays in such a system look bad against player Y who plays in some other system that limits shots?

 

I don't have any problem with advanced stats.  Anything that helps create a better picture when taken in conjunction with traditional stats and "eye test" is fine by me.  I don't think I'd take any of it to be more important than the rest of the picture, though.  Admittedly, this is from someone who has spent extremely limited time and paid very limited attention to the advanced stats.

 

The advanced stats are able to pretty much look at any situation. Any score, any strength (5v5, 4v4, 5v4, 4v5, goalie pulled) and can look at a player vs certain opponents, vs certain quality of opponents, when he is with a certain teammate, when is he with different quality of teammates.

[OccamsRazor]

 Do the advanced stats compensate for that?  In other words, does player X who plays in such a system look bad against player Y who plays in some other system that limits shots?

 

In a No.

 

Like i said many use it but it has flaws.

[brelic]

I think advanced statistics are wonderful in general. It allows people to look at things from an objective and depersonalized perspective.

 

In its application to hockey, I don't believe they've found the right set of predictors, though, to truly measure a player's performance and worth - and then extrapolate that to an entire team. I think you have to break down the 'players' into many subcategories and develop relevant indices for each of those that actually have value and make sense. 

[brelic]

@RiskyBryzness

Yes, games are won by goals, not shots. However, wouldn't it be agreed that usually more shots equals a better chance of winning?

 

 

What are the historical stats on that? What percentage of time does the team with more shots win the game?

[OccamsRazor]

I think advanced statistics are wonderful in general. It allows people to look at things from an objective and depersonalized perspective.

 

In its application to hockey, I don't believe they've found the right set of predictors, though, to truly measure a player's performance and worth - and then extrapolate that to an entire team. I think you have to break down the 'players' into many subcategories and develop relevant indices for each of those that actually have value and make sense. 

 

Yes. It is a metric like +/- maybe a little more accurate.

 

Still this should not translate to the justification of a boosted Corsi number for missing shots. It is true that a missed or blocked shot can lead to a goal, but that is an indirect path. Hits, takeaways, passes, and player movement off the puck also indirectly lead to goals not just shots and to assume only shots lead to goals is ludicrous.

 

So much stuff happens around the ice to get some of these numbers it's just hard to put that into nimbers

[OccamsRazor]

Just as blocked and missed shots should not be judged the same as those put on the goalkeeper, shots on net are not created equally.

 

A shot from outside the zone or a soft wrist-shot from the blue will not have the same quality as a one timer from the slot or a breakaway shot.

 

Typically during a thirty shot performance only about ten of those shots are even considered scoring chances, or quality shots.

[OccamsRazor]

And more than anything i just don't like numbers defining a game....period. All i care about really are wins.

[RiskyBryzness]

Yes. It is a metric like +/- maybe a little more accurate.

 

Still this should not translate to the justification of a boosted Corsi number for missing shots. It is true that a missed or blocked shot can lead to a goal, but that is an indirect path. Hits, takeaways, passes, and player movement off the puck also indirectly lead to goals not just shots and to assume only shots lead to goals is ludicrous.

 

So much stuff happens around the ice to get some of these numbers it's just hard to put that into nimbers

 

But it has been put into numbers. The advanced stats might be flawed play by play, but the "puck luck" evens out over the course of a month, or a season.

Just as blocked and missed shots should not be judged the same as those put on the goalkeeper, shots on net are not created equally.

 

A shot from outside the zone or a soft wrist-shot from the blue will not have the same quality as a one timer from the slot or a breakaway shot.

 

Typically during a thirty shot performance only about ten of those shots are even considered scoring chances, or quality shots.

Agreed. Shots are not equal. Regression is key.

[OccamsRazor]

But it has been put into numbers. The advanced stats might be flawed play by play, but the "puck luck" evens out over the course of a month, or a season.

Agreed. Shots are not equal. Regression is key.

 

 

Bottom line i'm not really a numbers guy. WINS!!! All i care about.

[RiskyBryzness]

And more than anything i just don't like numbers defining a game....period. All i care about really are wins.

Who wins is determined by who scores more, a number. It is important to get shots at the net to score, another number. Missed shots and blocked shots can indirectly lead to goals.

[RiskyBryzness]

Bottom line i'm not really a numbers guy. WINS!!! All i care about.

Numbers help determine who wins, would you disagree with that?

[ruxpin]

Numbers help determine who wins, would you disagree with that?

 

Have you found that to be true?  I guess what I'm asking is have you found them to be generally predictive?   Would they have predicted the Kings beating the Hawks last year, for example?   I honestly don't know, but am asking since you seem to be fluent in it.

 

Or is it more "they would have predicted probably the last 4-8 teams playing but ultimately it can still come down to a bounce?"