2014 Sabres Training Camp

[LastPommerFan]

Why does a coach need analytics? I understand why a GM might need them, but why a coach? I see nothing wrong with Nolan's view.

 

I look at it like I look at music. There are musicians who know every single note in every mode that with work over every chord. Then there are the musicians that just pick up their ax and play by feel and don't know what they are playing. They both tend to lack something when they swing to far to their respective ends of the spectrum. I tend to think that the best musicians are the ones who learn all the theory, but when it comes time, they just play.

 

I will say, though, that if I had to choose only one, give me the guy who just plays.

 

Are you saying Nolan should learn all the analytic theory, put it in his compositions (his "system") and then on game day just coach the game that's in front of him? I could see that working, but it does kind of contradict first part. He does need it, but he needs in at practice, not on game day.

[dudacek]

Great thread. IMO, the ###### analytics crowd is winning today.

Edited September 23, 2014 by dudacek

[nfreeman]

Great thread. IMO, the ###### analytics crowd is winning today.

 

Now this post could really mean 2 different things depending on the expletive.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Now this post could really mean 2 different things depending on the expletive.

 

You know in your heart and soul which one it is......

[darksabre]

Great thread. IMO, the ###### analytics crowd is winning today.

 

Ooo! Mad Libs!

 

Backdoor

 

Smegma

 

Retentive

 

Orifice

 

 

 

Wait is this or is this not the PA Colon thread?

[LastPommerFan]

Ooo! Mad Libs!

 

Backdoor

 

Smegma

 

Retentive

 

Orifice

 

 

 

Wait is this or is this not the PA Colon thread?

 

Today I offer you the honorary "Keys to the Internet"

 

Congratulations on your victory.

 

smegma.

[SwampD]

Are you saying Nolan should learn all the analytic theory, put it in his compositions (his "system") and then on game day just coach the game that's in front of him? I could see that working, but it does kind of contradict first part. He does need it, but he needs in at practice, not on game day.

I still haven't gotten an answer why the coach needs stats at all. Again, I can understand the case for a GM being heavily into it, but why the coach? We always hear how stats are only good when there is a large sample size, but during a game, does a coach really care about someone's performance over the coarse of the season(s)? He only cares about who has the flaming skates (does any game still have that?) that game.

 

EDIT: I guess I kinda made your point for you. didn't I?

Edited September 23, 2014 by SwampD

[LastPommerFan]

I still haven't got an answer why the coach needs stats at all. Again, I can understand the case for a GM being heavily into it, but why the coach? We always hear how stats are only good when there is a large sample size, but during a game, does a coach really care about someone's performance over the coarse of the season(s)? He only cares about who has the flaming skates (does any game still have that?) that game.

 

Take a look at the dump and chase article. Fancystats are about more than individual player performance. They can give insight into how best to design a system to enter the zone. Still not useful to the coach on gameday, but certainly valuable during practice.

[TrueBlueGED]

I still haven't gotten an answer why the coach needs stats at all. Again, I can understand the case for a GM being heavily into it, but why the coach? We always hear how stats are only good when there is a large sample size, but during a game, does a coach really care about someone's performance over the coarse of the season(s)? He only cares about who has the flaming skates (does any game still have that?) that game.

 

EDIT: I guess I kinda made your point for you. didn't I?

 

When to pull the goalie. Stats guys have know for several years now that pulling the goalie sooner will lead to a higher chance of tying the game (~4 minutes I think is the magic number before the probabilities slide the other way)...but Patrick Roy just did it this past offseason, and was praised for some combination of guts, moxie, and brains. It worked, and other teams started pulling the goalie sooner. But really, Roy was late to the party too, just less late than other coaches.

 

Tons of other stuff I want to respond to in the last page or two, but that'll take more time than this example.

[darksabre]

When to pull the goalie. Stats guys have know for several years now that pulling the goalie sooner will lead to a higher chance of tying the game (~4 minutes I think is the magic number before the probabilities slide the other way)...but Patrick Roy just did it this past offseason, and was praised for some combination of guts, moxie, and brains. It worked, and other teams started pulling the goalie sooner. But really, Roy was late to the party too, just less late than other coaches.

 

Tons of other stuff I want to respond to in the last page or two, but that'll take more time than this example.

 

I wonder if pulling the goalie at other times during a game would yield positive results. Say you go down 1-0 in the first but were crushing possession numbers. Would pulling the goalie during the second while carrying the play in the other end be a good idea? You risk going down 2-0 but you could also tie it up really quickly and give yourself more time to score that go-ahead goal. I think I'd experiment with it in preseason just for fun.

[TrueBlueGED]

I wonder if pulling the goalie at other times during a game would yield positive results. Say you go down 1-0 in the first but were crushing possession numbers. Would pulling the goalie during the second while carrying the play in the other end be a good idea? You risk going down 2-0 but you could also tie it up really quickly and give yourself more time to score that go-ahead goal. I think I'd experiment with it in preseason just for fun.

 

Love it! No idea if it's worth the risk if you're already crushing possession 5v5, but damn, I'd love to see some aggressive coach play around with it.

[Eleven]

Love it! No idea if it's worth the risk if you're already crushing possession 5v5, but damn, I'd love to see some aggressive coach play around with it.

 

Lindy has done it early/middle in the third.

[SwampD]

When to pull the goalie. Stats guys have know for several years now that pulling the goalie sooner will lead to a higher chance of tying the game (~4 minutes I think is the magic number before the probabilities slide the other way)...but Patrick Roy just did it this past offseason, and was praised for some combination of guts, moxie, and brains. It worked, and other teams started pulling the goalie sooner. But really, Roy was late to the party too, just less late than other coaches.

 

Tons of other stuff I want to respond to in the last page or two, but that'll take more time than this example.

But as soon as all other teams adopt that same strategy, doesn't the advantage go bye-bye anyway?

 

I'd rather watch humans feeling the game instead of data calculating it. Probably why I can't stomach baseball.

Edited September 23, 2014 by SwampD

[shrader]

But as soon as all other teams adopt that same strategy, doesn't the advantage go bye-bye anyway?

 

I'd rather watch humans feeling the game instead of data calculating it. Probably why I can't stomach baseball.

 

So in his example, you're suggesting that the other team pulls their goalie as well? That would be entertaining, it's NES Ice Hockey overtime!

Edited September 23, 2014 by shrader

[K-9]

I think the notion that a coach doesn't have to understand analytics at all is a fallacy. Yes, a big part of the current work in most sports is player evaluation and thus handled by the General Manager, not the coach. But an underrated aspect of sports analysis is evaluating tactics.

 

Since the sports data revolution started with baseball, there is a great example about how analytics have not infiltrated the managers the way they have the front office. This has a profound effect on day-to-day tactics. Managers will, almost every day, refuse to use their best relief pitchers in the highest leverage (most important) game situations because it's not a "save situation." Team's regularly blow leads in the sixth, seventh, or eighth inning with an inferior relief pitcher on the mound while their closer, inarguably the best reliever on the team, watches because it's not a save situation yet. It's infuriating. It's especially infuriating because baseball, with it's rich history and incredibly large sample size, has a system that can tell you, in real time, when the high leverage situations are! Having your best relief pitcher enter the game at the start of the ninth inning with nobody on base is almost never the best use of his skills. But the current generation of managers have grown up being told that is how you use a bullpen and so it remains.

 

Now to hockey. One tactical situation that is starting to get noticed by the stat heads in the dump-in versus the carry-in entry into the offensive zone. Willfully turning the puck over to the opponent at a very high rate using the dump and chase method is incredibly inefficient compared to the carry-in.This article sums it up nicely:

 

http://www.si.com/nh...-chase-strategy

 

Can any of you image a traditionalist like Nolan, who is all about the effort, would ever advocate for a lower rate of dump and chases?

 

I think analytics lends itself to baseball in ways it doesn't to other team sports. Baseball, while a team sport, is really an individual vs. another individual and the team element really doesn't come into play. Contrast that to football, where you have 22 moving parts on every snap and those moving parts are interdependent. There are just some things that statistics can't predict and those things typically require a trained eye to do so. Analytics have their place in hockey to be sure, but I can understand why a coach wouldn't ever be a slave to them.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[LastPommerFan]

If a person were to design a sport specifically for the application of advanced data analysis, they would end up with Baseball. A series of repeated similar events with hundreds of data points per player per season.

 

If a person were to design a sport specifically to hinder the application of analytics, the would come up with something very similar to Hockey.

 

Football has repetition as the play is reset for each snap.

 

Basketball has individual separable events like foul shots and play essentially resets as the ball comes across mid-court.

 

Hockey is a fluid continuum and even tiny unmeasurable variables like short term leg fatique or Pommer's stick breaking (well, that's totally measurable, we just don't have numbers large enough to describe it) have huge influence on the play. Possession is a great descriptor of the game, but I have yet to see an application that allows a coach or GM to successfully adjust a team to significantly improve. I can tell the Leafs are terrible and that they are going to crash in the second half of the season, but so could the GM and Coach, and apparently all the money in the hockey world couldn't help them find a solution to that problem.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Glass Case Of Emotion

[That Aud Smell]

So in his example, you're suggesting that the other team pulls their goalie as well? That would be entertaining, it's NES Ice Hockey overtime!

 

I chuckled.

 

If a person were to design a sport specifically for the application of advanced data analysis, they would end up with Baseball. A series of repeated similar events with hundreds of data points per player per season.

 

If a person were to design a sport specifically to hinder the application of analytics, the would come up with something very similar to Hockey.

 

Football has repetition as the play is reset for each snap.

 

Basketball has individual separable events like foul shots and play essentially resets as the ball comes across mid-court.

 

Hockey is a fluid continuum and even tiny unmeasurable variables like short term leg fatique or Pommer's stick breaking (well, that's totally measurable, we just don't have numbers large enough to describe it) have huge influence on the play. Possession is a great descriptor of the game, but I have yet to see an application that allows a coach or GM to successfully adjust a team to significantly improve. I can tell the Leafs are terrible and that they are going to crash in the second half of the season, but so could the GM and Coach, and apparently all the money in the hockey world couldn't help them find a solution to that problem.

 

Really good stuff.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

But as soon as all other teams adopt that same strategy, doesn't the advantage go bye-bye anyway?

 

 

BINGO!!!!

 

Remember how the Wildcat worked for a good 6-8 weeks because Miami had 2 stud backs at the time? Teams tried to copycat it and now you see it once in a blue moon.

 

The "read option"? Sure, teams still use it as it is a valid scheme....but remember when Cam Newton, RGIII, and Kapernick were the toast of the town and everyone was clammoring it is the way to go?

 

You hear stuff like..."you should never punt"...."always go for two"....yadda yadda.....well, when things are used as regularity and not by surprise, the best in the world tend to spend more time on it and figure it out. I'll tell what the smartest play in the world of football is right now.....if you are inside your own 30 and face a 3rd and 12 or more, your best move is to PUNT out of the shotgun to a team in regular defensive formation. The odds of you picking up that first down and going on to score is small. The extra 10-20 net yards in field position you gain from punting to an empty return lead you to a better chance of scoring on your next drive with a new set of downs, and holding the opposition to fewer net points on the exchange.

 

Who has the nads to try that? Once people figured it out though, you'd see new Cover3 set up with a guy 30yds back....and the advantage would even out over time. Pittsburgh does this with Rothlisberger, but usually only to pin a team down.

 

Right now, the smartest play in finding hockey players is to know which teams value possession and "analytics"....let them chase those players....identify players who have character, skill, and grit who may show horrible (Robyn Regehr anyone?), and then bamboozle those teams for those guys.

 

There are plenty of valid statistics, and they have always been used in some form by evaluators. Again though....when it becomes a trend, it is already too late and the fad should be used against itself. I'm not sure how much of this is really used in the NHL, or how much is pumped up by guys on radio and the internet with a median salary of $34,726....... #analytics

 

I think analytics lends itself to baseball in ways it doesn't to other team sports. Baseball, while a team sport, is really an individual vs. another individual and the team element really doesn't come into play. Contrast that to football, where you have 22 moving parts on every snap and those moving parts are interdependent. There are just some things that statistics can't predict and those things typically require a trained eye to do so. Analytics have their place in hockey to be sure, but I can understand why a coach wouldn't ever be a slave to them.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Baseball for sure....righty/lefty....speed/stamina of pitchers.....speed/power of batters...shift..sac bunt...it's a thinking man's game and always has been. The roster pool when considering Majors and Minors is much deeper however than hockey. It is easier to find a variable that you think may be a diamond in the rough, and find a few guys who fit the mold....because there are twice as many guys on the active roster come September. If you have a theory...it doesn't hurt as much to try it on a few guys. But in hockey, if you have a theory like....we can win with soft-undersized-skilled centers....you just blew up your team for a decade by counting on 2 or 3 guys......

[Stoner]

Ooo! Mad Libs!

 

Backdoor

 

Smegma

 

Retentive

 

Orifice

 

 

 

Wait is this or is this not the PA Colon thread?

 

I yield back the remainder of my time to my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum.

 

If a person were to design a sport specifically for the application of advanced data analysis, they would end up with Baseball. A series of repeated similar events with hundreds of data points per player per season.

 

If a person were to design a sport specifically to hinder the application of analytics, the would come up with something very similar to Hockey.

 

Football has repetition as the play is reset for each snap.

 

Basketball has individual separable events like foul shots and play essentially resets as the ball comes across mid-court.

 

Hockey is a fluid continuum and even tiny unmeasurable variables like short term leg fatique or Pommer's stick breaking (well, that's totally measurable, we just don't have numbers large enough to describe it) have huge influence on the play. Possession is a great descriptor of the game, but I have yet to see an application that allows a coach or GM to successfully adjust a team to significantly improve. I can tell the Leafs are terrible and that they are going to crash in the second half of the season, but so could the GM and Coach, and apparently all the money in the hockey world couldn't help them find a solution to that problem.

 

So hockey is jazz?

Edited September 23, 2014 by PASabreFan

[SwampD]

 

 

So hockey is jazz?

As someone who plays both, abso-freakin'-lutely!

 

It is amazing just how similar it feels to play with line mates that are equal/worse/better/intimidating/frustrating/justplainWTF/etc as it is to play with band mates that have those same qualities.

Edited September 23, 2014 by SwampD

[LastPommerFan]

 

 

I yield back the remainder of my time to my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum.

 

 

 

So hockey is jazz?

 

Yes, perfect. I can use stats to show that Ella Fitzgerald sings in tune more often than me, so she would make a better lead. I can show that certain tempos will work better for certain groups. But come show night, you just gotta follow the lead, and play from the heart.

[dudacek]

Until the modelling gets to a much higher level (and I am not sure it can), Glass Case is on the money with the music analogy: hockey is more art than science.

 

There is no better feeling in hockey than when you make that telepathic connection with your linemate to burn the opposition. You don't have to look for him, you just know what he's doing and why he is doing it and you connect. There is no worse feeling than playing with a guy who thinks the game on a different level and every attempt at connection just fizzles.

 

When you make that special connection, I'm sure it happens because each brain has just seen that situation enough times that it has made a correct analytical decision. But how can an observer replicate every nuance of every hockey play everyone on the ice has experienced and tell you what play is the right one? There are too many variables.

 

Call the Brad Boyes factor if you want or maybe the Leino factor: so much of a player's success is predicated on how he connects with his line mates, his coach, and his opposition that analytics can only be used as a tool, not a guide.

Edited September 24, 2014 by dudacek

[LGR4GM]

I'll tell what the smartest play in the world of football is right now.....if you are inside your own 30 and face a 3rd and 12 or more, your best move is to PUNT out of the shotgun to a team in regular defensive formation. The odds of you picking up that first down and going on to score is small. The extra 10-20 net yards in field position you gain from punting to an empty return lead you to a better chance of scoring on your next drive with a new set of downs, and holding the opposition to fewer net points on the exchange.

 

Who has the nads to try that? Once people figured it out though, you'd see new Cover3 set up with a guy 30yds back....and the advantage would even out over time. Pittsburgh does this with Rothlisberger, but usually only to pin a team down.

You want to punt on 3rd down...?

Edited September 24, 2014 by LGR4GM

[darksabre]

As someone who plays both, abso-freakin'-lutely!

 

It is amazing just how similar it feels to play with line mates that are equal/worse/better/intimidating/frustrating/justplainWTF/etc as it is to play with band mates that have those same qualities.

 

I'll second all of this.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

You want to punt on 3rd down...?

 

If it is 3rd and 17 from your 22, and you have a QB/RB capable of getting off a decent kick, odds are you are going to get a 40-60 yd punt that rolls down the field unopposed and unreturned. It is the smart play when everyone isn't looking for it. Like I said, Rothlisberger has done this at least a half dozen times, but it is usually closer to midfield.

 

Yes, perfect. I can use stats to show that Ella Fitzgerald sings in tune more often than me, so she would make a better lead. I can show that certain tempos will work better for certain groups. But come show night, you just gotta follow the lead, and play from the heart.

 

But compare her to a classical opera soprano.....the opera singer might have a higher range, be more in tune, and can sight read a new song note for note.

 

Have Ella do Ave Maria, and it might be an octave lower, but she has a shot to move you more than the opera singer. Have that opera singer try and scat 6 choruses of Cherokee, and she probably cries off the stage.....