Hockey Analytics

[X. Benedict]

Hockey makes statistics. Statistics doesn't make hockey.

 

But all analytics, from the most basic, to the most advanced are only a metric of comparison.

There is no analytics problem.

 

 

 

We just saw a year with Nolan who had no time for Analytics.....now we have Bylsma who loves them.

Guess what we are going to see. Yup.more wide open hockey.

[Taro T]

Here's the thing though. If hockey is going to take almost an industrial approach to making systems more efficient, to squeeze every last drop of productivity out of its human capital (I read the WSJ, I am smart), do you think it's going to lead to more or less scoring? It's gotta be less IMO. Also IMO analytics could be the death of this sport.

Roger Neilson killed hockey.

[SwampD]

Hockey makes statistics. Statistics doesn't make hockey.

 

But all analytics, from the most basic, to the most advanced are only a metric of comparison.

There is no analytics problem.

 

 

 

We just saw a year with Nolan who had no time for Analytics.....now we have Bylsma who loves them.

Guess what we are going to see. Yup.more wide open hockey.

I'm just not sure that is true anymore.

[X. Benedict]

Roger Neilson killed hockey.

He was good for VCR and towel sales though. 

I'm just not sure that is true anymore.

Nothing has changed hockey more than curved sticks, masks, and goalie equipment. Remember that. 

 

the game is actually faster than ever. 

It is scoring that is paltry, That isn't a product of analytics as much as rules and equipment. 

[SwampD]

He was good for VCR and towel sales though. 

Nothing has changed hockey more than curved sticks, masks, and goalie equipment. Remember that. 

 

the game is actually faster than ever. 

It is scoring that is paltry, That isn't a product of analytics as much as rules and equipment. 

I'm just not sure that is true.

[X. Benedict]

I'm just not sure that is true.

Every analytic these days has a bias toward shots on goal. The bias is toward more shots. 

 

There are more shots on goal than 15 years ago, but fewer goals. 

[Stoner]

Every analytic these days has a bias toward shots on goal. The bias is toward more shots. 

 

There are more shots on goal than 15 years ago, but fewer goals. 

You said it all. We can close the thread and the debate.

[X. Benedict]

You said it all. We can close the thread and the debate.

Thanks! (I'm really not sure what I confirmed for you that is new, analytics is only really a snapshot of what you are watching, using different filters of course). 

[Stoner]

Thanks! (I'm really not sure what I confirmed for you that is new, analytics is only really a snapshot of what you are watching, using different filters of course). 

Do you consider the analytics crowd to be only observers or do you think they have an agenda? Seems to me the agenda is 1. Get bloggers jobs with teams and 2. Change how the game is played.

[X. Benedict]

Do you consider the analytics crowd to be only observers or do you think they have an agenda? Seems to me the agenda is 1. Get bloggers jobs with teams and 2. Change how the game is played.

 

 

Agenda? Sure. Find an advantage on the competition. 

 

Does it change game planning, sure. But half of any gameplan never survives first contact with the competition. 

[That Aud Smell]

Every analytic these days has a bias toward shots on goal. The bias is toward more shots. 

 

There are more shots on goal than 15 years ago, but fewer goals. 

 

Really good insight here.

 

Do you consider the analytics crowd to be only observers or do you think they have an agenda? Seems to me the agenda is 1. Get bloggers jobs with teams and 2. Change how the game is played.

 

I've never sensed an employment agenda. As for changing how the game is played, I think X said it. Analytics seem to value, above all else, things we want to see in the game.

[Stoner]

Really good insight here.

 

 

I've never sensed an employment agenda. As for changing how the game is played, I think X said it. Analytics seem to value, above all else, things we want to see in the game.

But he claims more shots on goal and fewer goals in the last 15 years. Analytics values shots at the net because they're proxies for possession.

[That Aud Smell]

But he claims more shots on goal and fewer goals in the last 15 years. 

 

Correct. And, the reason being?

[TrueBlueGED]

Correct. And, the reason being?

 

PA's analytics shtick step 1): Analytics values shot attempts -> players take more bad shots to please analytics -> the entire sport of hockey collapses and becomes as popular was cricket.

 

PA's analytics shtick step 2): Don't present any evidence of step 1 and ignore all evidence of what analytics gets right.

[That Aud Smell]

PA's analytics shtick step 1): Analytics values shot attempts -> players take more bad shots to please analytics -> the entire sport of hockey collapses and becomes as popular was cricket.

 

PA's analytics shtick step 2): Don't present any evidence of step 1 and ignore all evidence of what analytics gets right.

 

Is that really what's being implied?

 

Also, I'm not so sure fewer goals is a product of just rules and equipment. The size, skills, and sophistication of defensive-zone play are big factors too.

 

It seems a fair topic of discussion, though: Will valuing analytics tend to make more hockey more or less enjoyable to watch? Or will analytics have no appreciable effect on that at all?

[TrueBlueGED]

Is that really what's being implied?

 

Also, I'm not so sure fewer goals is a product of just rules and equipment. The size, skills, and sophistication of defensive-zone play are big factors too.

 

It seems a fair topic of discussion, though: Will valuing analytics tend to make more hockey more or less enjoyable to watch? Or will analytics have no appreciable effect on that at all?

 

He's explicitly stated it several times before, so I have a hard time believing it's anything else.

 

Edit: To the rest, I think blaming analytics is sort of like blaming the salad dressing for making you put on weight while ignoring the 16oz. burger and half plate of fries.

Edited September 21, 2015 by TrueBlueGED

[darksabre]

Bump to remind those who registered that the RIT Analytics Conference is this weekend. I haven't received any emails about it but I assume it is still happening. 

[TrueBlueGED]

Bump to remind those who registered that the RIT Analytics Conference is this weekend. I haven't received any emails about it but I assume it is still happening.

I wouldn't expect anything until Thursday. Every academic conference I've gone to the panelists haven't started communicating until a day or two before. For something a lot more informal like this I wouldn't expect anything to be better.

[darksabre]

I wouldn't expect anything until Thursday. Every academic conference I've gone to the panelists haven't started communicating until a day or two before. For something a lot more informal like this I wouldn't expect anything to be better.

Yeah, this has been my experience as well. 

[Taro T]

Bump to remind those who registered that the RIT Analytics Conference is this weekend. I haven't received any emails about it but I assume it is still happening.

 

Since the initial, "thanks for registering, we'll give you details later" haven't seen squat.

[darksabre]

Got my email this morning. Check your inboxes. 

[TrueBlueGED]

Coffee, donuts, and pizza. This is my kind of day!

[North Buffalo]

He's explicitly stated it several times before, so I have a hard time believing it's anything else.

 

Edit: To the rest, I think blaming analytics is sort of like blaming the salad dressing for making you put on weight while ignoring the 16oz. burger and half plate of fries.

Agree its "a" tool, but too often it is described as the be all end all. Analytics are only as good as the interpreter of their use. Once had a young lady gave me a bunch of stats on my special needs son's learning disabilities. When my wife and I asked what that meant, she couldn't tell us. I swear she was on the spectrum...

 

Like I said, analytics are only as good as the interpreter and his/her ability to understand their limitations. Remember stat 101, stats don't determine causality only establish that when one variable moves another tends to move in a similar direction.

Edited October 8, 2015 by North Buffalo

[Claude_Verret]

Agree its "a" tool, but too often it is described as the be all end all. Analytics are only as good as the interpreter of their use. Once had a young lady gave me a bunch of stats on my special needs son's learning disabilities. When my wife and I asked what that meant, she couldn't tell us. I swear she was on the spectrum...

 

Like I said, analytics are only as good as the interpreter and his/her ability to understand their limitations. Remember stat 101, stats don't determine causality only establish that one variable moves another tends to move in a similar direction.

 

 

i think anyone who has been exposed to statistical analysis on any level should have a full appreciation of this concept.  The "be all end all" strawman is typically thrown out there by the analytics skeptics, not the proponents.

 

required reading:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Statistics-Stripping-Dread-Data/dp/039334777X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1444313504&sr=8-1&keywords=naked+statistics

Edited October 8, 2015 by Claude_Verret

[North Buffalo]

i think anyone who has been exposed to statistical analysis on any level should have a full appreciation of this concept.  The "be all end all" strawman is typically thrown out there by the analytics skeptics, not the proponents.

 

required reading:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Statistics-Stripping-Dread-Data/dp/039334777X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1444313504&sr=8-1&keywords=naked+statistics

True but often misunderstood and misrepresented by both sides. I always want to know variables used, P values and sample sizes. Even then they must taken as a piece of a larger picture.