Around the NHL 2016-2017

[darksabre]

Dmitry Orlov just used a textbook hipcheck to launch Matt Duchene. Great hit.

Seemed low to me.

[Hoss]

Seemed low to me.

Naw, looks perfect to me.

https://twitter.com/myregularface/status/788522038088572928

 

On another note: the Lightning put together an awesome video for Vinny Lecavalier https://twitter.com/TBLightning/status/788532028694142976

One of my favorite players growing up. Is he a hall of gamer?

Before you answer at least take a look at the stats: http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lecavvi01.html

 

My thoughts are that he comes up short, but his resume is more impressive than you might think.

[pi2000]

Dmitry Orlov just used a textbook hipcheck to launch Matt Duchene. Great hit.

 

Hip check?  That wasn't a hip check, actually not sure what that was... more like a shoulder check to the thigh?

[Hoss]

Hip check? That wasn't a hip check, actually not sure what that was... more like a shoulder check to the thigh?

I posted that after watching it live. Initially thought he used the hip to toss him.

 

 

Also: Zadorov is having a miserable night for Colorado.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Hoss

[Sabel79]

The NHL has absolutely no ###### clue what the fans are interested in. If they were I wouldn't be watching slow old man grabby interference hockey every night.

 

The league tried to change it after the second to last lockout. We saw how well that was received. "The League" doesn't really deserve as much of the blame for this as does the entire culture surrounding the game as a whole.

[bunomatic]

The league tried to change it after the second to last lockout. We saw how well that was received. "The League" doesn't really deserve as much of the blame for this as does the entire culture surrounding the game as a whole.

Yup. Lots of old school types running these teams.

[SwampD]

Yup. Lots of old school types running these teams.

I like the grabby.

 

I also think our current team is built to be able to play the grabby.

 

I guess I'm old.

[inkman]

I like the grabby.

 

I also think our current team is built to be able to play the grabby.

 

I guess I'm old.

Why do you like a game being called and coached to eliminate offense and produce an unwatchable product? Edited October 19, 2016 by inkman

[SwampD]

Why do you like a game being called and coached to eliminate offense and produce an unwatchable product?

But that's the game. So many don't get this. When you see a guy that can get hit, held up, hooked,… and still has the puck to make a play, that's hockey. Not the lets do wind sprints and practice 3 on 2s that everyone is clamoring for.

[qwksndmonster]

But that's the game. So many don't get this. When you see a guy that can get hit, held up, hooked,… and still has the puck to make a play, that's hockey. Not the lets do wind sprints and practice 3 on 2s that everyone is clamoring for.

I mean, that's part of the game. I'd still much rather see a more open game. It's not like grinding will ever be eliminated entirely.

[That Aud Smell]

But that's the game. So many don't get this. When you see a guy that can get hit, held up, hooked,… and still has the puck to make a play, that's hockey. Not the lets do wind sprints and practice 3 on 2s that everyone is clamoring for.

 

I . . .

 

I honestly can't fathom this. 

[LGR4GM]

But that's the game. So many don't get this. When you see a guy that can get hit, held up, hooked,… and still has the puck to make a play, that's hockey. Not the lets do wind sprints and practice 3 on 2s that everyone is clamoring for.

Because that is boring and I don't want to watch that. So I reject the "well that's how we've always done it" as complete BS. 

 

How often do you see a guy get held/hooked/illegally hit and still make a play? 3-4 times a game? That isn't hockey, it is defensive cheating being allowed to slow down offensive talent. You know want was an amazing part of last nights game? That sequence of passes btw ROR, Okposoed, and Reinhart. You know what wasn't? Watching someone chip the puck past a defender and then the defender grab them or put a stick on them to stop them as they went to retrieve it. 

 

If hockey is good because it is boring then sorry I am not going to watch. I became a big time fan because of the 2005/2006 season and am not ashamed of it. They need to stop the interference and let the teams play. 

[SwampD]

Because that is boring and I don't want to watch that. So I reject the "well that's how we've always done it" as complete BS. 

 

How often do you see a guy get held/hooked/illegally hit and still make a play? 3-4 times a game? That isn't hockey, it is defensive cheating being allowed to slow down offensive talent. You know want was an amazing part of last nights game? That sequence of passes btw ROR, Okposoed, and Reinhart. You know what wasn't? Watching someone chip the puck past a defender and then the defender grab them or put a stick on them to stop them as they went to retrieve it. 

 

If hockey is good because it is boring then sorry I am not going to watch. I became a big time fan because of the 2005/2006 season and am not ashamed of it. They need to stop the interference and let the teams play. 

You do realize that you mentioned the outlier in the history of hockey?

[LGR4GM]

You do realize that you mentioned the outlier in the history of hockey?

But I don't care. The US was once an outlier because they had Democracy, seemed to work out for everyone else too. The interference that goes uncalled in today's game makes the game much less enjoyable.

[WildCard]

You do realize that you mentioned the outlier in the history of hockey?

That's an outlier in the history of the NHL, not hockey

[Randall Flagg]

Is it an outlier? Maybe recently, but what about before the mid-90s? When a Sabre scored 148 points?

[WildCard]

Is it an outlier? Maybe recently, but what about before the mid-90s? When a Sabre scored 148 points?

The game was the same. Teams are smarter now at playing defense and goalies are much better

[TrueBlueGED]

Your eye analogy could use more explanation.

 

The problem with any statistical analysis is that you have to be positive in the decision making process you use to create the stat and verify why it's important. Ergo, if analytics were the answer then, in theory, any fool could use them and be equally effective as anyone else right? If you can break it all down into a statistical equation then the output would never vary as sure as 2+2 = 4. That's my point... analytics are not the answer, they are part of the answer, but they are not THE answer.

 

So, analytics do not equal winning. They increase the chances of winning but the models aren't there yet to predict winning. If they were, everyone would use them the same.

The point I was trying to get at is nobody uses their eyes the same way--people value different attributes differently, people evaluating the same player see different value. Hell, look at our GDTs--five different people will give five different opinions on the same sequence of plays. Some value a physical game, others don't. Our brains' screens and biases filter what we see and how we interpret it. Why, then, do statistics have to be used the exact same way by everyone before they have any value? Applying the logic of 2+2 must equal 4 before we're confident in the stats to the eye test would render traditional evaluation methods completely unusable.

 

To the bigger point, one of my biggest pet peeves is that statistics are held to a very different standard for evaluation than traditional scouting is. Using imperfection against statistical analysis is such a weak argument, since identical imperfection and uncertainty exists with the traditional methods...yet nobody dismisses them out of hand because of it. Only stats get that treatment. New stats have challenged preconceived notions about what is important and what isn't, and many old school hockey people have responded how anyone else in any other walk of life does when presented with new information that challenges them: dig the heels in and reject the new way of looking at things.

 

We also need to stop conflating the use of individual statistics in decision making with statistical modeling and blind adherence to that model (which is something nobody advocates anyway). But that's a whole other rant.

But that's the game. So many don't get this. When you see a guy that can get hit, held up, hooked,… and still has the puck to make a play, that's hockey. Not the lets do wind sprints and practice 3 on 2s that everyone is clamoring for.

If you prefer that style of play, that's totally fine. But the whole "It's always been this way" is a really bad argument.

Edited October 19, 2016 by TrueBlueGED

[LTS]

The point I was trying to get at is nobody uses their eyes the same way--people value different attributes differently, people evaluating the same player see different value. Hell, look at our GDTs--five different people will give five different opinions on the same sequence of plays. Some value a physical game, others don't. Our brains' screens and biases filter what we see and how we interpret it. Why, then, do statistics have to be used the exact same way by everyone before they have any value? Applying the logic of 2+2 must equal 4 before we're confident in the stats to the eye test would render traditional evaluation methods completely unusable.

 

To the bigger point, one of my biggest pet peeves is that statistics are held to a very different standard for evaluation than traditional scouting is. Using imperfection against statistical analysis is such a weak argument, since identical imperfection and uncertainty exists with the traditional methods...yet nobody dismisses them out of hand because of it. Only stats get that treatment. New stats have challenged preconceived notions about what is important and what isn't, and many old school hockey people have responded how anyone else in any other walk of life does when presented with new information that challenges them: dig the heels in and reject the new way of looking at things.

 

We also need to stop conflating the use of individual statistics in decision making with statistical modeling and blind adherence to that model (which is something nobody advocates anyway). But that's a whole other rant.

 

If you prefer that style of play, that's totally fine. But the whole "It's always been this way" is a really bad argument.

 

I'm going to start off by saying I believe we are on the same page.

 

The problem I have with the eye analogy is that everyone's eye is not equal regardless of their intent.  One person may not be able to see certain nuances that another does. Statistics is not the same way when regarding a set stat.  For example, Corsi.  Corsi is determined by applying set measurable parameters in a defined equation that produces a predictable outcome.  In short, you build the model, plug in the values of the variables and the outcome is predictable. So anyone using Corsi would have the same number.  If there was a way to use Corsi to predict an outcome that did not require additional variable parameters then everyone would end up in the same place.

 

So, stats are part of the story not the story which is all I was trying to say.  The original quote was that analytics = winning and that is absolutely not true.  Analytics is a factor used in the equation of winning and accounts for some measure of the success.

 

I think statistics are held to a higher standard because the hope is to prove them reliable. People's opinions will naturally vary but math is math and you are looking to find a model that provides predictable outcomes and provides value to the situation. 

 

If I need to price widgets I can use my own method each time and look at factors and come up with a price.  However, if i have to do this often then I want a model I can use that will do the work for me on a repeated basis.  I have to trust it and therefore it has to prove out under scrutiny.

 

Anyway.. stats are important and there are statistics in this game that have yet to be uncovered and they will prove insightful.  I don't think they will ever be the full answer. 

[pi2000]

But that's the game. So many don't get this. When you see a guy that can get hit, held up, hooked,… and still has the puck to make a play, that's hockey. Not the lets do wind sprints and practice 3 on 2s that everyone is clamoring for.

 

like this?  

 

 

...I mean, how many guys would have just flopped to the ice in today's NHL to try and draw a penalty?

Edited October 19, 2016 by pi2000

[Randall Flagg]

I used to want to go back to 05-06 but I don't think I would take it that far now. I understand Swamp's sentiment.

 

^^Though I do think using one of the greatest goals scored by the most talented NHL player of all time is not a fair play to compare others to and to expect from your average (and even much above average) NHL player :P 

[ubkev]

Nice goal to be sure.

 

I just like this one better

 

[pi2000]

So the Laine vs Matthews matchup ends in OT with Matthew's missing on a breakaway and Laine going the other way to complete his hat trick by sniping the GW. He also had the game tying goal with under a minute to play. Matthew's finished with one assist.

[qwksndmonster]

Those are some preposterous apostrophes.

[3putt]

Laine is a stud, as is Matthews. Nylander looking better by the day.