Fancy Stats Blueliners Question….

[LabattBlue]

I know there are many different fancy stats, and I will be honest, I don’t understand most of them.  That being said, if you are a defenseman who is for the most part in a good position and doing everything right in your own end, but due to the other 4 players on the ice(or even including bad goalie play), the rink is tilted towards your end, don’t the fancy stats penalize you because of the play of your teammates?

 

Therefore, not much different than the simplest of fancy stats…plus/minus?

[Marvin]

10 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

I know there are many different fancy stats, and I will be honest, I don’t understand most of them.  That being said, if you are a defenseman who is for the most part in a good position and doing everything right in your own end, but due to the other 4 players on the ice(or even including bad goalie play), the rink is tilted towards your end, don’t the fancy stats penalize you because of the play of your teammates?

 

Therefore, not much different than the simplest of fancy stats…plus/minus?

I start with adjusted +/-.  I look at who the defence partners are to see if, say, Dallas Smith has a Bobby Orr or Brad Park as his partner.  Then I look beyond that, but some of the stuff I look at is qualitative rather than quantitative. 

[French Collection]

12 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

I know there are many different fancy stats, and I will be honest, I don’t understand most of them.  That being said, if you are a defenseman who is for the most part in a good position and doing everything right in your own end, but due to the other 4 players on the ice(or even including bad goalie play), the rink is tilted towards your end, don’t the fancy stats penalize you because of the play of your teammates?

 

Therefore, not much different than the simplest of fancy stats…plus/minus?

Good question.

I get my fancy stats info second hand here so I don’t know where to look for that information.

I think it would show up in stuff like most minutes paired with x,y,z. Defensive vs offensive zone starts. Quality of competition.

This is where a good analytics/scouting team identifies a diamond in the rough. Someone who gets caved in because of circumstance, not his performance. A guy like that would probably lose his love of the game and welcome a change.

[Randall Flagg]

Most of the prized stats used by the biggest nerds use statistical techniques to control for who you are on the ice with and against, to isolate only YOUR impact on events. This isn't perfect but to answer your question they use every bit of math at their disposal to try to avoid that sort of thing. It obviously won't work out if your entire team is tank-bad, you can find many examples of bad stats from decent players on bad teams, but for most players on most teams you can be satisfied by cautiously adhering to the general conclusion of the stat, especially if you compare it to their teammates and watch some film to be sure. They are good tools and provide a bit more nuance than +/- though some people who trash +/- because it's the cool thing to do will also cite other stats that are identical 

[Doohicksie]

Tangent:  I know there is W-L record, but are there more sophisticated fancy stats on coaches?  Is there any way to quantify which coaches gets the most out of a given roster?  I'm thinking maybe a WAR but for coaches, or possibly stats that break down which coaches are better and defense, offense, PK, PP, etc., in such a way that you could somehow minimize the effect of roster on the coach's ratings.

[Marvin]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

Tangent:  I know there is W-L record, but are there more sophisticated fancy stats on coaches?  Is there any way to quantify which coaches gets the most out of a given roster?  I'm thinking maybe a WAR but for coaches, or possibly stats that break down which coaches are better and defense, offense, PK, PP, etc., in such a way that you could somehow minimize the effect of roster on the coach's ratings.

I remember there was something for Ted Nolan's Jack Adams Award based on how much Hasek bailed out the Sabres porous defence and virtually talentless roster.  (I keep coming back to the column in The Hockey News, where the writers referred to the Sabres as "hilariously inept.")  It had been revised by the time 2005-6 rolled around with Lindy Ruff.  (One pundit said Ruff's performance "gave new meaning to 'getting blood from a stone.'")

Basically, they try to use the estimated quality of players and the performance of the team at various aspects of the game against league averages and historical trends.  I imagine with the advances in computing power, GPU programming, and statistical analysis that management do an analysis of all the numbers against different criteria for their evaluation.  Or, that's what I did with limited data in 1992, anyway.

[B-U-F-F-A-L-O]

6 hours ago, Marvin said:

I remember there was something for Ted Nolan's Jack Adams Award based on how much Hasek bailed out the Sabres porous defence and virtually talentless roster.  (I keep coming back to the column in The Hockey News, where the writers referred to the Sabres as "hilariously inept.")  It had been revised by the time 2005-6 rolled around with Lindy Ruff.  (One pundit said Ruff's performance "gave new meaning to 'getting blood from a stone.'")

Basically, they try to use the estimated quality of players and the performance of the team at various aspects of the game against league averages and historical trends.  I imagine with the advances in computing power, GPU programming, and statistical analysis that management do an analysis of all the numbers against different criteria for their evaluation.  Or, that's what I did with limited data in 1992, anyway.

That Sabres team were the equal of that Dallas team. In fact, I think Belfour outplayed Hasek in the final.

[Marvin]

38 minutes ago, B-U-F-F-A-L-O said:

That Sabres team were the equal of that Dallas team. In fact, I think Belfour outplayed Hasek in the final.

No.  The Sabres were outplayed most of the series because the NHL, as per usual in the dead puck era (and, unfortunately, in 1975), essentially refused to enforce the rules.  This resulted in the neutralisation of the Sabres' primary advantages, youth and speed.  Shots on goal in Buffalo-Dallas order were 24-37, 21-30, 12-29, 18-31, 23-21, and 54-50.  The Stars wore down, but the were still playing Buffalo pretty evenly in games 5 and 6.   Hasek was still better than Belfour over the series.  Now, if any of the posts in OT had gone in or Hull's goal had properly been disallowed and the Sabres had won game 6,...

[Taro T]

23 hours ago, Marvin said:

No.  The Sabres were outplayed most of the series because the NHL, as per usual in the dead puck era (and, unfortunately, in 1975), essentially refused to enforce the rules.  This resulted in the neutralisation of the Sabres' primary advantages, youth and speed.  Shots on goal in Buffalo-Dallas order were 24-37, 21-30, 12-29, 18-31, 23-21, and 54-50.  The Stars wore down, but the were still playing Buffalo pretty evenly in games 5 and 6.   Hasek was still better than Belfour over the series.  Now, if any of the posts in OT had gone in or Hull's goal had properly been disallowed and the Sabres had won game 6,...

Belfour was 'meh' the 1st 3-1/2 games.  After Zhow-ey Zhou-no wasted a glorious near open net 1 timer chance by firing it into the desperate Belfour rather than the 60% open net he only gave up 1 more goal in the next 9 or so periods.  IIRC Satan just getting back from being out several games after getting hit in the ankle by a Zhitnik slapper also helped build Ol' Bats in His Belfour's confidence to all world proportions shortly after Zhou-no's wasted opportunity by not finishing on an  A-1 opportunity (though not nearly as glorious as Zhow-ey's had been).