PDA

View Full Version : The James Mirtle Mea Culpa Thread



BeLeafer
12-17-2013, 09:33 PM
A space for the forum geniuses to expound.

:smoking:

Preston_Mizzi
12-17-2013, 09:35 PM
heh

MindzEye
12-17-2013, 09:36 PM
Mirtles done a cute job of mentioning that we were "lucky" with injuries last season when he's discussed the "lucky" leafs recently.

His side of the argument clearly appears to be wrong about shot quality not meaning anything, but without competent depth at centre ice, his forecast about this team looks accurate. Though I'll reserve my plate of crow for when we're healthy and as bad as he predicted.

Preston_Mizzi
12-17-2013, 09:41 PM
We're not even that unhealthy. We're missing two 40-45 point players. That's hardly a cause for a collapse like this.

zeke
12-17-2013, 09:42 PM
A little early for I told you sos. This team will turn it around.

SundinsTooth
12-17-2013, 09:45 PM
Maybe tomorrow....

hockeylover
12-17-2013, 09:45 PM
Probably a little early for this.

Worth mentioning also that he was really, really wrong about certain things surrounding his prediction - ie) Edmonton > Toronto, that our goaltending would be below .924, etc.

ForeverTML
12-17-2013, 09:49 PM
can someone englighten me here, what has mirtle said for the mea culpa?

hockeylover
12-17-2013, 09:51 PM
can someone englighten me here, what has mirtle said for the mea culpa?

The Leafs would regress this year because of their possession numbers and because their shooting percentage last year was unsustainably high. In a nutshell.

zeke
12-17-2013, 10:03 PM
It's interesting what's happened so far this year, because it hasn't exactly gone how the advanced stats said it would.

The Leafs are still amongst the league leaders in the "luck" stats like SH%, SV%, and PDO. But they've actually become a worse possession team this year than they were last year instead. Meanwhile, the PP and PK have flipped spots, with a bad PP becoming great and a great PK becoming awful.

Good news is that we just got through the toughest stretch of our schedule - 7gms in 11 nights, including 3 different back to backs, against a very tough SOS and with multiple injuries and suspensions. Good reason to believe this is the low point of the season. We've had 9 back to backs in our first 36gms, and only have 6 left in our last 46. Going back a bit further, we've had 12gms in 20 nights - to contrast with that, we've only got 6gms in our next 17 nights and 7gms in our next 20. We don't play another elite team until we play Boston on Jan.14 - almost a month from now. Knock on wood we'll also be healthier and less suspended going forward.

But **** me we've really put ourselves in a spot now. Hopefully their confidence isn't totally shattered at this point.

ForeverTML
12-17-2013, 10:11 PM
Its the systems plus laziness that have done in this team over the past month or so. It just does not work. This team seems to be a bubble playoff team. Not where I saw this team at all when the season started.

Something has to give.

BG
12-18-2013, 10:01 AM
The team needs to be healthy in order to have secondary scoring. We miss Bozak more than most realize, as both a point producer and penalty-killer.

And the number of back-to-backs up to this point has been stupid... alomost as stupid as the number of Leafs suspended this season.

Habspatrol
12-18-2013, 11:46 AM
Maybe tomorrow....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=banXT6azA-4

Montana
12-18-2013, 12:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=banXT6azA-4


God I loved that show.....used to be absolutely crushed at the end of every single episode though, as I never could understand why he couldn't just stay with that weeks family, haha.

worm
12-18-2013, 12:19 PM
God I loved that show.....used to be absolutely crushed at the end of every single episode though, as I never could understand why he couldn't just stay with that weeks family, haha.

you, me, and everybody else

Habspatrol
12-18-2013, 12:44 PM
God I loved that show.....used to be absolutely crushed at the end of every single episode though, as I never could understand why he couldn't just stay with that weeks family, haha.

I was the exact same. Was by far my favorite show as a kid.

LeafOfFaith
12-18-2013, 02:51 PM
I love all those old Canadian shows from the 80's. Especially the TV Ontario cartoons, and definitely that live action "Read All About It" which as a kid I thought was like the spookiest thing ever. The good old days.

KingTucker
12-18-2013, 04:33 PM
I was the exact same. Was by far my favorite show as a kid.


I liked it a lot but...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfg6dPJRzu0

Was my mainstay.

BG
12-18-2013, 04:42 PM
I love all those old Canadian shows from the 80's. Especially the TV Ontario cartoons, and definitely that live action "Read All About It" which as a kid I thought was like the spookiest thing ever. The good old days.

Nice memory - totally remember watching those in school.

zeke
12-18-2013, 04:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lpdIwhzHGQ

Volcanologist
12-18-2013, 07:22 PM
Dr. Snuggles!!! yes!

Habspatrol
12-18-2013, 08:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiVOLvhvsyo

blkngldbabe
12-18-2013, 10:48 PM
Gotta love free association.

KingTucker
12-18-2013, 10:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6jEyUNB_hw

Simon >>>.
Though to be honest, if the jackass had drawn us a Stanley Cup we'd be a lot happier right now. :P

LeafOfFaith
12-19-2013, 12:28 AM
I see your Snuggles, and I raise you the Green Forest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3-vnqMdjlk

MindzEye
12-19-2013, 02:52 AM
Fraggle ****ing Rock >>> All

hockeylover
12-19-2013, 03:06 AM
Some of you are old.

Smoggies >

MindzEye
12-19-2013, 03:40 AM
Careful with that attitude or I'll put you over my knee young lady.

Rumpleforeskin
12-19-2013, 10:03 AM
Some of you are old.

Smoggies >

+1

BG
12-19-2013, 10:24 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sqlttvcUxo

zeke
12-19-2013, 10:41 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4ALjDSsMd4

BG
12-19-2013, 10:43 AM
It's become quite obvious to me, that anyone willing to open a thread with the words "mea culpa" were raised during the heydays of 80's TVOntario.

BG
12-19-2013, 10:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_haRIsvqvG4

Habspatrol
12-19-2013, 11:05 AM
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/SCTV_6197.jpg

KingTucker
12-19-2013, 11:22 AM
Fraggle ****ing Rock >>> All

Fraggles were pretty epic, but Simon has a much more exploitive ability with his chalkdrawing. You can make anything out of those drawings, that seems like something I'd want to harness pretty quickly.

Eureka = Simon => The Muppet Show > Fraggles > Raccoons > others.
I don't even know what the hell a Smoggie is. Is that some sort of Pog or Troll thing?

Turbo Teen? Pretty nice but how does it compete with this cringe-inducing epic?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZeJRZBP3zU

worm
12-19-2013, 11:23 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiVOLvhvsyo

awesome

that was my favourite

worm
12-19-2013, 11:24 AM
is any of this stuff on netflix?

if it isnt it should be

zeke
12-19-2013, 11:26 AM
there is nothing cringe-inducing about Rocket Robin Hood. That is quality television programming.

Habspatrol
12-19-2013, 11:29 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wws8w9UpXmw

leafman101
12-19-2013, 11:33 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Z1yLO9C-Q

Montana
12-19-2013, 11:50 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Z1yLO9C-Q


I owned Boulder Hill as a little kid....that thing was boss.

Montana
12-19-2013, 11:54 AM
As far as cartoon's go though, this was the tops....



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ6qpulpmnc

Montana
12-19-2013, 11:57 AM
...and this...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_cpV00c4IE

Montana
12-19-2013, 11:59 AM
..and it goes without saying...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0enSyVHY-28

Habspatrol
12-19-2013, 12:06 PM
I think I was just a bit too old for Thunder Cats and Voltron.

For me it was Smurfs, Inspector Gadget and reruns of Hercules... and iirc I think I was just starting to not care cartoons so much anymore when Racoons came out but I think I liked it for a year or two. Or maybe it was out and I just didn't get into it until then.

Montana
12-19-2013, 12:09 PM
I think I was just a bit too old for Thunder Cats and Voltron.

I still watch kids cartoons.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHjg6cTxmrQ



For me it was Smurfs, Inspector Gadget and reruns of Hercules.


Gadget and Hercules were great.

Habsy
12-19-2013, 12:13 PM
Bugs Bunny >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Didn't have all these shows when I was a kid. Heck we didn't have cable.

LeafGm
12-19-2013, 12:30 PM
Most kick-ass guitar riff in a show intro goes to...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IzSGvXc_PM

Habspatrol
12-19-2013, 12:48 PM
Bugs Bunny >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Didn't have all these shows when I was a kid. Heck we didn't have cable.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0TzhdEyol0

worm
12-19-2013, 01:24 PM
haha

did i miss the mention of ninja turtles?


and i watched kid cartoons with my younger brothers until they were too old

LeafOfFaith
12-19-2013, 02:20 PM
There are too many good 80s cartoons to even mention.

leafman101
12-19-2013, 02:22 PM
James Mirtle ‏
Leafs played two decent games lately and they're not getting filled in shots wise - they could level out some. They're not a 63-point team.


#unlucky

blkngldbabe
12-19-2013, 02:22 PM
Transformers and GI Joe

BG
12-19-2013, 03:22 PM
Science Ninja Team Gatchaman, errr.. Battle of the Planets, Scooby's All-Star Laff-a-Lympics, The 'Real' Ghostbusters, Speed Buggy...

BG
12-19-2013, 03:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Z1yLO9C-Q

http://www.pmslweb.com/the-blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/85-mask-toy.jpg

That thing got a lot of play...

leafman101
12-19-2013, 03:26 PM
They were the best toys. Transformers/GI Joe hybrid.

Volcanologist
12-19-2013, 04:15 PM
Science Ninja Team Gatchaman, errr.. Battle of the Planets

aka G-Force

TheCountofMonteCristo
12-19-2013, 04:52 PM
Bugs Bunny ruled but I also loved Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids.

My son loves Phineas and Ferb, mostly becuase of the platypus Perry

BeLeafer
03-26-2014, 07:15 AM
Maybe it's time to tweet some apologies to Mirtle? Or we could just post cartoons from childhood.

Here's his latest ... the anti-analytics crowd will love it: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/leafs-beat/mirtle-leafs-latest-collapse-should-bring-tough-questions/article17676550/

MindzEye
03-26-2014, 09:48 AM
Here's the problem I have with this entire narrative. That entire crowd (that Mirtle is very much the most public voice in Toronto for) has been chirping all season about the Leafs lack of possession and how winning was unsustainable because of it. Now they're crowing that they were clearly right all along (they were of course the first to rush to Reimer's defence over this period). Problem with this is that the Leafs, over those 5 losses (not counting the St Louis game last night) had a 51.4% total corsi%. Toronto had more possession than it's opposition and lost all 5 games. I find it hilarious that all we heard during Toronto wins was how badly we were being out shot and out possessed, but when we were losing while out shooting and out possessing our opponents, all of a sudden that didn't matter, because we were losing.

Then there's this:


There has been some great analytical work done online the past few years on the NHL and what constitutes a winning team in the league, much of which was popularized by a statistician named Gabriel Desjardins, a Winnipegger who now lives and works in Silicon Valley.

One of the more interesting things Desjardins worked on was what went into winning a game in the NHL, something analysts eventually devised a formula for.

Roughly 38 per cent of winning, Desjardins wrote, can be attributed to luck. Another 37 per cent is due to puck possession, which has become the primary, quantifiable focal point for much of the work in analytics in hockey these days.

What James fails to point out is that this entire conversation has drawn the attention of the real heavyweights of the sports statistic world, the elite sabremetrcians of the MLB world. A number of them have looked into the numbers and methodology of the hockey metrics people and their opinions have not been flattering. The most crucial point that came out of their work basically shattered the entire basis for the possession zealot mindset. There was no correlation, none, between in game possession and winning. None. When looked at over a broader time frame, good possession teams tended to win more (a 55% correlation), but when looked at within a single game there is no correlation. This clearly suggests that there is something else (or more likely, a combination of factors) that drives the bus, and good possession was a by product of these other factors.

The other thing of course is the presumption made by the word "luck". To these hockey metrics people, shooting percentage, & save percentage are "luck". Because they only analyze teams from the top down instead of the bottom up, they explain away a high team SV% and a high team shooting % as luck because they tend to return to the mean. Over what time frame they return to the mean is never discussed, or why, beyond luck. We know pretty ****ing conclusively that high talent goaltenders post above average SV%'s every year and high talent goal scorers post above average SH%'s every year. That's not lucky, that's skillful. A team with Henrik Lundqvist will not return to the mean in team SV% unless Henrik leaves and is replaced by a lesser goaltender. You can state, with a high level of certainty, that NYR are going to have a higher than average team SV% almost every year. There's nothing lucky about it, but they're explained away as lucky by hockey metrics zealots.

I think there's some extremely important information that can be pulled from the raw metrics numbers. I think possession is important (though not all important by any stretch), I think situational possession is important (though less so than total possession...power plays and penalty killing counts), but the presumptions being used by the current metrics people are just wrong, and demonstrably so.

Wayward DP
03-26-2014, 10:04 AM
Yeah, Mirtle's either a dummy or intellectually dishonest. Neither option looks too good on him. I'm inclined to think it's the latter, which is a necessary evil of being a sports journalist in Toronto, but either way, he's been a real dumdum this season.

And this recent six game losing streak does not support his hypothesis whatsoever.

MindzEye
03-26-2014, 10:09 AM
Yeah, Mirtle's either a dummy or intellectually dishonest. Neither option looks too good on him. I'm inclined to think it's the latter, which is a necessary evil of being a sports journalist in Toronto, but either way, he's been a real dumdum this season.

And this recent six game losing streak does not support his hypothesis whatsoever.

Well, the St Louis game definitely does. They smacked us around pretty badly overall. Didn't show up on the scoreboard though.

Volcanologist
03-26-2014, 10:15 AM
Admitting that luck plays an even greater part than puck possession won't elicit any apologies from me.

Wayward DP
03-26-2014, 10:17 AM
Well, the St Louis game definitely does. They smacked us around pretty badly overall. Didn't show up on the scoreboard though.

Fair, but sample size. One game out of the six, against the best team in the NHL.

We're up to almost two seasons (albeit one abbreviated one) where the results simply do not support the possession crap Mirtle has been harping on about. And, whenever he is presented with this evidence, he refuses to acknowledge it.

leafman101
03-26-2014, 10:18 AM
But no one has said the Leafs aren't a bad possession team.

Mirtle's problem is in consistently ignoring ~70% of the equation.

MindzEye
03-26-2014, 12:21 PM
Fair, but sample size. One game out of the six, against the best team in the NHL.

We're up to almost two seasons (albeit one abbreviated one) where the results simply do not support the possession crap Mirtle has been harping on about. And, whenever he is presented with this evidence, he refuses to acknowledge it.

Actually, here's where I differ. The data absolutely supports the "Mirtle crowd"....to an extent. The Leafs are a good offensive club with elite goaltending over the last 2 seasons but are overall, ostensibly a bubble team. The reason for this (imo), is in our lack of puck management (possession). If our possession game was better, you'd see us consistently performing like a top 5-7 team.

Basically, the data does support the "possession crap", Mirtle & Co just draw the wrong conclusions from the data.

MindzEye
03-26-2014, 12:24 PM
But no one has said the Leafs aren't a bad possession team.

Mirtle's problem is in consistently ignoring ~70% of the equation.

When this: http://rinkstats.blogspot.ca/2013/12/why-popular-advanced-stats-are-bad-at.html started coming to light, anyone interested in the truth instead of pushing any particular narrative should have had their come to jesus moment.

As soon as you can't correlate in game winning with shot differential (any way that you slice it), these concrete conclusions about team analysis need to be revised heavily...and they haven't been. The Corsi/Fenwick zealots have continued on as if this revelation was never uncovered.

Wayward DP
03-26-2014, 01:06 PM
Actually, here's where I differ. The data absolutely supports the "Mirtle crowd"....to an extent. The Leafs are a good offensive club with elite goaltending over the last 2 seasons but are overall, ostensibly a bubble team. The reason for this (imo), is in our lack of puck management (possession). If our possession game was better, you'd see us consistently performing like a top 5-7 team.

Basically, the data does support the "possession crap", Mirtle & Co just draw the wrong conclusions from the data.

Except the Leafs weren't a bubble team until they had one of their best corsi stretches of the season that also happened to coincide with a six game losing streak. Neither was Anaheim.

Wayward DP
03-26-2014, 01:06 PM
Actually, here's where I differ. The data absolutely supports the "Mirtle crowd"....to an extent. The Leafs are a good offensive club with elite goaltending over the last 2 seasons but are overall, ostensibly a bubble team. The reason for this (imo), is in our lack of puck management (possession). If our possession game was better, you'd see us consistently performing like a top 5-7 team.

Basically, the data does support the "possession crap", Mirtle & Co just draw the wrong conclusions from the data.

Except the Leafs weren't a bubble team until they had one of their best corsi stretches of the season that also happened to coincide with a six game losing streak. Neither was Anaheim.

MindzEye
03-26-2014, 01:15 PM
Except the Leafs weren't a bubble team until they had one of their best corsi stretches of the season that also happened to coincide with a six game losing streak. Neither was Anaheim.

We qualified for the playoffs with a 95 point pace last season and before this shitty stretch were looking at doing the identical this season. 95 points is very much a bubble team imo. Playoff qualification is 91-93 points in most seasons. 2-4 points hardly takes you off of the bubble.

leafman101
03-26-2014, 01:18 PM
The other thing is what exactly is the value of the differences between teams within Corsi. Eg. if Corsi is ~1/3 of hockey, how much of that 1/3 is the difference between the Kings and Leafs. Realistically speaking the best teams only possess the puck ~55% of the time. So how much of that 30% is a +5-10 edge in corsi worth?

It appears evident that a massive drop in save percentage (which according to Mirtle is only work a fraction of 25% of hockey) greatly out values a +5-10% uptick in Corsi.

Habspatrol
03-26-2014, 01:34 PM
Corsi is a horseshit stat. I'm sure it points you in the direction of teams that tend to be better, but I bet that just normal shots on goal for and against is as telling... maybe more.

MindzEye
03-26-2014, 01:35 PM
The other thing is what exactly is the value of the differences between teams within Corsi. Eg. if Corsi is ~1/3 of hockey, how much of that 1/3 is the difference between the Kings and Leafs. Realistically speaking the best teams only possess the puck ~55% of the time. So how much of that 30% is a +5-10 edge in corsi worth?

It appears evident that a massive drop in save percentage (which according to Mirtle is only work a fraction of 25% of hockey) greatly out values a +5-10% uptick in Corsi.

I giggled when I read "luck" constituted the largest, and goaltending and skill constituted 25%....If you stopped calling it luck and simply called it "variance in performance", you would have a starting point that would explain it....and it would quickly belong with the 25% in one number.

MindzEye
03-26-2014, 01:38 PM
Corsi is a horseshit stat. I'm sure it points you in the direction of teams that tend to be better, but I bet that just normal shots on goal for and against is as telling... maybe more.

Corsi is proxy for possession. Possession (puck management) is important. It's just not nearly all important, or even 37% of winning. The most important point in this entire discussion about Corsi was the work by the Baseball sabremetrician that showed there was no correlation between winning the Corsi battle, and winning the individual hockey game.

The underlying problem is a bunch of amateur mathematicians trying to find concrete, elegant conclusions from incomplete,flawed, dynamic data.

MindzEye
03-26-2014, 01:38 PM
Corsi is a horseshit stat. I'm sure it points you in the direction of teams that tend to be better, but I bet that just normal shots on goal for and against is as telling... maybe more.

Corsi is proxy for possession. Possession (puck management) is important. It's just not nearly all important, or even 37% of winning. The most important point in this entire discussion about Corsi was the work by the Baseball sabremetrician that showed there was no correlation between winning the Corsi battle, and winning the individual hockey game.

The underlying problem is a bunch of amateur mathematicians trying to find concrete, elegant conclusions from incomplete,flawed, dynamic data.

Rumpleforeskin
03-26-2014, 02:04 PM
Except the Leafs weren't a bubble team until they had one of their best corsi stretches of the season that also happened to coincide with a six game losing streak. Neither was Anaheim.

I'm not giant CORSI fan, but how much of that positive CORSI is effected by score effects?

MindzEye
03-26-2014, 02:53 PM
I'm not giant CORSI fan, but how much of that positive CORSI is effected by score effects?

Depends on which you're looking at. They have Corsi/Fenwick Close which only measures when the score is within a goal I think.

I tend to find the slicing of Corsi a bit useless. As it is I think the Corsi does a poor job of measuring shot quality (in that, it simply doesn't so all you can do is infer that the shot quality either doesn't matter, or is relative to shot total...neither of which sits well with me), and the reaction of most teams to being doing a few goals is to increase poor quality shots.

Bleedsblue&white
03-26-2014, 02:59 PM
I'd like to see a way to determine low quality shots (LQ), than see what percentage of LQ shots go in vs HQ.

...which highlights yet another reason hockey is very hard to quantify; how do you decide a low quality shot? If we agree that shot quality matters, it needs to be broken down, and like so much in hockey, it's ripe for subjectivity.

That is why I have yet to see a system work.

leafman101
03-26-2014, 03:07 PM
http://www.sportsnet.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/01-OVERALL-web.jpg

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/introducing-the-shot-quality-project/

MindzEye
03-26-2014, 03:10 PM
I'd like to see a way to determine low quality shots (LQ), than see what percentage of LQ shots go in vs HQ.

...which highlights yet another reason hockey is very hard to quantify; how do you decide a low quality shot? If we agree that shot quality matters, it needs to be broken down, and like so much in hockey, it's ripe for subjectivity.

That is why I have yet to see a system work.

The Sportsnet shot quality project being worked into shot quantity would be the best method of doing it imo. A guy at Sportsnet (or at least, he provided his data on sportsnet.ca) has done a heat map for the shot location of every shot and goal scored for a few years (basically since the data has been available). I talked about it a bunch at the beginning of the year when I was tracking quality shots for vs quality shots against for the first few weeks of the season when the Leafs were being outshot, but we're winning games. We were matching most opponents in shots from higher leverage scoring areas, and our shots were typically coming from higher skill players.

I quit doing it after about a month because as much as I like analyzing sports, it becomes a chore after a while and mother****ers aren't paying me for this.

MindzEye
03-26-2014, 03:10 PM
http://www.sportsnet.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/01-OVERALL-web.jpg

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/introducing-the-shot-quality-project/

aaaaaaand here it is.

MindzEye
03-26-2014, 03:12 PM
The current flaw with this is the imperfection in the data. The technology they're using to track shot and goal locations still isn't accurate enough imo. I'd like to see tracking capabilities built right into the puck....which would also have goal line applications. If the technology was demonstrably accurate enough, there would be no more pucks underneath goalies, but over the goal line, not being called goals.

leafman101
03-26-2014, 03:14 PM
Yeah, hockey advanced stats haven't taken advantage of technology yet like they do in basketball and baseball.

Bleedsblue&white
03-27-2014, 01:45 AM
leafman101 and ME, I get the idea that using the "hotzone" is what we have and works to some degree, but hockey is such a fluid thing that I don't believe shot position is close to enough.

You would need shot position, who the shooter is,was the shooter in their "hotzone"?...just a couple things I can think up right away. Kessel with a wrist shot at one position is worth more than someone else in a "better" position.
I'm jumping in and out here, kind of busy, but I think I git the gist of it across.

MindzEye
03-27-2014, 02:43 AM
leafman101 and ME, I get the idea that using the "hotzone" is what we have and works to some degree, but hockey is such a fluid thing that I don't believe shot position is close to enough.

You would need shot position, who the shooter is,was the shooter in their "hotzone"?...just a couple things I can think up right away. Kessel with a wrist shot at one position is worth more than someone else in a "better" position.
I'm jumping in and out here, kind of busy, but I think I git the gist of it across.

yep, these are things we've discussed a bit before. But the Corsi crowd loves their simple counting stats instead of asking for better.

UWHabs
03-27-2014, 01:17 PM
leafman101 and ME, I get the idea that using the "hotzone" is what we have and works to some degree, but hockey is such a fluid thing that I don't believe shot position is close to enough.

You would need shot position, who the shooter is,was the shooter in their "hotzone"?...just a couple things I can think up right away. Kessel with a wrist shot at one position is worth more than someone else in a "better" position.
I'm jumping in and out here, kind of busy, but I think I git the gist of it across.

True. A PK slapper from the end boards is a lot more dangerous than a floating wrist shot from the blueline too. But there's only so much to handle. I mean, if you want to go to that length, a Kessel wrist shot from one location might be nothing, but take the same location and park a guy in front of the goalie and suddenly it's a big scoring chance.

Probably the easiest first cut will be to take the heatmap of positions, split that into a few zones, and maybe also break them down into 2-3 classes of shots - hard shots and soft shots (or maybe slap shot, wrist shot, and deflections?), then you should be able to get a good idea of the overall quality of shots.

MindzEye
03-27-2014, 02:13 PM
True. A PK slapper from the end boards is a lot more dangerous than a floating wrist shot from the blueline too. But there's only so much to handle. I mean, if you want to go to that length, a Kessel wrist shot from one location might be nothing, but take the same location and park a guy in front of the goalie and suddenly it's a big scoring chance.

Probably the easiest first cut will be to take the heatmap of positions, split that into a few zones, and maybe also break them down into 2-3 classes of shots - hard shots and soft shots (or maybe slap shot, wrist shot, and deflections?), then you should be able to get a good idea of the overall quality of shots.

Thing is, the technology already exists to track the speed, height, etc of a shot and classify it based on speed (baseball's pitchtrax system can differentiate pitches in baseball off the the spin and angle of movement ffs...surely we can track the speed of a puck). Then all you need is real time, accurate player location data (which exists in european football) tracking where a player is on the ice at all times, what speed they're moving, the approx amount of force of hits etc.

This is why I groan at the word "advanced" being used by the metrics crowd. They have **** all for data, and that's not their fault, but it's still embarrassing that they'll take something as simple as shots for/against, play with it a bit, make it a few different types of statistics (rates, %'s, etc) and then try to pawn it off on us as advanced and worthy of discussion along side Baseball's sabremetrics, the NBA's stats gathering (Synergy >>>>>>>>> what hockey metrics people are doing. You want to quantify how good a defender a NBA player is, synergy can tell you his individual shooting percentage against in isolation situation, zone defence situations, help defence situations, etc), and even what is tracked in european footie. A statistic can only be as good as the data used to create it, and theses guys are childs play compared to what is out there in other sports.

Bleedsblue&white
03-27-2014, 02:17 PM
UWHabs,
it's because hockey is so fluid that you need to find ways to be more accurate. We don't have the nice stops and starts that baseball does for instance. IMO, if this stat crowd wants legitimacy in the hockey circles, they have to account for more than they are.
Much more.

Bleedsblue&white
03-27-2014, 02:17 PM
UWHabs,
it's because hockey is so fluid that you need to find ways to be more accurate. We don't have the nice stops and starts that baseball does for instance. IMO, if this stat crowd wants legitimacy in the hockey circles, they have to account for more than they are.
Much more.

UWHabs
03-27-2014, 02:49 PM
For sure. It's a big step up from the old system where they only used goals, assists, PM, and +/- to judge players, but it's still stone age compared to other sports.