• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Hockeytown0001

Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Your argument is tautological. You think the data is "inaccurate" because it doesn't comport with what you see, and you trust what you see because the data is supposedly inaccurate.

Or, in other words, Tatar isn't a good possession player because I don't see it. And I dont see it because i dont believe possession stats. And round and round we go

The same thing can be said of you. "What I see is irrelevant because stats never lie."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, you're completely misprepresenting my position. Which is as follows:

My untrained eye misses lots of things throughout a hockey season. So I use empirical data to either validate or invalidate what I think I saw. Because data collection (unlike my drunken viewing of hockey games) is routine, standardized, non biased, and is performed by trained professionals I have a high degree of confidence in the results. In the case of Tatar, and possession stats, I'm especially confident in the data because possession metrics are based on shots. And shots are one of the easiest to collect and most universally accepted stats in hockey.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, you're completely misprepresenting my position. Which is as follows:

My untrained eye misses lots of things throughout a hockey season. So I use empirical data to either validate or invalidate what I think I saw. Because data collection (unlike my drunken viewing of hockey games) is routine, standardized, non biased, and is performed by trained professionals I have a high degree of confidence in the results. In the case of Tatar, and possession stats, I'm especially confident in the data because possession metrics are based on shots. And shots are one of the easiest to collect and most universally accepted stats in hockey.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Which is ridiculous...the Cats had 39,2 Shots per Game in the Playoffs, Blackhawks 36,6. Sharks reached the Final with 26,8. Shooting is just one tactic. There are lots of others.

As I said...stats are nice...but if you don't know why numbers look good or bad they're useless or even dangerous if they lead to wrong conclusions.

From our wingers, only Pulkkinen's and Mantha's offensive zone faceoff percentage is higher than Tatar's. Plus he played either on in a protected 3rd line role against weak opposition or alongside Pav who's still one of the best 2-way forwards worldwide and also mainly received offensive zone starts. Pretty easy to outshoot your opposition like that...even if you're just floating around or keep turning over pucks. There are probably even more reasons than those I mentioned...but just to show you how misleading stats can be...

Blashill doesn't trust Tatar and I totally get why.

Edited by poel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is ridiculous...the Cats had 39,2 Shots per Game in the Playoffs, Blackhawks 36,6. Sharks reached the Final with 26,8. Shooting is just one tactic. There are lots of others.

As I said...stats are nice...but if you don't know why numbers look good or bad they're useless or even dangerous if they lead to wrong conclusions.

From our wingers, only Pulkkinen's and Mantha's offensive zone faceoff percentage is higher than Tatar's. Plus he played either on in a protected 3rd line role against weak opposition or alongside Pav who's still one of the best 2-way forwards worldwide and also mainly received offensive zone starts. Pretty easy to outshoot your opposition like that...even if you're just floating around or keep turning over pucks. There are probably even more reasons than those I mentioned...but just to show you how misleading stats can be...

Blashill doesn't trust Tatar and I totally get why.

There's a difference between mis-using statistics to reach invalid conclusions and straight up lying about what the stats really are. Tatar having a low number of turnovers this season might not have anything to do with whether he can be trusted with the puck - although the onus is on you to make that case - but saying he is a turnover machine is just empirically false.

And you don't care because you want to hate him. That's the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't waste your time Aethernum... Fans have always done it and always will do it. With some people, once they have an opinion on someone or something, no amount of reasoning can change that opinion. You can throw as much information and as many stats at them as you want, it's not going to matter. The same people refuse to see how good Smith really is, despite all of the stats and evidence that support it. Tatar sucks, Nyquist sucks, Smith sucks, etc, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between mis-using statistics to reach invalid conclusions and straight up lying about what the stats really are. Tatar having a low number of turnovers this season might not have anything to do with whether he can be trusted with the puck - although the onus is on you to make that case - but saying he is a turnover machine is just empirically false.

And you don't care because you want to hate him. That's the point.

Empirically? Wow. So you're convinced that these numbers are right? Ericsson might turn over the puck 71 times per hour...but not per season. These numbers are as random as it gets and generally waaaaaay too low. Really. Statistics are usually pretty good nd precise in the nhl but not in terms of give- and takeaways. It's not even possible that those numbers are right. You don't even have to know a lot about hockey to understand that.

I have no reason to hate Tatar. In fact I even was a great fan. He was great as a rookie. Lightning fast, hitting everybody, shooting...he brought lots of energy into this team. Last season I saw none of it. He scored a few points but there was no energy, he didn't hit and also didn't seem to really care. He was brutal. No need to lie. It wasn't enough. And he wasn't the only one who lost all trust of the coaching staff with careless or naive play.

Edited by poel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can think what you want but it's like I wrote. I'm a fan of Tatar and there's nothing I'd want more than to see him play the way we all know he could. For some reasons he didn't and if some of you guys continue to say to yourselves that he played great nd it's all Blashill's fault that he didn't get the minutes he and you want it doesn't make it true. Same goes for several other players. Wings didn't play a good season and several players, also young ones, played even worse than before. You can blame Blashill for certain decisions but not for everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Empirically? Wow. So you're convinced that these numbers are right? Ericsson might turn over the puck 71 times per hour...but not per season. These numbers are as random as it gets and generally waaaaaay too low. Really. Statistics are usually pretty good nd precise in the nhl but not in terms of give- and takeaways. It's not even possible that those numbers are right. You don't even have to know a lot about hockey to understand that.

I have no reason to hate Tatar. In fact I even was a great fan. He was great as a rookie. Lightning fast, hitting everybody, shooting...he brought lots of energy into this team. Last season I saw none of it. He scored a few points but there was no energy, he didn't hit and also didn't seem to really care. He was brutal. No need to lie. It wasn't enough. And he wasn't the only one who lost all trust of the coaching staff with careless or naive play.

How are you quantifying which stats are accurate and which stats are not? Do you actually have a method that defines a particular statistic as well as a way to measure it, and have you put in the hours and combed through games and compared your data with official league data, including based on their means of measurement and definition? Or are you just eyeballing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats say Brendan Smith is one of the best possession defensemen in the NhL and he is not so there are instances of analytics being not the end all be all to understanding a players performance. Usage plays such a huge part of these stats

I think you should take more stock in the fact that a coach scratches and won't play certain players more than their beastly possession metrics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats say Brendan Smith is one of the best possession defensemen in the NhL and he is not so there are instances of analytics being not the end all be all to understanding a players performance. Usage plays such a huge part of these stats

I think you should take more stock in the fact that a coach scratches and won't play certain players more than their beastly possession metrics

Strong Corsi =/= one of the best possession players in NHL. This is an inaccurate jump and not at all what we can definitively conclude from Corsi. I do agree that usage influences how data should be interpreted though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are you quantifying which stats are accurate and which stats are not? Do you actually have a method that defines a particular statistic as well as a way to measure it, and have you put in the hours and combed through games and compared your data with official league data, including based on their means of measurement and definition? Or are you just eyeballing it.

It's not clear enough. We all know what a shot is, what a hit is, what a block is. It's not hard to count for pretty much everybody. Take- and giveaways are different. I don't know how they count them but the numbers are too low. Like I said...don't even need to know hockey to understand that the numbers aren't right. Therefore I'd really worry about you if you don't agree...

Andersson per nhl.com has 0 givaways in 29 regular season games. Marchenko has just 7 takeaways in 66 games. If those numbers are true we shouldn't resign Marchenko and offer huge money to Andersson instead.

A few other numbers leaguewide:

Takeaways:

1. Mark Stone 128 (in just 75 games) :w00t:

2. Jeff Skinner 77

3. Dustin Byfuglien 73

Giveaways:

1. PK Subban 106 (in just 68 games) :blind:

2. Brent Burns 102

3. Joe Thornton 98

They really must think that hockeyfans are extremely stupid.

Edited by poel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats say Brendan Smith is one of the best possession defensemen in the NhL and he is not so there are instances of analytics being not the end all be all to understanding a players performance. Usage plays such a huge part of these stats

I think you should take more stock in the fact that a coach scratches and won't play certain players more than their beastly possession metrics

Brendan Smith IS one of the best possession defensemen in the NHL. He's just not particularly great at other things, like scoring or maintaining his zone coverage. I'm not sure what's so tough about this? You could be an overall bad player but still excel with regards to possession. Conversely, someone like Tyson Barrie is good at scoring, but bad at driving possession. You're conflating two things that aren't the same. Possession metrics don't indicate that you're a good offensive (or defensive) defenseman. They simply indicate that you're a good possession defenseman. Whether or not you value that trait is another story, but the numbers don't lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats say Brendan Smith is one of the best possession defensemen in the NhL and he is not so there are instances of analytics being not the end all be all to understanding a players performance. Usage plays such a huge part of these stats

I think you should take more stock in the fact that a coach scratches and won't play certain players more than their beastly possession metrics

All I'll say to that, is do you really trust Blashill's opinion on not playing Smith and Tatar more? We were a bad team, that backed into the playoffs, that couldn't score goals. Then got waxed in the playoffs. I put more stock in the stats over this coaches opinion, at this point in time anyways.

Back to rumors, Pierre Lebrun linked us to Lucic now that he's hitting the open market. I don't like him as a person and he's a massive piss baby on the ice, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't think a 6'4 tough as nails 20-30 goal scorer could help us. This market is shaping up to be one of the best since the initial lockout. At least up front, defence is pretty thin..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brendan Smith IS one of the best possession defensemen in the NHL. He's just not particularly great at other things, like scoring or maintaining his zone coverage. I'm not sure what's so tough about this? You could be an overall bad player but still excel with regards to possession. Conversely, someone like Tyson Barrie is good at scoring, but bad at driving possession. You're conflating two things that aren't the same. Possession metrics don't indicate that you're a good offensive (or defensive) defenseman. They simply indicate that you're a good possession defenseman. Whether or not you value that trait is another story, but the numbers don't lie.

I like Smith but what this couldn't be more wrong. Smith turned over the puck far too often last season to be a good possession player. It's also questionable to just count shots and then tell that somebody is a good possession player or not.

Smith has the tools to be a good possession player but he wasn't last season. Anyway, his greatest plus is his mobility and speed. He's an excellent skater and that's why Babs liked him that much. At the same time his giveaways were always his biggest problem. Smith is a good defender but he's not a good possession player as he's not solid enough and lacks consistency even when playing really well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not clear enough. We all know what a shot is, what a hit is, what a block is. It's not hard to count for pretty much everybody. Take- and giveaways are different. I don't know how they count them but the numbers are too low. Like I said...don't even need to know hockey to understand that the numbers aren't right. Therefore I'd really worry about you if you don't agree...

Andersson per nhl.com has 0 givaways in 29 regular season games. Marchenko has just 7 takeaways in 66 games. If those numbers are true we shouldn't resign Marchenko and offer huge money to Andersson instead.

A few other numbers leaguewide:

Takeaways:

1. Mark Stone 128 (in just 75 games) :w00t:

2. Jeff Skinner 77

3. Dustin Byfuglien 73

Giveaways:

1. PK Subban 106 (in just 68 games) :blind:

2. Brent Burns 102

3. Joe Thornton 98

They really must think that hockeyfans are extremely stupid.

So you do just use the eyeball test. And besides that you readily admit that you don't understand how the league defines takeaway vs giveaway. Which means at the most fundamental level you are inequipped to say their data is inaccurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I'll say to that, is do you really trust Blashill's opinion on not playing Smith and Tatar more? We were a bad team, that backed into the playoffs, that couldn't score goals. Then got waxed in the playoffs. I put more stock in the stats over this coaches opinion, at this point in time anyways.

Back to rumors, Pierre Lebrun linked us to Lucic now that he's hitting the open market. I don't like him as a person and he's a massive piss baby on the ice, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't think a 6'4 tough as nails 20-30 goal scorer could help us. This market is shaping up to be one of the best since the initial lockout. At least up front, defence is pretty thin..

I think he should have trusted Smith like Babcock did. He will always make a few mistakes but with confidence he'll play well enough to justify his spot and he'd add important elements like speed, skills, mobility or toughness to our defense.

Tatar, like I explained earlier made too many mistakes and didn't look like he'd care too much. He was a lot worse than in his rookie season and even though he got protected like a rookie he failed to solidify his game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you do just use the eyeball test. And besides that you readily admit that you don't understand how the league defines takeaway vs giveaway. Which means at the most fundamental level you are inequipped to say their data is inaccurate.

Let's call it common sense.

Nobody does. Or do you wanna explain me why Mark Stone is by far the best takeaway player in this league and nobody ever realized it? I can't wait to read your explanation.

If those numbers are true, Mark Stone would be an absolute star. Datsyuk's all time NHL-record for takeaways is 144 but in 82 games.

In all fairness, Mark Stone is a good player. But these numbers are just ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.