I love how it’s now officially boiled down to simple puck possession stats. Don’t tell that to me, tell it to your brethren net-wide who argue that it quantifies the game. They already had stats for that by the way, which suggested the same thing. The necessity for it to be more complex than previous, wasn’t necessary at all.

]]>Lordy lordy…when the stat freaks come to a group conclusion on the value of these things, send it to a vote and get it over with. I’d ask if you even read half of what I’ve been saying but I’ve dealt with you on wings forums before, you’re the confrontational closet-troll type.

]]>That’s not the analytics that they are talking about here.

Over time, on average, fundamental understanding paired with quantitative analysis is going to beat fundamental understanding alone.

]]>You want to know a good stat from a bad one? Ask a statistician.

You dont really get it. Your comment that “ther are too many variables in hoickey” illustates that. Good stats can tell you which stats are useless. That’s the point – turning data into real information – including where NOT to look.

And about predictions – you dont need to be right all the time. In our business, if we are right 51% of the time, we make money. Its the same with a statistical analysis of sports. If you can help the GM make slightly better decisions over time, it adds up to a big win.

]]>true … but why only fourth … one would think the top ranking fenwick rating would have won the cup

did the fenwick rating predict teams like dallas would gas their last game permitting kings to slink-in the back door … show me the mojo magic number cruncher who poured over spreadsheets to foresee that outcome

the best thing proponents of statistics do is wave statistics … that’s what statistics are for … attempt to apply logic to the illogical

]]>Again, these statistics are only one piece of the equation, but there is some clear correlation there. I don’t really understand why there is so much resistance.

]]>don’t tell me what i mean in effort to twist spin argument

a big run begins in the moment … teams like the kings have won cups against odds and statistics predicting the contrary

scotty bowman won a cup or two … he happily told anyone who listened that statistics are for losers … too right

one might assume president’s trophy winners bring favourable stats to game one of the playoffs … how many of them have gone on to win cups

the only statistic that matters is statistics evolving in the now

]]>his teams never won a stanley cup, but there is a statue of mr. nielson in vancouver

waving a white flag in surrender

]]>More shots directed at opposition net = better puck possession= better chance at sustaining long term success

Less shots directed at opposition = less puck possession = worse chance at sustaining long term success

Corsi and Fenwick are general guidelines for measuring which teams are better puck possession teams – who would argue that worse puck possession teams are set up better for future success?

]]>You look like you’re scared and defensive. Baseball can obviously be quantified more than any other sport, I mean c’mon just look at it. Hockey is the furthest thing from baseball.

]]>reliance on statistics creates a common ground for folly … the stock markets can be brought to their knees by over-reliance on statistics by players using the same software employing statistics to automatically trigger buying and selling, producing communal catastrophe

you see it at the track as well … twenty to thirty percent of winners are favourites, made so by people using the same data and analytical methods, roughly congruent with beyer speed figures for every horse … thank you for saving me the work

with other favourites to discard, the field is narrowed and knowledgeable punters can concentrate on spot plays among remaining horses where odds are better and reward for risk produces better value … numbers cannot beat being at the track first hand to observe horses in the paddock and when they warm-up

hockey’s the same … there are too many variables brought together in handicapping systems shared by anyone willing to buy the numbers, producing communal catastrophe

analytics are of great value in producing general understandings for managers and coaches no doubt … without their use teams are playing at a disadvantage against teams better prepared … still, numbers do not measure heart and desire as it arises and grows in the moment

and statistics cannot predict outcomes … who would work for a living if they did

if you play the sports pools and bet hockey, don’t even consider making a bet until the conclusion of game two in each round … teams losing at home in either or both the first two games tend to continue losing … the inverse is true for teams winning on the road, not just by score but by superior and confident play

reading body language of players on the benches and watching players interacting, even when trailing, is a big tell … teams who look confident and assured behave that way for a reason … they’re full of it and ready for a big run

with a lights-out goalie and timely bounces and barrels of luck, teams are in with a chance in what is truly a crapshoot

]]>Another area that’s impossible to predict: politics. And yet Nate Silver did predict the last US election, and the dinosaurs with their ‘gut’ predictions could not understand how they were so wrong.

]]>THIS IS WHY BUFFALO WILL BE GOOD!

Murray is huge on analytics and Pegula has dumped SERIOUS money into scouting and the analytics side of the operation…this will not be Edmonton all over again, they have the pieces and the people, as well as the money to get it right.

]]>