Member Since
Jun 9, 2019
Favourite Team
New York Islanders
New York
Forum Posts
Posts per Day
Forum Threads
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 26 at 10:53
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 26 at 10:25
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 26 at 9:40
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>PleaseBanMeForMyOwnGood</b></div><div>I don't really know how accurate WAR, SPAR and GAR, they don't provide enough methodology for my liking. Hockey is way too much of a team sport for baseball style analytics. A team like the Islanders had a good season last year points wise but had crazy PDO numbers and negative in a lot of important metrics but still ended with a good season. Which makes those stats highly suspect. I still don't see any proof those other metrics tell anything other than hindsight success. And what I mean by that is a team wins 50 games in the season but was outshot out chanced and and frankly out played but still win, they show good in WAR and SPAR but the number red flags show the team isn't going to sustain its success. There are a lot of red flags with the Islanders and you can keep being a cheerleader and thinks it's going to be fine regardless of everything pointing to rough waters ahead. If the Leafs had as many red flags I would be gravely concerned. Fortunately for Leaf fans, most of their underlying numbers are terrific and with them being really young and just learning a new system, the sky's the limit on where they can go.</div></div>

“They don’t provide enough methodology for my liking”

Basically you want to disregard the metrics so you don’t have to admit the player is good! Sounds rational to me.

By the way, the caps were not a good 5 v 5 team the year they won the cup. In fact, they were well below average by every metric including expected goals!

I know that just put a dent in your narrative, that’s my bad.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 26 at 7:57
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 26 at 7:50
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>PleaseBanMeForMyOwnGood</b></div><div>So GAR is usefull but it also has some glaring weaknesses and that really becomes apparent when you start digging into the Islanders as an example.

The following quote was taken from this article <a href="" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" target="_blank"></a>

"While I think the stat is tremendously useful, there are a few things you have to keep in mind when using it. For one, GAR values are estimates - because it uses regression techniques in some places, there is inherent uncertainty in the values output by the system. Those error bars are hidden from view - we don’t really get to see them, and as a result, you have to be careful not to make conclusions based on GAR values that are relatively close to one another.

Along these same lines, sometimes it spits out counterintuitive values, and it’s hard to see exactly why. The complexity of the model means there’s no longer easy mappings from things we consider ‘inputs’ to player value (points, possession ability, etc.) to the GAR output. They’re obviously correlated, but there are now contextual factors (teammates, competition, score usage) included that make the mapping from input to output more opaque. In that way, the model is perhaps more opaque than one would like. However, this is no different from the heavily accepted WAR stats used in baseball. You can break them down into their core components, but it takes a fair bit of effort.

When I asked Sprigings what he thought the biggest weakness of the stat is, he mentions a more conceptual issue, noting that the stat straddles the line between being a measure of ‘true talent’ as opposed to ‘the value a player provided’. Parts of the even strength offense and defense are more a measure of ‘true talent’ but the rest tends to be a measure of what happened. Sprigings brought up an example where assists per 60 minutes are used as one of the inputs to assess even strength offense. That is a measure of what happened. However, Sprigings feels it would make more sense to use something like expected assists, which is a more apt measure of talent.

GAR, in my opinion, also struggles a little bit in divvying up credit between teammates. Sprigings uses robust mathematical techniques to try and separate the effects from teammates, but it is a non-trivial problem, and even the most robust method may struggle if players spend all of their time on ice together and have very little time apart. This can be more pronounced in situations where one of the players doesn’t have a lot of historical data to go off of (for example, rookies)."

What tells me, is that GAR kind of correlates results without showing what made those results which would then ignore certain red flags about a players season infavour of actual results. So Rielly for example he's very obviously more talented than Pulock but the defensive numbers of the leafs were worse and GAR is based too much on end results rather than what made up the results.

So with all that in mind, and diving into the on ice play metrics of different players, you are 1000% looking for confirmation bias by ignoring every single red flag in the Islanders play and only accepting stats that make you feel more secure in your opinion. Which is exactly what confirmation bias is.</div></div>

That’s one stat down, now do WAR and SPAR! Cmon buddy it seems like you have all day!
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 26 at 7:38
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 26 at 7:35
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 26 at 7:33
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>PleaseBanMeForMyOwnGood</b></div><div>I won't deny that Rielly had a really lucky year last year. However, his possession numbers were above 50%, his shot share percentage was below 50 but his expected goals were above. So I am not sure what point you are making. Trotz keeping everyone to the outside only matters if thats what is happening but the majority of Islander players had negative expected goal percentages. That doesn't at all paint the picture that the Islanders are terrific defensively, they are pretty good but they don't create enough offense to outweigh what they give up defensively. They have been lucky. TO on the other hand has positive numbers almost across the board and this past season spent a long stretch at around .98 for their PDO.

As I have said many many times, I do believe in advance stats and think they tell a story but you need to understand more about hockey to know how all the pieces fit together. You clearly don't if you did you'd be incredibly worried about the Islanders. There is very little evidence that they are going to keep above water over the long run, they just don't have the talent to compete against better teams. They have a good system that limits some of the problems they have as a team but when the percentages swing back the other way as they always do, the Islanders just don't have the guns to outscore even normal luck.</div></div>

You talk like someone who would get mad if he found out one of the leafs players read books by Jordan peterson.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 26 at 7:28
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 26 at 7:25
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 26 at 7:22