A defensman can certainly take that risk. And if he breaks up the play, he's a hero. But if the puck is chipped past him, it's a 2 on 1, and he's a goat. It's a read and react. Most defenseman, will read the play, and base his actions on the situation. No back pressure from the forwards, most defenseman will back in and concede the blueline.
- MJL

It's not about going after the puck specifically, it's about making it more difficult for the opposing player to gain entry.

It's about time and space. The more time and space you give a player to make a play in the offensive zone, the more scoring chances you're going to give up.

There is no difference. That's the point. They're all stats.

Some choose to count and use everything at our disposal.

Some choose to trust their eyes.

(hint: there is nothing more deceiving than the human eye and brain)
- bradleyc4

The human brain has to correctly interpret any stat. That is where the issues come in. They aren't black and white.

It's not about going after the puck specifically, it's about making it more difficult for the opposing player to gain entry.

It's about time and space. The more time and space you give a player to make a play in the offensive zone, the more scoring chances you're going to give up.
- bradleyc4

Yep, and taking away that time and space is a team game, not an individual game. Ask the Boston Bruins. And a defenseman has to be supported to be able to take away time and space. No one player can provide gap control all over the ice without his teammates. It's a team game.

In terms of advanced stats, it's easy. Same issue as +/-. A defenseman can play his check and his position perfectly. Other players on the ice can turn the puck over, or blow a defensive assignment, leading to a number of shots against. That defenseman leaves the ice with a negative corsi against number for that shift, when he played his position perfectly on the shift. In the same way that a player can get a negative for being on the ice for a goal against when he had nothing to do with it. It's false data.
Same thing for a zone entry. A defenseman is faced with an attacker with speed with no neutral zone presence, in an outmanned situation, with no backchecking pressure from the forwards. He is forced to back up and give up the zone. It results in false data and a nagative towards that player.
It's the fatal flaw of all advnaced stats. It may be better then what was used previously. But it cannot isolate one player from the ice in a team game, and assign a result to that player, and only that player. It is impossible.
Advanced stats are fatally flawed in terms of rating a player. They cannot, and should not be used to rate how good a player is.
- MJL

Here's my question to you: what stat (any kind) is truly reflective of an individual effort and not affected by other variables on the ice?

The answer is none -- not even G's or SV% or FO%.

Does that mean we should render all G's, SV%'s and FO%'s as 'false data' and assign zero value to them at all?

Of course not. So why does that only hold true for non-traditional stats?

and that he has to be on the right line, with the right players in the right situation.
- hammarby31

Like most players in the NHL do, except for the very top players in the League.

It doesn't mean that they're better at analyzing the game.
- bradleyc4

not always but on average they are

It's not about going after the puck specifically, it's about making it more difficult for the opposing player to gain entry.

It's about time and space. The more time and space you give a player to make a play in the offensive zone, the more scoring chances you're going to give up.
- bradleyc4

Which is exactly what made Ryan McDonagh so difficult for Giroux to deal with; big enough to challenge at the blue line physically, active enough stick to make little chip plays tough, good enough skater to turn and go.

Yep, and taking away that time and space is a team game, not an individual game. Ask the Boston Bruins. And a defenseman has to be supported to be able to take away time and space. No one player can provide gap control all over the ice without his teammates. It's a team game.
- MJL

What's the point of keeping any stats then? There isn't any one individual stat that means anything then, is what I'm gathering from your responses.

(hint: there is nothing more deceiving than the human eye and brain)
- bradleyc4

What about a woman with a credit card?

What about a woman with a credit card?
- mayorofangrytown

My brain can't interpret this information. Too many variables.

Yep, and taking away that time and space is a team game, not an individual game. Ask the Boston Bruins. And a defenseman has to be supported to be able to take away time and space. No one player can provide gap control all over the ice without his teammates. It's a team game.
- MJL

Im sorry. This is not an "advanced stat". There is no computation involved in getting this stat. It is merely a recorded stat line. The same as "scoring chances" or "hits" or "+/-". Yes, it can be interpreted wrong or any way you want.

To dismiss these numbers is like saying a goalie has a bad SV% but is still a good goalie because the team played awful in front of him. Yeah, that happens sometimes, but the truly good goaltenders do not succumb to that metric.

Here's my question to you: what stat (any kind) is truly reflective of an individual effort and not affected by other variables on the ice?

The answer is none -- not even G's or SV% or FO%.

Does that mean we should render all G's, SV%'s and FO%'s as 'false data' and assign zero value to them at all?

Of course not. So why does that only hold true for non-traditional stats?
- Tomahawk

Advanced stats can't tell you why something happened. They can only tell you what happened. They are not definitive when looking at individual players.

Can you honestly tell me that a goalies SV% is independent of the play of the team in front of them?

Advanced stats in a lot of cases, have improved upon some traditional stats such as +/-. But they cannot be used to say this player is a good player, or this player is a bad player.

As far as goals, and other stats are more black and white. A player that scores 40 goals is obviously a good goal scorer for various reasons. But we don't pretend that he's doing it all himself, and nobody is passing him the puck, do we?

Im sorry. This is not an "advanced stat". There is no computation involved in getting this stat. It is merely a recorded stat line. The same as "scoring chances" or "hits" or "+/-". Yes, it can be interpreted wrong or any way you want.

To dismiss these numbers is like saying a goalie has a bad SV% but is still a good goalie because the team played awful in front of him. Yeah, that happens sometimes, but the truly good goaltenders do not succumb to that metric.
- FlyersSteve118

You can call it whatever you want. But it's not a traditional stat.

It's not about dismissing the stat. If a good goalie like Lundqvist plays on a poor defensive team like Edmonton, his numbers are going to be effected. He may post better numbers then a lesser goalie. But he is without a doubt going to suffer due to the play in front of him.

Who coined the term "advanced stats" for essentially +/- based on shots/attempts? I would have done better in "advanced calculus" in college if it was such a basic jump

What's the point of keeping any stats then? There isn't any one individual stat that means anything then, is what I'm gathering from your responses.
- bradleyc4

They can tell you what happened on the ice. But not why it happened. That requires interpretation and context.

The Bruins wouldn't be dumb enough to insert Andrew MacDonald into their line-up.
- bradleyc4

Sure they would. They are playing Meszaros half the time.

You can call it whatever you want. But it's not a traditional stat.

It's not about dismissing the stat. If a good goalie like Lundqvist plays on a poor defensive team like Edmonton, his numbers are going to be effected. He may post better numbers then a lesser goalie. But he is without a doubt going to suffer due to the play in front of him.
- MJL

I do not give a poop about Lundqvist. My point was not about a goalie.

I'm saying these numbers aren't irrelevant just because you say so. They are a recorded stat line. Yes they are susceptible to interpretation, but they are far from meaningless.

Advanced stats can't tell you why something happened. They can only tell you what happened. They are not definitive when looking at individual players.

Can you honestly tell me that a goalies SV% is independent of the play of the team in front of them?

Advanced stats in a lot of cases, have improved upon some traditional stats such as +/-. But they cannot be used to say this player is a good player, or this player is a bad player.

As far as goals, and other stats are more black and white. A player that scores 40 goals is obviously a good goal scorer for various reasons. But we don't pretend that he's doing it all himself, and nobody is passing him the puck, do we?
- MJL

Does anyone want to bring up Rob Brown and toss around the term 'obviously" and compare goal scoring and poor zone entry/Andy MacDonald or would this be too logical of an approach?

Does anyone want to bring up Rob Brown and toss around the term 'obviously" and compare goal scoring and poor zone entry/Andy MacDonald or would this be too logical of an approach?
- mayorofangrytown

Its OBVIOUSLY because he uses spicy brown mustard instead of yellow mustard on his balogne and cheese sandwiches.

I do not give a poop about Lundqvist. My point was not about a goalie.

I'm saying these numbers aren't irrelevant just because you say so. They are a recorded stat line. Yes they are susceptible to interpretation, but they are far from meaningless.
- FlyersSteve118

how far and what standard of measurement are we using?

how far and what standard of measurement are we using?
- wilsonecho91

angstroms. we're using angstroms.

angstroms. we're using angstroms.
- hammarby31

Do I carry the one?

Anyone hear if Lavi's coaching anywhere?