That's a failed answer. You don't know where they get them from. What's the criteria they use, for what's a successful zone entry and what's not.

If a forward enters the zone, and a defenseman wedges him off the puck 15 feet inside the blueline, and his defense partner gets the puck and transitions the other way, is that a successful zone entry?
- MJL

it comes from their eyes just like it does for NHL teams. in fact the people that started doing it WORK for NHL teams. its been going on for years and the information is there for anyone to read. keep ignoring it all you want

http://nhlnumbers.com/201...a-for-the-wild-and-flyers

http://nhlnumbers.com/201...a-unique-tracking-project

it comes from their eyes just like it does for NHL teams. in fact the people that started doing it WORK for NHL teams. its been going on for years and the information is there for anyone to read. keep ignoring it all you want

http://nhlnumbers.com/201...a-for-the-wild-and-flyers

http://nhlnumbers.com/201...a-unique-tracking-project
- YuenglingJagr

Exactly, so some human watches a game and determines the data, for every NHL team. Very unreliable, and extremely suspect. So easy to punch so many holes in. Anyone who watches the game knows there are umpteen variables involved in looking at any single rush with the puck. I haven't ignored it, I've questioned the validity of it.

Exactly, so some human watches a game and determines the data, for every NHL team. Very unreliable, and extremely suspect. So easy to punch so many holes in. Anyone who watches the game knows there are umpteen variables involved in looking at any single rush with the puck. I haven't ignored it, I've questioned the validity of it.
- MJL

And NHL teams have robots watching the games?

you can try to poke holes in it all you want, but the data doesnt need 100% absolute data in order to give viable and legitimate answers

And NHL teams have robots watching the games?

you can try to poke holes in it all you want, but the data doesnt need 100% absolute data in order to give viable and legitimate answers
- YuenglingJagr

No, NHL teams are using video, and not just looking at raw numbers. For example, when looking at how a defenseman defends against a rush, they aren't just looking at if the the puck gets across the blueline, that's stupidity. They're looking at if the defenseman made the right read, based on a number of variables, including back check support, did his defense partner pinch in, creating an odd man rush against, was there a dump in, and a defense change behind it, allowing a quick up outlet for the other team, where the pairing coming on the ice, has no choice but to back in, and on and on, and on.

The specific example I gave in a previous post, which you ignored, of a defenseman sealing a player off and knocking him off the puck, 15 feet inside the defensive zone, and reversing the puck to his partner for a transition out, would be deemed a successful zone entry by the opposition according to the links you posted. Any credible coach would label that a quality defensive play, by a defender.

I don't need to try and poke holes in it, when they're so blatantly obvious. Yes, because hockey is a team game, the raw data collection methods that websites use, to form the stats that we as fans have access to, are very unreliable. You mentioned some of the people have been hired by NHL teams. Do you think it's to do the same thing they were doing before, for free, and the team decided to hire them and pay them a salary for it? That's common sense. NHL teams don't just look at raw data and flawed stats. They look at the actual play, and break each individual play down, and critique was the right play made or not. They have the software and technology to do that. Arizona said they spend about 6 hours breaking down each of their games, to compile their analytics. What do you think they're doing?

It's a team game, where players cannot be isolated by the flawed stats that fans have access to. To state that a stat doesn't need absolute data as best as possible, belies common sense. Garbage in, garbage out.