Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Traditional and Adaptation

Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Traditional and Adaptation
- bmeltzer

Excellent blog Bill!

I can't understand the all or nothing mentality some folks have when it comes to advanced stats. To me, its just another tool to help evaluate players.

Can advanced stats measure Bobby Clarke 's leadership ability, Dave Poulin's willingness to play through pain or Chris Prongers remarkable poise under pressure? No, of course not, but they are a valuable tool to assist on judging a player and to some degree, whether a team will succeed.

Now can we fast forward to October already?

Personally i like to judge players by how they impose themselves on the game. Tale eric lindros for example, he didnt score in every game, but every shift it sure as hell felt like he would... That is something gew if any stat metrics can measure. No im not talking about just having the puck on his stick, but the skating ability, hitting and finese as well.

Excellent work, Bill. As usual, you've boiled it down perfectly. I've had several run-ins with advanced stats disciples, who's devotion to this paradigm borders on blind religion, where there is little room for dissent.

Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Traditional and Adaptation
- bmeltzer

Good morning, Bil.

Ohhhh...just what I was waiting for - another day of reading about the differences of opinion regarding the weight of importance concerning statistical analysis.

Though yours was an excellent read.

But this to me spoke volumes: "Entire playoff series can turn on emotion, hot goaltending and leadership. Those are things that can't be measured on any chart."

And: "Who is the tone setter when the checking gets tight? Who is going to lift them when they have to chase a game? They don't have that leadership in the room to win when it counts."

Or what I call the "X" factor, the one variable not found in any advanced scouting models, which is why the models should be read in the proper perspective and viewed as tools only and not the end-all-be-all.

Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Traditional and Adaptation
- bmeltzer

Bill, what's your opinion on the plus, minus stat?
Can't remember who, but not long ago a Hockey Buzz article was written about it being a useless, (his opinion), stat.
It was written in defense of Ovechkin, but what is your take on this statistic?

I also remember when we acquired Mark Recchi back in 92 or 93, he criticized the stat, (in an interview), also calling it meaningless.

It's hotter than the bowels of Hades out there

Sometimes all you need is the eye test. About the most advanced I get is with goaltenders and the types of goals they let in. GAA can be skewed just like the +/- stat. If it is a shot he had no chance at I don't get mad, just the soft goals I know all NHL caliber goalies would get. Maybe even if it was poor play of D that led to the goal.

Good morning, Bil.

Ohhhh...just what I was waiting for - another day of reading about the differences of opinion regarding the weight of importance concerning statistical analysis.

Though yours was an excellent read.

But this to me spoke volumes: "Entire playoff series can turn on emotion, hot goaltending and leadership. Those are things that can't be measured on any chart."

And: "Who is the tone setter when the checking gets tight? Who is going to lift them when they have to chase a game? They don't have that leadership in the room to win when it counts."

Or what I call the "X" factor, the one variable not found in any advanced scouting models, which is why the models should be read in the proper perspective and viewed as tools only and not the end-all-be-all.
- 77rams

Just what I was thinking.

The two quotes above both had me nodding when I read them in the blog, but that's not to say that I'm against the use of advanced stats in the right context.

It's more the approach of those in the discussion, as Bill pointed out - "More and more, people in hockey are realizing that it is not analytics per se that are turn off. Rather it's the way some of the proponents deliver the message."

And in some ways it's how does one as a fan prefer to watch, analyze and/or discuss the game. Through metrics, stats and charts or through heart and soul, blood and grit.

Sometimes all you need is the eye test. About the most advanced I get is with goaltenders and the types of goals they let in. GAA can be skewed just like the +/- stat. If it is a shot he had no chance at I don't get mad, just the soft goals I know all NHL caliber goalies would get. Maybe even if it was poor play of D that led to the goal.
- Pelle31Forever

GAA stat is skewed, but save % is more accurate, all goalies let in a softie here & there, but they also face difficult shots as well.
They kind of even out.

And in some ways it's how does one as a fan prefer to watch, analyze and/or discuss the game. Through metrics, stats and charts or through heart and soul, blood and grit.
- wilsonecho91

As a fan watching, it's freedom of choice, certainly. As an NHL exec, or even a fantasy player, advanced stats can be a big help.

When I watch a game, I'm not looking at a guy and thinking "his Corsi's gotta suck this week"...I'm watching the units on the ice and hoping for a good show. When I put on my fantasy GM hat, I may look into advanced stats when evaluating a potential FA pickup or trade.

Another scout said to me, "Here's the problem. Hockey isn't math. In math, if A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then A is always greater than C. Matchups in hockey don't always work that way.

I said this, or something like it, weeks ago. This is the key.

Hockey is not baseball. The people who claim anything more than the stats right now being supplementary are just flat out wrong.

In baseball, you can look at someone's BABIP. Say it's .356. That's really high. One might say unsustainably high. A regression could happen, and we can conclude that just looking at the stat, not watching him play....hell, even if you watched him play, you wouldn't notice he was getting lucky with his BABIP. And if that player's overall BA drops, then we can say it was expected per se, since he was getting lucky with a high BABIP.

Baseball gave us advanced analytics. Other sports are trying to look for ways to advance their stats in a similar way. That's why I'm bringing baseball up here.

Moving to hockey, I've said this before you just can't look at Corsi and Fenwick like BABIP. You can't look at someone's corsi and conclude concretely using ONLY the stat. Hockey is too team oriented and fluid. You can use these stats in baseball because it is an individual sport: pitcher pitches the ball, hitter swings/doesn't swing at ball. If the hitter swings, he hits it or doesn't hit it. If he hits it, it is either a hit, a ground out, a fly out, or an error occurs. It's a flowchart.

Hockey is not a flowchart. For this reason, I believe advanced analytics will continue to serve as a supplement to an eye test. It gives part of the picture, and it is a useful tool in evaluating a player's game when used in conjunction with watching the player play.

If you think advanced analytics offer the full picture of a player's game, you're wrong.

If you think advanced analytics offer no insight into a player's game at all, you're wrong.

/wall

Another scout said to me, "Here's the problem. Hockey isn't math. In math, if A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then A is always greater than C. Matchups in hockey don't always work that way.

I said this, or something like it, weeks ago. This is the key.

Hockey is not baseball. The people who claim anything more than the stats right now being supplementary are just flat out wrong.

In baseball, you can look at someone's BABIP. Say it's .356. That's really high. One might say unsustainably high. A regression could happen, and we can conclude that just looking at the stat, not watching him play....hell, even if you watched him play, you wouldn't notice he was getting lucky with his BABIP. And if that player's overall BA drops, then we can say it was expected per se, since he was getting lucky with a high BABIP.

Baseball gave us advanced analytics. Other sports are trying to look for ways to advance their stats in a similar way. That's why I'm bringing baseball up here.

Moving to hockey, I've said this before you just can't look at Corsi and Fenwick like BABIP. You can't look at someone's corsi and conclude concretely using ONLY the stat. Hockey is too team oriented and fluid. You can use these stats in baseball because it is an individual sport: pitcher pitches the ball, hitter swings/doesn't swing at ball. If the hitter swings, he hits it or doesn't hit it. If he hits it, it is either a hit, a ground out, a fly out, or an error occurs. It's a flowchart.

Hockey is not a flowchart. For this reason, I believe advanced analytics will continue to serve as a supplement to an eye test. It gives part of the picture, and it is a useful tool in evaluating a player's game when used in conjunction with watching the player play.

If you think advanced analytics offer the full picture of a player's game, you're wrong.

If you think advanced analytics offer no insight into a player's game at all, you're wrong.

/wall
- Giroux_Is_God

Very well done sir!!!

Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Traditional and Adaptation
- bmeltzer

I started using advanced stats in a manner similarly to Strudwick. I found that my observations of the game coincided in many ways with what the stats heavy blogs were saying(for instance, people trashing Matt Carle using the "eye" test & Advanced stats guys lauding him).

I noticed a lot of other folks, whose opinions I respect, would make observations on players and it would correspond to what stats guys were saying as well. In most of these cases, the people whose opinions I respected either didn't use any advanced stats or held them in disdain. That showed me there was value there.

Stats are not the end all, be all. They are a tool, but they will never and should never, fully replace scouts in the rinks, watching and evaluating players. Most serious stats advocates feel this way and readily admit it. There's flaws in any stat. Scoring stats can be helped by the system a player's team plays. Goalie stats can be inflated if he plays behind a team that stresses defense and limiting chances.

The idea behind stats is to look at as much raw data as possible and further evaluate and recognize trends and get a better idea of what to expect in the future.

There are stats guys who take it too far. For instance, stats guys I know will call teams dumb for not taking a chance on Nikolai Zherdev. To me, a lot more telling than Zherdev's possession numbers(which are pretty damned good) is the fact that 3 NHL teams and 2 KHL teams have kicked him to the curb with a smile. Watching him play, you can see why. The talent is immense, but the willingness to go to the dirty areas and be a positive factor for his teammates is lacking.

There are also stats guys that are abrasive. Tyler Dellow has done some really interesting work with stats. I stopped following him on twitter after about a week, because the chip on his shoulder was bigger than the grand canyon. There are stats guys like him out there that do a poor job "selling" (for lack of a better word) how valuable a tool stats can be.

On the flip side, for every Dellow on the stats side, there's a Steve Simmons, Dave Staples or Mark Spector who are just as abrasive and vile. One could argue that the dismissal of their work by MSM types led to the attitudes and abrasiveness of guys like Dellow. We have all seen the "Mom's Basement" comments from guys like Spector and Simmons.

So as far as the attitude argument, both sides are equally as guilty of abrasive BS.

My final thought is, if there's a tool that can help you gain insight-and a good number of advanced metrics, despite the flaws have shown to be pretty good indicators of future events-why ignore it or ridicule it? I don't watch games with a calculator and spreadsheet open, I watch the game for the game. If the mood strikes me, or if I notice something I want to take a closer look at, then after the game, I will delve into the stats.

If that's not for you, great. But don't ignore the value there because some idiot says that stats are the best way to analyze the game. Look into it for yourself, don't dismiss it because the proponent of using the information is an assclown.

Another scout said to me, "Here's the problem. Hockey isn't math. In math, if A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then A is always greater than C. Matchups in hockey don't always work that way.

I said this, or something like it, weeks ago. This is the key.

Hockey is not baseball. The people who claim anything more than the stats right now being supplementary are just flat out wrong.

In baseball, you can look at someone's BABIP. Say it's .356. That's really high. One might say unsustainably high. A regression could happen, and we can conclude that just looking at the stat, not watching him play....hell, even if you watched him play, you wouldn't notice he was getting lucky with his BABIP. And if that player's overall BA drops, then we can say it was expected per se, since he was getting lucky with a high BABIP.

Baseball gave us advanced analytics. Other sports are trying to look for ways to advance their stats in a similar way. That's why I'm bringing baseball up here.

Moving to hockey, I've said this before you just can't look at Corsi and Fenwick like BABIP. You can't look at someone's corsi and conclude concretely using ONLY the stat. Hockey is too team oriented and fluid. You can use these stats in baseball because it is an individual sport: pitcher pitches the ball, hitter swings/doesn't swing at ball. If the hitter swings, he hits it or doesn't hit it. If he hits it, it is either a hit, a ground out, a fly out, or an error occurs. It's a flowchart.

Hockey is not a flowchart. For this reason, I believe advanced analytics will continue to serve as a supplement to an eye test. It gives part of the picture, and it is a useful tool in evaluating a player's game when used in conjunction with watching the player play.

If you think advanced analytics offer the full picture of a player's game, you're wrong.

If you think advanced analytics offer no insight into a player's game at all, you're wrong.

/wall
- Giroux_Is_God

perfect
next topic

For example, this is why the "big and physical defensive defensemen" still has a role in the NHL game. NHL clubs still want a big-bodied defender or two in their lineups who excel at non-puck related duties such as applying muscle in front of his own net, pinning opponents to the boards, and blocking shots. On the flip side, we are also seeing the demand for that role starting to lessen just a bit -- or least the puck-handling competency demands increase in addition to performing the traditional parts of the job.

Everybody chases trends. Then they become standards. Then new trends emerge to be chased after. etc.

Everybody chases trends. Then they become standards. Then new trends emerge to be chased after. etc.
- wolfhounds

Absolutely. Look at butterfly goalies. After Roy, teams were grabbing every QMJHL goalie who came out and had half decent potential.

The key is not to overload on on type of player. You need a mix. If you have 5 Nick Grossmanns or 5 Erik Gustafssons on defense, you're going to have issues.

Thanks for the insight Bill. I have the same leadership question about the Flyers right now. Don't get me wrong, we have some talent, however we miss that "Pronger" style leadership. I think that is what we miss that the most since Pronger has left the game. Pronger was a winner, and knew what it took to win. He respected the locker room code, but did say something when it needed to be said. I was kind of surprised when some players admired Jagr's work ethic when he was with the team. I came away from the player comments with a doubt about the team's work ethic. Isn't that why we traded some players to bring in some new blood? However, I am still unsure that any real change was made. You hear about G getting drunk, and making a fool of himself. Isn't a team captain suppose to set an example? I like Hexy's idea of letting the kids develop, and mature before they are able to play at the NHL level. I also wouldn't be surprised if the team decided to have an ethics class or two. Hard work, and a clean lifestyle should come before the money is given to the players. If you earn something, then maybe you can appreciate it more. Just advancing players for the sake of drawing ticket holders, is not a good plan. In addition, I think that the players of today may require a little more seasoning than they did a few years ago.

Just my thoughts. Thanks.

Thanks for the insight Bill. I have the same leadership question about the Flyers right now. Don't get me wrong, we have some talent, however we miss that "Pronger" style leadership. I think that is what we miss that the most since Pronger has left the game. Pronger was a winner, and knew what it took to win. He respected the locker room code, but did say something when it needed to be said. I was kind of surprised when some players admired Jagr's work ethic when he was with the team. I came away from the player comments with a doubt about the team's work ethic. Isn't that why we traded some players to bring in some new blood? However, I am still unsure that any real change was made. You hear about G getting drunk, and making a fool of himself. Isn't a team captain suppose to set an example? I like Hexy's idea of letting the kids develop, and mature before they are able to play at the NHL level. I also wouldn't be surprised if the team decided to have an ethics class or two. Hard work, and a clean lifestyle should come before the money is given to the players. If you earn something, then maybe you can appreciate it more. Just advancing players for the sake of drawing ticket holders, is not a good plan. In addition, I think that the players of today may require a little more seasoning than they did a few years ago.

Just my thoughts. Thanks.

Absolutely. Look at butterfly goalies. After Roy, teams were grabbing every QMJHL goalie who came out and had half decent potential.

The key is not to overload on on type of player. You need a mix. If you have 5 Nick Grossmanns or 5 Erik Gustafssons on defense, you're going to have issues.
- Jsaquella

Where have you gone, Maxime Oullette?

Where have you gone, Maxime Oullette?

- BiggE

Believe it or not, he's coaching now. Odd considering one of the reasons he supposedly never made it big was that he had an attitude and didn't respnd well to coaching

Absolutely. Look at butterfly goalies. After Roy, teams were grabbing every QMJHL goalie who came out and had half decent potential.

The key is not to overload on on type of player. You need a mix. If you have 5 Nick Grossmanns or 5 Erik Gustafssons on defense, you're going to have issues.
- Jsaquella

Hey! We had 1 of each and had issues.... Hate to see what that team looks like

Thanks for the insight Bill. I have the same leadership question about the Flyers right now. Don't get me wrong, we have some talent, however we miss that "Pronger" style leadership. I think that is what we miss that the most since Pronger has left the game. Pronger was a winner, and knew what it took to win. He respected the locker room code, but did say something when it needed to be said. I was kind of surprised when some players admired Jagr's work ethic when he was with the team. I came away from the player comments with a doubt about the team's work ethic. Isn't that why we traded some players to bring in some new blood? However, I am still unsure that any real change was made. You hear about G getting drunk, and making a fool of himself. Isn't a team captain suppose to set an example? I like Hexy's idea of letting the kids develop, and mature before they are able to play at the NHL level. I also wouldn't be surprised if the team decided to have an ethics class or two. Hard work, and a clean lifestyle should come before the money is given to the players. If you earn something, then maybe you can appreciate it more. Just advancing players for the sake of drawing ticket holders, is not a good plan. In addition, I think that the players of today may require a little more seasoning than they did a few years ago.

Just my thoughts. Thanks.
- OrangeAndBlack1

While Pronger is irreplaceable, I do think the Flyers have some guys that can be leaders or over the next few years, grow into leaders

Can be leaders now: Giroux, Streit, Coburn, Emery
Giroux already leads by on ice example, Streit is a former captain, Coburn plays the tough minutes and rarely misses a game and Emery, well, we all saw how they responded after he pounded Holtby, and he's well respected in the room.

Can be leaders very soon: Simmonds, Voracek, L. Schenn
Simmonds, IMO, is just about there, a real heart and soul guy and most likely will inherit Hartnell's "A", Voracek is a guy who, if he can bring it every shift, has the talent to lead by example, and Luke Schenn, if he can play well on a consistent basis, can show leadership as a guy who stands up for his teammates.

And in the future: Couturier, Laughton
Couturier is the kind of all around fine player that leads by just always playing the game the right way and Laughton has future captain written all over him.

Believe it or not, he's coaching now. Odd considering one of the reasons he supposedly never made it big was that he had an attitude and didn't respnd well to coaching
- Jsaquella

Go figure, maturity is a funny thing!