All these numbers and advanced statistics just seem like a lot of hocus pocus. I agree with those about the "eye test." There is also the "gut" test. Sometimes you just get a feeling when watching a game. Hockey has a lot of that in it, part of why I love it so much. How many of us can just feel the pens are about to score a goal, or have on scored against them? My hand is up. I understand the idea behind this level of analysis of the game but it also bothers me. Like looking at a piece of artwork and having someone explain all the technical ways the painter mixed the paint and applied the brush etc etc when all you want to do is enjoy the painting... maybe not the best example but you get my drift. So more power to those rocking the advanced stats... it's not for me though
- ChrisMS

I think they help for players that you don't see very much. For us, we see the Pens every game, so we usually have a very good grasp on what a player brings, and what his worth is. Same with division rivals, and other teams that are on national TV a lot.

But for other players, these stats can be helpful. I mean, I have an idea of what type of players Radim Vrbata or Marc-Edouard Vlasic are, but it's nice to see how they are used (if a coach trusts them against quality competition), and how their possession numbers look, etc.

Like Gunner said, it's not the be all end all, but it can help fill out your perspective of a guy that you don't see more than a few games a season.

I agree and as I said, interesting to see stat wise Crosby beats out Malkin.

Personally, I only evaluate players based on Hits and +/-. I don't even watch the games, for fear it might color my crystal clear understanding of hokey.

This is the biggest misconception about stats. You aren't supposed to solely rely on them. Nobody is telling anybody to choose stats over the eye test, or eye test over stats. If you aren't using both you aren't doing it right.

Reminds me of the fools who argue over if The Wire is better than Breaking Bad. Who gives a crap, they are both great. I watch them both, enjoy them both.

The truth is you have a vocal minority on each side arguing aggressively for one side of the stat argument over the other,when in fact the majority of people understand that it is shades of gray and are open to the learning process.
- Ryan_Wilson

whoa mr. gunner... a little defensive. Where did I say I "rely" on one or the other. I prefer on over the other. and what am I not doing right? I didn't know there was a right and wrong way to enjoy analyzing my favorite sport. I haven't seen the Wire or Breaking bad! I don't personally have any interest in breaking down the game into numbers and % anymore than it already is. I understand how to read hockey blogs but I really don't care how the internet actually works. more power to you with these statistics but, and this isn't meant to be froggy one bit, when you discuss that aspect on your blogs I tend to skip past it to the other content. just don't care. I think I have more then held my own in analysis of this team without them.

you tend to bring a nice viewpoint to most issues mr rival. I agree the stats would be useful for players/teams not seen all to often. But I would personally prefer to get a perspective from several persons who DO watch that individual regularly than rely on numbers. as gunner says, both would be helpful, but give me the person first, numbers second

Personally, I only evaluate players based on Hits and +/-. I don't even watch the games, for fear it might color my crystal clear understanding of hokey.
- BulliesPhan87

Don't forget giveaways and takeaways. Those are the be-all-end-all stat about how good a player is with the puck. I mean, Rob Scuderi had more giveaways last season than Kris Letang, so obviously Scuderi is more careless with the puck than Letang.

An FYI for anybody buying their "pre-sale" tickets for the outdoor game in Chicago--the searches through ticketmaster tend to kick back the same couple seats in each price range even when searching multiple times. If you call the Penguins, they have more seats available in the various price ranges to offer to STH.

you tend to bring a nice viewpoint to most issues mr rival. I agree the stats would be useful for players/teams not seen all to often. But I would personally prefer to get a perspective from several persons who DO watch that individual regularly than rely on numbers. as gunner says, both would be helpful, but give me the person first, numbers second
- ChrisMS

i think the opposite. seeing stats on a player you dont see often is totally misleading. a guy may put up some goals, but is terrible defensively. stats are good for fantasy hockey

i think the opposite. seeing stats on a player you dont see often is totally misleading. a guy may put up some goals, but is terrible defensively. stats are good for fantasy hockey
- drummer829

The point of improving the stats is to attempt to account for this, is it not? Obviously its not the same as having a large volume of watching them play but every bit of information helps IMO. If a combination of advanced stats can account for 80% of a players contribution to a team, then that means scouts can get 5 times as much done as without them. Its at least a very useful tool.

These new statistics are like vegetables.

As a kid you can ignore them and dislike them because at first you don't like them.

Or you can eat them and be healthier for it.

You also don't need to eat vegetables all the time to have a benefit from them.

These new statistics are like vegetables.

As a kid you can ignore them and dislike them because at first you don't like them.

Or you can eat them and be healthier for it.

You also don't need to eat vegetables all the time to have a benefit from them.
- Ryan_Wilson

RT

RT
- walshy66

Saw that too