I think it's great if a franchise uses it. I just don't want them to use them as their primary source of analysis.

When you go and scout a player, more so than when you go and scout a game you really get a good grasp of what is going on.

When you go to a game and your primary purpose is entertainment you tend to follow the puck, whereas much of the game is played away from it. I think that's where analytics factor in for the casual fan or even the fan who's primary purpose is to follow the puck.

You are going to learn so much more by watching a player game in and game out objectively than you are by reading a comparehensive stat sheet however.
- golfingsince

I 100% agree. When you watch a game either on tv or in person and you see a player who stands out, and is scoring or is productive, analytics arent needed. I think analytics are great when you are losing, or trying to fix something, or trying to find out how well you think a player can fit in. Everyone thinks DP is an average 3rd pairing d man, his stats prove hes capable of more on a team full of bad D. Only reason i read up on it is cause we kept losing and i wanted to see who was more at fault than who.

I don't make fun of things I don't understand. If I didn't understand, i'd learn about them and ask questions to learn and understand.
- manvanfan

I don't "understand" how people can live in Manitoba with those big fecking Mosquito's. That's why I make "fun" of them

Analytics arent something that are easily understandable without a considerable amount of time reading. I only recent got into them in the past year. I find the people who dont like them compare them like new age cars and old school mechanics. Old mechanics hate all the computer and electrical stuff of new cars cause its not something you can fix or understand with a wrench. Analytics are the same, old school fans just don't seem to want to open up about it, which is fine, its not for everyone.
- Codes1087

I would have to say the reason I think some are more into analytics of the game is because it helps them understand what a former player or a failed junior player *cough* Hefty *couch* already sees during the game.

TG talks about the "little things" during the game. The "normal" fan see's goals, assists, saves.

Not everyone is capable of seeing or viewing things that NHL GM's, scouts, etc see's. Numbers can then show them.

I don't "understand" how people can live in Manitoba with those big fecking Mosquito's. That's why I make "fun" of them
- VanHockeyGuy

Ya know, it's not as bad some years as others.

I would have to say the reason I think some are more into analytics of the game is because it helps them understand what a former player or a failed junior player *cough* Hefty *couch* already sees during the game.

TG talks about the "little things" during the game. The "normal" fan see's goals, assists, saves.

Not everyone is capable of seeing or viewing things that NHL GM's, scouts, etc see's. Numbers can then show them.
- manvanfan

This suggests you're a Millennial.

*Updated no-trust list*

a) short people
b) hockey analytics
c) millennials

I would have to say the reason I think some are more into analytics of the game is because it helps them understand what a former player or a failed junior player *cough* Hefty *couch* already sees during the game.

TG talks about the "little things" during the game. The "normal" fan see's goals, assists, saves.

Not everyone is capable of seeing or viewing things that NHL GM's, scouts, etc see's. Numbers can then show them.
- manvanfan

I would agree somewhat. I used to play hockey as a kid and still play now, im not sure anything would have changed about my liking of analytics if i had or hadnt played. I just recently within the last year really got into them. I dont think they hold as much weight as people probably think i do. Again, if a team is winning, do people care about individual stats of a player lol. Its only when a team loses that people try to understand why, enter analytics.

This suggests you're a Millennial.

*Updated no-trust list*

a) short people
b) hockey analytics
c) millennials
- VanHockeyGuy

5'9"
Doesn't show quality of shots.
I am. I never understood what being a millennial was like though until wife finished school. Then I understood a bit more

5'9"
Doesn't show quality of shots.
I am. I never understood what being a millennial was like though until wife finished school. Then I understood a bit more
- manvanfan

you're lucky Marwood's not here

@manvan

To prove my point about analytics being used mainly when your team is losing and trying to figure out why.

Theres a reason i have spent the last year reading up on this stuff lol. Canucks to me were way to bad in all categories for me not to try and see where and how bad lol.

I would agree somewhat. I used to play hockey as a kid and still play now, im not sure anything would have changed about my liking of analytics if i had or hadnt played. I just recently within the last year really got into them. I dont think they hold as much weight as people probably think i do. Again, if a team is winning, do people care about individual stats of a player lol. Its only when a team loses that people try to understand why, enter analytics.
- Codes1087

Henrik and Daniel are leading Van in SF - SA. That's why I can't trust them.

Henrik and Daniel are leading Van in SF - SA. That's why I can't trust them.
- manvanfan

Thats almost more a testament to how bad the rest of the team is, instead of how good the twins can still be lol

Olli Juolevi 1g and 1a today for TPS

Thats almost more a testament to how bad the rest of the team is, instead of how good the twins can still be lol
- Codes1087

So if you were an analytics guys wouldn't the team try and get them more ice time? 6th and 11th in scoring on the team right now. SF doesn't equal production.

Petrus palmu with 1a today

So if you were an analytics guys wouldn't the team try and get them more ice time? 6th and 11th in scoring on the team right now. SF doesn't equal production.
- manvanfan

They have the easiest zone starts of all 4 lines. Sutter and dorsett playing their majority in the D zone. Dorsett is still leading goal scorer amongst fwds =S

Edit - by easiest i mean their majority coming in the offensive zone and then neutral

Petrus palmu with 1a today
- Codes1087

EP PP Asst too. 3rd period to come.

@manvan

To prove my point about analytics being used mainly when your team is losing and trying to figure out why.

Theres a reason i have spent the last year reading up on this stuff lol. Canucks to me were way to bad in all categories for me not to try and see where and how bad lol.
- Codes1087

It might just be they lack quality talented players, and the few we have can’t carry the entire team on their backs. Plus reliance on the old tired skill that should be 12 mins a night.

It might just be they lack quality talented players, and the few we have can’t carry the entire team on their backs. Plus reliance on the old tired skill that should be 12 mins a night.
- Makita

You are 100% correct. They lack what all good teams have. A good puck moving defenseman. A pure consistent goal scorer. The list goes on.

EP PP Asst too. 3rd period to come.
- manvanfan

I have never been more stoked about a prospect ever than i am about EP

They have the easiest zone starts of all 4 lines. Sutter and dorsett playing their majority in the D zone. Lots of factors.
- Codes1087

Literally why I can't trust these stats. There are so many factors as too why. All of which you could see during a game. First shot, second, third chances. Sustained shots. Screened shots. Cleaned shots, flubbed, partial block? There are so many others things that a simple "shot" doesn't tell me.

Gadjovich, he shoots at serious volume. I don't get to see him play too much but after last night it looks like 3/4 of his shots are off rebounds he collected from out battling a defender or being in the right place at the right time.

So if you were an analytics guys wouldn't the team try and get them more ice time? 6th and 11th in scoring on the team right now. SF doesn't equal production.
- manvanfan

If I were the analytics guy, I would look at last season where they had among the most icetime and see that they were -30 and -35 in attempts. While they seem to be doing great in the current situation controlling the puck (minus actually putting the puck in the net), the stats show they needed a reduced role and perhaps an increase in icetime would result in more attempts against, which does not put the team in the best position to win games

Literally why I can't trust these stats. There are so many factors as too why. All of which you could see during a game. First shot, second, third chances. Sustained shots. Screened shots. Cleaned shots, flubbed, partial block? There are so many others things that a simple "shot" doesn't tell me.

Gadjovich, he shoots at serious volume. I don't get to see him play too much but after last night it looks like 3/4 of his shots are off rebounds he collected from out battling a defender or being in the right place at the right time.
- manvanfan

I dont know as much as i probably should to respond properly but there are like 200 different stats in analytics to go along with corsi, fenwick, etc. There might be charts and metrics for all those but i havent really divulged into that world of it yet.

Gadjovichs stats, despite not getting a point yesterday, are aligned with the seeing eye test people. He was called upon so much last night and was apart of 2 screened goals. Kid is going to be real good.

You are 100% correct. They lack what all good teams have. A good puck moving defenseman. A pure consistent goal scorer. The list goes on.
- Codes1087

An east-west skilled player able to weave through traffic to create open spaces for others. Marner, Ehlers, P. Kane type.

Really don't have a "battler" for pucks. Simmonds type.

Boeser could be a scorer but I don't think he has the talent of a Sequin, Tarasenko.

If I get into the D, may start

An east-west skilled player able to weave through traffic to create open spaces for others. Marner, Ehlers, P. Kane type.

Really don't have a "battler" for pucks. Simmonds type.

Boeser could be a scorer but I don't think he has the talent of a Sequin, Tarasenko.

If I get into the D, may start
- manvanfan

Gadjovich is the closest thing to simmonds we have. He goes into corners at full speed and just bounces guys off the puck. I absolutely love his game.

Literally why I can't trust these stats. There are so many factors as too why. All of which you could see during a game. First shot, second, third chances. Sustained shots. Screened shots. Cleaned shots, flubbed, partial block? There are so many others things that a simple "shot" doesn't tell me.

Gadjovich, he shoots at serious volume. I don't get to see him play too much but after last night it looks like 3/4 of his shots are off rebounds he collected from out battling a defender or being in the right place at the right time.
- manvanfan

I think maybe the expectation of results is why people share a similar notion towards these advanced stats.

To me, statistics of any kind are simply a recorded history of events. One can make assumptions based off of them, but the stats are not predictive in nature. It bothers me when guys bash on +/- as a useless stat. All is does is show a ratio of times you were on the ice for goals for/against, its no more predictive than faceoff %, shooting %, save %, or shootout results.

If someone wants to extrapolate trends from the stats, they can try and build a case as to why certain players are better, thats fine. But I dont expect there to be 100% conclusive results because it just isnt possible in this sport