Todd Cordell: David Conte on Hockey Analytics

It shows they don't pay attention to advanced stats

this is surprising to me.

Stats attack the majesty of the game, the very realm that keeps these guys earning paychecks. It's no surprise they turn a blind eye to them and downplay them; they're protecting their jobs. But people who don't take stats into consideration will eventually get phased out.

There's still a lot more majesty in the game than stats can provide, so they shouldn't worry too much about it. Stats are just another side of the story, not the whole story itself. I know their limitations--last year I had Chicago completely sucking out but their goaltender suddenly got way better--but it doesn't mean that proper scouting requires some instinct that you pull out of your ass that makes you tell the difference, just by seeing someone play the game, whether he is a perennial hockey player or someone who's out of their element.

But these guys might also actually be hiding their cards, which is a known tactic in the Devils' organization. Maybe they're saying they don't look at them when they do look at them extensively.

We do need to draft better in the first round, though.

lol "majesty" okay

lol "majesty" okay
- MrToast

Stats attack the majesty of the game, the very realm that keeps these guys earning paychecks. It's no surprise they turn a blind eye to them and downplay them; they're protecting their jobs. But people who don't take stats into consideration will eventually get phased out.

There's still a lot more majesty in the game than stats can provide, so they shouldn't worry too much about it. Stats are just another side of the story, not the whole story itself. I know their limitations--last year I had Chicago completely sucking out but their goaltender suddenly got way better--but it doesn't mean that proper scouting requires some instinct that you pull out of your ass that makes you tell the difference, just by seeing someone play the game, whether he is a perennial hockey player or someone who's out of their element.

But these guys might also actually be hiding their cards, which is a known tactic in the Devils' organization. Maybe they're saying they don't look at them when they do look at them extensively.

We do need to draft better in the first round, though.
- archromat

this is 100% true...id think the fact that they are openly looking for a director of ANALYTICS should be a pretty good indication they will be incorporating that into their system... and its not just a show, i personally know someone who was a finalist for the position.

lol "majesty" okay
- MrToast

Majesty is the word of the day since the Stanley Cup finals are a battle of Kings... (King Henrik vs. the Kings)

Majesty is the word of the day since the Stanley Cup finals are a battle of Kings... (King Henrik vs. the Kings)
- archromat

To be fair, I don't think a lot of other leagues have anyone that tracks shot attempts so it may be irrelevant anyway. He also didn't sound like he was completely against them either.

Todd Cordell: David Conte on Hockey Analytics
- Todd.Cordell

It goes both ways.

You're foolish if you ignore analytics and base things solely upon what you see on the ice.

And

You're foolish if you ignore the things you see with your own eyes on the ice and base your decisions solely on analytics.

Common middle ground provides the most sober judgment. There's plenty of room for both. As much has certainly been established in other sports like baseball.

Majesty is the word of the day since the Stanley Cup finals are a battle of Kings... (King Henrik vs. the Kings)
- archromat

I don't care what Rags fans want to call that guy in net, but I will NEVER refer to him as King. Kings win Stanley Cups! There was only one KING to ever backstop a net in my opinion and that is Martin Brodeur.....the REAL KING! (honorable mention to Mr. Roy)

Hearing a Devils fan call Henrik that name makes me cringe!

It shows they don't pay attention to advanced stats
- shvingter88

As Meatloaf used to sing, "you took the words right out of my mouth."

It shows they don't pay attention to advanced stats
- shvingter88

Does it matter in our case? Advanced stats don't tell you anything you can't get from watching the game. We're still one of the best Corsi/Fenwick teams in the league to the point where we are the perfect example people will use for why advanced stats don't work. If they are still getting the same results without using the numbers is it really a problem?

It goes both ways.

You're foolish if you ignore analytics and base things solely upon what you see on the ice.

And

You're foolish if you ignore the things you see with your own eyes on the ice and base your decisions solely on analytics.

Common middle ground provides the most sober judgment. There's plenty of room for both. As much has certainly been established in other sports like baseball.
- njdevils350

What I realized through watching the games and reading the advanced stats is that a big part of what analytics do is quantify the stuff you see on the ice. All of those 'little things' players do that don't make it into the regular stats often get picked up with advanced stats because players who "do the little things right" generally have favorable possession numbers.

Generally I find that people who hold to the 'do you even watch the games?' argument are really just angry you think their favorite enforcer/guy-who-hits-a-lot sucks (cough Matt Martin cough). I doubt any advanced stats guys are saying Patrick Kane sucks because he's gets sheltered zone starts and has a slightly negative relCorsi%. On the other hand, putting up offense doesn't automatically make you a good player. I'll take Mark Fayne over Andrew Macdonald any day of the week (and I could've told you that before I even knew what corsi was). I also don't want a player on my team just because he has "a lot of heart" or grit. That stuff is great when you combine it with skill and/or great defensive play. I have no use for Stephen Gionta or Bryce Salvador.

Is Lundqvist the king?

Teams I hate most:
1. Pens
2. Rangers
3. Wild
4. Kings
5. Red Wings (out of respect rather than disrespect)
hon mention: Oilers

The playoffs were complete and utter bs this year. Been a terrible two years for us.

But in all fairness, Lundqvist is the reason the Rangers are there.

I wonder how long we could get away with feeding Teddy steroids in his pickled gherkin.

What I realized through watching the games and reading the advanced stats is that a big part of what analytics do is quantify the stuff you see on the ice. All of those 'little things' players do that don't make it into the regular stats often get picked up with advanced stats because players who "do the little things right" generally have favorable possession numbers.

Generally I find that people who hold to the 'do you even watch the games?' argument are really just angry you think their favorite enforcer/guy-who-hits-a-lot sucks (cough Matt Martin cough). I doubt any advanced stats guys are saying Patrick Kane sucks because he's gets sheltered zone starts and has a slightly negative relCorsi%. On the other hand, putting up offense doesn't automatically make you a good player. I'll take Mark Fayne over Andrew Macdonald any day of the week (and I could've told you that before I even knew what corsi was). I also don't want a player on my team just because he has "a lot of heart" or grit. That stuff is great when you combine it with skill and/or great defensive play. I have no use for Stephen Gionta or Bryce Salvador.
- CaptCrankypants

I would tend to agree. It really comes down to making sure you're not picking and choosing which stats you like and which one you don't like. In other words, seeing things for what they are, rather than finding the best way to frame your opinion. You may learn your opinion could be wrong. That's always a useful learning experience. Of course I dont mean you specifically.

MacDonald is a good player to mention. Two years ago he looked a lot better on a bad Islanders team than he did this year on either NY or Philly. He has clearly regressed. You can see it on the ice. He has awful positioning and he can be terribly careless with the puck.

To your point, his Corsi percentage from 2011-2012 forward is

47.2
46
44

The numbers have never been great to begin with, but when put into context. that three percent should be considered a significant change when you consider that he played on a bad Islanders team and just finished on a highly competitive Flyers team that probably bounces the Rangers with a healthy goalie.

Right now he just looks like another defenseman that was never able to take that step forward in handling the speed of the game and the decision making that it requires. Mired in mediocrity.

Also interesting for you to bring up Fayne as a comparison. He's better than MacDonald because he doesn't play with much of an offensive mindset. He's more concerned with making the safe play than making the fancier, more creative play like MacDonald is.

Exactly what you like to see from a 3rd pair defenseman.

I don't care what Rags fans want to call that guy in net, but I will NEVER refer to him as King. Kings win Stanley Cups! There was only one KING to ever backstop a net in my opinion and that is Martin Brodeur.....the REAL KING! (honorable mention to Mr. Roy)

Hearing a Devils fan call Henrik that name makes me cringe!
- Crushers68

dude your gonna get cranny in here with his huge inferiority complex

but dont worry the devils were only lucky we made the finals in 2012, the rangers made it because they are just amazing (dont tell him they had to go through 2 1/4 back up goalies- emery, fleury is a playoff nutcase, and tokarski)

I don't care what Rags fans want to call that guy in net, but I will NEVER refer to him as King. Kings win Stanley Cups! There was only one KING to ever backstop a net in my opinion and that is Martin Brodeur.....the REAL KING! (honorable mention to Mr. Roy)

Hearing a Devils fan call Henrik that name makes me cringe!
- Crushers68

Henrik is a king. It's just that marty Is the ace in that deck of cards

Everybody who pays any attention to Hockey thought the Leafs would be in tough to squeeze into a playoff spot. They were in a playoff spot, they lost their starter, the backup sh1t the bed, and they finished about where people predicted.

Most of those people didn't need a graph to show them that.

Most people would agree that the Rangers are there because the Habs knocked off the Bruins.

... how did the Habs match up against the Bruins in the Corsi cup?

While we are crowing about the success of the stats... wasn't Ottawa a contender for the Corsi Cup in September? How about Colorado, where did they finish after an 82 game season... where were they advanced stats-wise?

Advanced stats in hockey is still relatively new, and is here to stay. The way theories evolve and improve is by learning from the errors and negative results.We know this is true, but all I ever seem to hear is that anything bucking the trend is a fluke and is unsustainable.

One day I really hope the stats guys lose their close-minded arrogance and work on evolving the stats instead of blindly discounting the times they fail.

... Leafs run tremedously anti-advanced-stats (when they won OR Lost) for more than 100 games = sample size too small, must be a fluke.

... Leafs lose goalie, whole team collapses for a 10 game stretch = Advanced Stats were right.

As long as the definition of significant sample seems to be "any sample that proves the stats are right", then there is no sense debating.

It goes both ways.

You're foolish if you ignore analytics and base things solely upon what you see on the ice.

And

You're foolish if you ignore the things you see with your own eyes on the ice and base your decisions solely on analytics.

Common middle ground provides the most sober judgment. There's plenty of room for both. As much has certainly been established in other sports like baseball.
- njdevils350

agreed.

and Baseball stats had to evolve, just as hockey stats do.

For all we know... A player's height / number of games in the past 7 nights might be a better predictor of player or team success than anything we currently use.

Haters enjoy sucking for the next 5-6 years , your best player is going on 50. Just awful, lol

Haters enjoy sucking for the next 5-6 years , your best player is going on 50. Just awful, lol
- Graves#9

you can see into the future?

can you tell me when the next ice age starts/

Haters enjoy sucking for the next 5-6 years , your best player is going on 50. Just awful, lol
- Graves#9

Normally I'd say spot on to anyone who says we suck, but you're right, your future is much brighter without a 1st round pick until 2016. Enjoy this time in the finals while you can, soak it all in!