I would think there is a significant advantage to being the home team in baseball in a tie game after 8 innings.
- Snowblind

Outside of avoiding the opposing closer in the 9th it has zero effect on QoC. Furthermore, this perceived advantage as presented is limited to this specific circumstance late in a game further dictated by the game situation. That same game situation that presented an advantage can also be negated if the road team scores in the top 9th in which case opposing closer is coming out and QoC advantage is gone. However, from innings 1-8, the home team in baseball gets little to no advantage which was my point to begin with when presented with the baseball analogy as it pertains to a QoC conversation.

Similarly, game situation can dictate the last change advantage in hockey.

Not a lot of analytics enthusiasts' favorites on either column of that list. I wonder why...

- Snowblind

I'll take "Things that don't fit the narrative" for $1000 Alex

I'll take "Things that don't fit the narrative" for $1000 Alex
- uf1910

Just the mere fact that the same 7 players are in both the home and away QoC Top 10 columns would tend to demolish the "QoC is a myth" notion.

And points are not the way to evaluate players.


Old Mr. Camfor, you're clearly just being a contrarian and you wouldn't agree if Tyler Dellow or Eric Tulsky showed up at your house in person and explained it to you like you were five.

There are so many things we could argue about that there isn't irrefutable proof about, but this isn't one of them.
- James_Tanner

This is absurd. This is what I HATE about where analytics has taken us.

Just disregard goals and points, because they are all luck right?

That's why the same players tend to score the most every year. Luckiest players on the face of the earth.

This is absurd. This is what I HATE about where analytics has taken us.

Just disregard goals and points, because they are all luck right?

That's why the same players tend to score the most every year. Luckiest players on the face of the earth.
- sbroads24

What will really suck is if/when analytics take precedence over results in contract negotiations. Then we'll just see players flinging the puck at the net as soon as they gain the red line.

What will really suck is if/when analytics take precedence over results in contract negotiations. Then we'll just see players flinging the puck at the net as soon as they gain the red line.
- Snowblind

You realize that for a lot of teams this is already the case, right? You still have to score. You're going to be benched if you keep throwing the puck on net from way out like that. Ridiculous thing to say.

You realize that for a lot of teams this is already the case, right? You still have to score. You're going to be benched if you keep throwing the puck on net from way out like that. Ridiculous thing to say.
- PepinoPamplemousse

False, you just have to be good at the process

I would think there is a significant advantage to being the home team in baseball in a tie game after 8 innings.
- Snowblind

I would have thought so too, but batting last it turns out is more psychological than anything else. Home team winning percentages are higher in hockey than baseball.

Just the mere fact that the same 7 players are in both the home and away QoC Top 10 columns would tend to demolish the "QoC is a myth" notion.
- Snowblind

I guess that's true if you ignore all the objective evidence and focus on the one thing that doesn't make you have to change your mind.

This is absurd. This is what I HATE about where analytics has taken us.

Just disregard goals and points, because they are all luck right?

That's why the same players tend to score the most every year. Luckiest players on the face of the earth.
- sbroads24

Why do you hate it, when it's indisputable?

Because the amount of goals scored is incredibly low the sample size will always be small and greatly variable. If player X scores 30 goals, is he a 20 goal scorer who got lucky, a 40 goal scorer who got unlucky or did he score the right amount of goals? Going by shots gives us a good idea of which category to put him in.

There is little to no advantage gained by batting last. Psychologically maybe but that is immeasurable. As pertaining to this conversation, the only way your baseball analogy would apply would be if somehow the home team would face easier pitchers and thus face easier QoC like a home team in hockey can deploy certain lines in certain situations to gain an advantage.
- uf1910

Betting last is a massive, massive advantage in poker. Such that a professional poker player would be at a disadvantage against me if I always got to bet last.

It's because of how much extra information you have.

Betting last is a massive, massive advantage in poker. Such that a professional poker player would be at a disadvantage against me if I always got to bet last.

It's because of how much extra information you have.
- James_Tanner

Umm please show me where I in any way claimed betting last isn't an advantage.

What I did say is trying to equate poker to hockey is a joke.

That being said I will use your own line against you as it pertains to this argument

It's because of how much extra information you have

Would this happen to be exactly what NHL coaches with last change do to try and maximize any advantage available by utilizing last change? That type of "extra information"? Furthermore, would that extra information and player utilization possibly yield positive results that otherwise would not have occurred without last change? Furthermore, would those positive results show as discrepancy between home and road stats where the advantage either exists or doesn't?

These are all questions I have asked or alluded to. I have provided a good deal of evidence that supports why I asked those questions to begin with along with the fact I have straight numbers that support my premise.

Facts meet irrefutable

Why do you hate it, when it's indisputable?

Because the amount of goals scored is incredibly low the sample size will always be small and greatly variable. If player X scores 30 goals, is he a 20 goal scorer who got lucky, a 40 goal scorer who got unlucky or did he score the right amount of goals? Going by shots gives us a good idea of which category to put him in.
- James_Tanner

It's fine to try and predict what might happen going forward in terms of potentially singing someone or trading for someone. What bothers me is the narrative that you shouldn't judge players based on actual production.

I don't care how many shots a player takes, if they aren't going into the net, he isn't having a good season. Can they be unlucky? Sure, but in reality when you are a team trying to win in the present, that's all that matters.

I guess that's true if you ignore all the objective evidence and focus on the one thing that doesn't make you have to change your mind.
- James_Tanner

Dan Girardi was near the top of both lists for QoC (home and away);
You routinely cite Girardi as being one of the worst players in the NHL.

Coincidence? I think not...

I guess that's true if you ignore all the objective evidence and focus on the one thing that doesn't make you have to change your mind.
- James_Tanner

Umm was the evidence I provided not objective?

I have provided evidence that there are some fairly wide variances in home/road splits.
You have provided evidence based on total averages accounting for generally equal home/road games.

Which evidence is more "objective" to a QoC conversation where one of the main advantages of the home team in hockey is having last change and thus being able to capitalize on the advantage provided?

In no way have I discounted your stats overall, however as it pertains to this conversation I have. Put simply by using total stats that doesn't separate between home/road and thus averages the stats accumulated in both, common sense says the stats generated under the advantage of home vs the stats accumulated under the disadvantage of road will generally average. Counter that with stats that I have provided that show wide variances in home/road stats AND also stats showing players receiving different levels of QoC in home/road situations.

Dan Girardi was near the top of both lists for QoC (home and away);
You routinely cite Girardi as being one of the worst players in the NHL.

Coincidence? I think not...
- Snowblind

We all know G has declined a bit because of his style of play just catching up. But this season aside, I guess the Rangers Management who by the way have one of he most sustained consistent playoff successful teams in the past decade, they must all know nothing right because Girardi should be in the AHL much less have the contract he does. I mean, all those years with Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin directly matched up against him and getting virtually shut down every series. Girardi must have mastered the ability of smoke and mirrors.

Umm please show me where I in any way claimed betting last isn't an advantage.

What I did say is trying to equate poker to hockey is a joke.

That being said I will use your own line against you as it pertains to this argument




Would this happen to be exactly what NHL coaches with last change do to try and maximize any advantage available by utilizing last change? That type of "extra information"? Furthermore, would that extra information and player utilization possibly yield positive results that otherwise would not have occurred without last change? Furthermore, would those positive results show as discrepancy between home and road stats where the advantage either exists or doesn't?

These are all questions I have asked or alluded to. I have provided a good deal of evidence that supports why I asked those questions to begin with along with the fact I have straight numbers that support my premise.

Facts meet irrefutable
- uf1910

The home road chart was't very helpful. All it shows really is that you can still get your defensive guys out there when you're away. What it doesn't show is that Dan Girardi still doesn't play minutes that are that legitimately different from anyone else on his team.

If you bothered to read the articles I linked to - which, you only have to if you, as seems clear, want to keep arguing against them - what you'd learn is that one of them specifically deals with this problem:

" Quite simply put anyone who points out Dion faces top competition as an argument in his favor needs to understand that Phaneuf has been below average against all levels of competition and the top competition he’s faced really doesn’t do much to his numbers.

Conclusion:

Phaneuf’s example is pretty typical actually – he’s not bad because he faces top competition and he’s not likely to be much better against weaker competition either – nor will he be above average against such competition (You can argue he’d be better with a different coach, but that’s another story). This isn’t unique to him – other defensemen who fare poorly against top competition also will show the same situation (I did this same study with Andrew MacDonald of the Isles in a post on Lighthouse Hockey)."


So, once again, I am coming across that right-wing tendency people seem to have developed whereby they ignore anything that doesn't confirm what they already believe. What I wrote was factual. What you wrote was easily refutable.

It's fine to try and predict what might happen going forward in terms of potentially singing someone or trading for someone. What bothers me is the narrative that you shouldn't judge players based on actual production.

I don't care how many shots a player takes, if they aren't going into the net, he isn't having a good season. Can they be unlucky? Sure, but in reality when you are a team trying to win in the present, that's all that matters.
- sbroads24

So you agree, but also disagree? That's confusing. How can you not respect luck? It's the biggest factor in all our lives. I know people want to pretend they have control, but they don't.

Luck is easily discernible in hockey since even the worst players are bound to score on 7 or 8% of their goals.

Dan Girardi was near the top of both lists for QoC (home and away);
You routinely cite Girardi as being one of the worst players in the NHL.

Coincidence? I think not...
- Snowblind

The chart only shows that last change doesn't make much difference. Girardi is one of the worst, as seen my the fact that other players with hard competition do way better than him and that when he gets easy competition - which is all the time - he also does terrible.

The home road chart was't very helpful. All it shows really is that you can still get your defensive guys out there when you're away. What it doesn't show is that Dan Girardi still doesn't play minutes that are that legitimately different from anyone else on his team.

If you bothered to read the articles I linked to - which, you only have to if you, as seems clear, want to keep arguing against them - what you'd learn is that one of them specifically deals with this problem:

" Quite simply put anyone who points out Dion faces top competition as an argument in his favor needs to understand that Phaneuf has been below average against all levels of competition and the top competition he’s faced really doesn’t do much to his numbers.

Conclusion:

Phaneuf’s example is pretty typical actually – he’s not bad because he faces top competition and he’s not likely to be much better against weaker competition either – nor will he be above average against such competition (You can argue he’d be better with a different coach, but that’s another story). This isn’t unique to him – other defensemen who fare poorly against top competition also will show the same situation (I did this same study with Andrew MacDonald of the Isles in a post on Lighthouse Hockey)."


So, once again, I am coming across that right-wing tendency people seem to have developed whereby they ignore anything that doesn't confirm what they already believe. What I wrote was factual. What you wrote was easily refutable.
- James_Tanner

The chart I gave showed a sizeable variance in home/road QoC.

The bolded is immaterial. This is a conversation about QoC as it relates to home/road which the link provided does prove that home/road does make a difference in the level of competition players face. Naturally, if some players receive higher competition in a game others will receive easier matchups. The game is still 60 minutes and there is still the same roster of players facing the other team. What the link does prove (based on your statement of "getting their players out there), is that home vs road QoC is affected by the coach's ability to put certain players out there in situations most beneficial with the advantage or disadvantage of home vs road. Now, what that link didn't prove (nor was it meant to as I provided other links showing Fenwick variances in home/road), was that the levels of QoC affects underlying stats. As I just said, those other links showing Fenwick variances COMBINED with the proof provided that QoC is affected by home/road situations would under normal circumstances lead to the conclusion that QoC does have an affect on underlying statistics based on whether the players is at home or on the road and the relative coaching advantage or disadvantage each situation provides.

As for your articles, I did read them. Again, as my point has been since the beginning. Your articles DO NOT account for the variance (as my link provided) as to the DIFFERENT levels of QoC players face when home/road. Furthermore I provided other links showing sizeable variances in players stats in home/road which further reinforces that QoC is a real factor and home vs road does play a large part in determining the levels of QoC players face.

Where have I IGNORED what you have said? I haven't. All I have done is countered your premise with real evidence that there is a variance in home/road QoC and evidence that this variance has/had an affect on players underlying statistics. This has nothing to do with anyone's political beliefs, and for the record I am not "Right Wing" so you can take your label and give it elsewhere (and I'm being VERY NICE by not saying other things with that statement). Seriously, you throw out any links provided contrary to your narrative as not showing the whole picture yet by using the links I provided it also shows that your links don't provide the whole picture. Again, yours are based on the total games with approx equal road/home as the NHL schedule dictates. My numbers show a sizeable variance in home/road statistics. You say QoC doesn't matter b/c your total stats average based on equal road and home games that don't show the variance (that's how averages work).

Nowhere in either article you linked is it mentioned that players receive easier or harder QoC in home/road situations. In both cases the articles focused on the total AVERAGE players accumulated, which as I have clearly repeated multiple times is based on equal home/road games. That is, was, and will be my point until you can provide me with ANYTHING that shows there is no difference. Keep in mind of course I have provided evidence that players underlying stats are affected by home/road situations.

Here they are again...

http://stats.hockeyanalys...p=1&sort=PCT&sortdir=DESC

http://stats.hockeyanalys...p=1&sort=PCT&sortdir=DESC

Specifically Drouin goes from a 55.1% GF on home ice to 51.3% GF on the road. So by all means continue to lecture me on throwing out what you say when again I have provided clear and definitive proof (specifically in this case to one player which consequently is how you have "proven" your point in each case you have provided).

The home road chart was't very helpful. All it shows really is that you can still get your defensive guys out there when you're away. What it doesn't show is that Dan Girardi still doesn't play minutes that are that legitimately different from anyone else on his team.

If you bothered to read the articles I linked to - which, you only have to if you, as seems clear, want to keep arguing against them - what you'd learn is that one of them specifically deals with this problem:

" Quite simply put anyone who points out Dion faces top competition as an argument in his favor needs to understand that Phaneuf has been below average against all levels of competition and the top competition he’s faced really doesn’t do much to his numbers.

Conclusion:

Phaneuf’s example is pretty typical actually – he’s not bad because he faces top competition and he’s not likely to be much better against weaker competition either – nor will he be above average against such competition (You can argue he’d be better with a different coach, but that’s another story). This isn’t unique to him – other defensemen who fare poorly against top competition also will show the same situation (I did this same study with Andrew MacDonald of the Isles in a post on Lighthouse Hockey)."


So, once again, I am coming across that right-wing tendency people seem to have developed whereby they ignore anything that doesn't confirm what they already believe. What I wrote was factual. What you wrote was easily refutable.
- James_Tanner

Divining someone's politics based on their skepticism over every latest fashionable line of thinking in the nascent cottage industry of hockey analytics is a bit rash and unfair. One could say absolute fealty to such data suggests someone on the spectrum and/or prone to believing everything they read if it contains pie charts and data tables, but I would not presume such things based on whether someone thinks Jake Gardiner is a great NHL defenseman based entirely on paper.

Divining someone's politics based on their skepticism over every latest fashionable line of thinking in the nascent cottage industry of hockey analytics is a bit rash and unfair. One could say absolute fealty to such data suggests someone on the spectrum and/or prone to believing everything they read if it contains pie charts and data tables, but I would not presume such things based on whether someone thinks Jake Gardiner is a great NHL defenseman based entirely on paper.
- Snowblind

The tendency to dismiss anything that doesn't meet your POV is a right-wing development that has become a mainstream problem. I don't mean to imply that someone's political beliefs have anything to do with this conversation or that on a right-wing person could dismiss facts. I probably shouldn't have even used that phrase, but since I did, to clarify, all I meant was that it's a trait that came from a very specific place. Much like Political Correctness is a very left-wing idea that people of all parties and beliefs tend to subscribe to.

Hope that clears it up.

The tendency to dismiss anything that doesn't meet your POV is a right-wing development that has become a mainstream problem. I don't mean to imply that someone's political beliefs have anything to do with this conversation or that on a right-wing person could dismiss facts. I probably shouldn't have even used that phrase, but since I did, to clarify, all I meant was that it's a trait that came from a very specific place. Much like Political Correctness is a very left-wing idea that people of all parties and beliefs tend to subscribe to.

Hope that clears it up.
- James_Tanner

Fair enough.

FWIW, my skepticism comes from more of a "lies, damn lies and statistics" kind of place than an "Obama!" kind of place. I've found this skepticism borne out in far more important matters than hockey analytics (i.e., the 2008 worldwide financial crisis that most economists did not see coming, Bernie Sanders winning the Michigan primary last week when pollsters had him down by 20 points, myriad survey based- social science studies that are constantly being refuted and retracted, etc.).

I see hockey analytics as useful but built on the original sin of shot attempts (as opposed to bases). I also see plenty of circular logic therein (and QoC is an exemplary case of that). Based on the eye test of seeing way too many hockey games over the past decades, I would say that top defense pairings are almost always matched up against the opposing team's top lines. So while QoC may not matter much to most players, for elite players, or players that are deployed as such, and since they are constantly being facing one another, there would be a tendency for their respective prowess to cancel one another out which would therefore give the statistical appearance of being no different than other players; because QoC is proven to matter "locally" that suggests that occasionally the horse is let out of the barn and your John Tavareses are going to get the better of your Zdeno Charas for a game, but, usually that is not the case "globally", thus they will cancel each other out statistically to the point that they resemble lesser players on paper which makes QoC appear to be moot in multiple, self-reinforcing ways.

The logic is perfect. As I said, as the guys I quoted says, and as I've repeated multiple times here in the comments section: if you play against bad competition you will do better and if a coach can get a good match-up, it will be beneficial.

There is a chart in the article I quoted - actually it's in both of them - that shows that a player's possession stats rise dramatically and consistently when they play bad players.

The point we are making is that, basically, in the NHL it is impossible in real-world situations to get an advantage in matchups enough of a time to make a difference.

So if you look at their stats, you'll see that despite being labeled "the top pair" Rielly and Gardiner's opponents average the same amount of ice time per game and have the same possession stats.

This means they play against the exact same competition.

They have slightly different usage but - based on the research and seeming consensus of the advanced stat community - that usage does not have enough impact to explain away the difference in their stats.

Gardiner has two less 5v5 points and 4 points higher of a Corsi than Rielly. That is a massively better performance. If he was deployed the same as Rielly he would still be better.

And that is backed by research and isn't my opinion.
- James_Tanner

No expert or research has ever been wrong.

The tendency to dismiss anything that doesn't meet your POV is a right-wing development that has become a mainstream problem. I don't mean to imply that someone's political beliefs have anything to do with this conversation or that on a right-wing person could dismiss facts. I probably shouldn't have even used that phrase, but since I did, to clarify, all I meant was that it's a trait that came from a very specific place. Much like Political Correctness is a very left-wing idea that people of all parties and beliefs tend to subscribe to.

Hope that clears it up.
- James_Tanner

Newsflash bro, you are the one dismissing evidence that doesn't support your narrative. I have shown your averaged total stats to not show the real story b/c (and I will repeat this), there is a difference between home and road QoC and this difference has led to in some cases a sizeable variance in home/road underlying stats. By using a total accumulation you are basically taking the average between the 2 "extremes" to show that QoC has no sizeable affect on underlying statistics. Yet by not breaking down the underlying statistics to account for the main driving force between the variances in QoC your stats are flawed as it pertains to proving your point that QoC doesn't matter. All I have stated from the beginning is players will face varying QoC depending on home/road situation and the relative advantage/disadvantage each one provides. The variance in QoC coupled with variances in home/road underlying stats should prove this is real. Yet by taking the average of home/road stats and using that as evidence you completely dismiss QoC as not affecting underlying stats.

Macro speaking with regards to stats, to my understanding the main goal of breaking down the game further than "old" stats like goals, assists, +/- etc is to provide a larger picture of the game itself and assign a truer value to individual players' affects on the game. Yet here you are arguing that the underlying stats don't need to be broken down further to provide a clearer more concise picture. For someone who relies so heavily on underlying stats to base your opinions of players, IMO it should be the opposite. You should want underlying stats to be broken down as much as possible so the clearest most concise picture can be developed. Basically what I'm saying is by not acknowledging the variance you are in effect dismissing your stats as a useful tool in developing and telling the whole story. That is affectionately referred to as cutting off your nose to spite your face. IMO you are so focused on winning "this" argument that you are losing sight of what and why the basis (stats) of your argument was created and used in the first place. This has nothing to do with politics, and also nothing to do with you personally. It is merely a hockey conversation that you and I both share a passion for.

Specifically speaking to my personal politics, I am libertarian through and through. I am no fan of liberal policies no more than I'm not a fan of true conservative policies. As a libertarian I am stuck in the middle as some issues I agree with one side while others I agree with the other side. When push comes to shove my defining principle is freedom. You stay out of my life and I will stay out of yours. The right picks and chooses when to apply freedom based on their personal or sometimes religious beliefs (abortion, gay marriage) while the left sometimes argues for freedom (minority arguments) and tramples it others (anti-RFRA argument). Obviously there are other issues on each side I agree/disagree with but I want to keep this conversation on hockey. However, given this part right here it should signify to you that you should be careful before you apply certain political labels to people you don't know. Ignoring facts is not an issue restricted to one side or the other. It is like you said a societal problem as with time people have become so entrenched and at times soft to admit where they are wrong. However, you had no issue putting "right wing" in your argument which further exemplifies what is wrong with this country. Blaming problems on the "other" side is merely deflection as IMO BOTH SIDES have issues yet neither side is willing to admit they have problems. It's just quicker and easier to blame the other side and move on to the next issue.