Sheng Peng: How Are Kings Like Bruins?; On Patrick O'Sullivan & Shot-Based Analytics Why I'm still optimistic about a team that's lost 10-0 the last two games...what Kings & Bruins both don't do well & how that got Claude Julien fired...is Patrick O'Sullivan right about shot-based analytics?

1. how does Davis Payne still have a job? seriously.

2. when you go back to back 5- 0 losses, you get these batshlt crazy lines

Andreoff-Kopitar-Toffoli
Pearson-Carter-Brown
Clifford-Dowd-Gaborik
King-Shore-Lewis
Setoguchi

Forbort-Doughty
Muzzin-Martinez
McNabb-LaDue
Gravel

2. when you go back to back 5- 0 losses, you get these batshlt crazy lines

Andreoff-Kopitar-Toffoli
Pearson-Carter-Brown
Clifford-Dowd-Gaborik
King-Shore-Lewis
Setoguchi

Forbort-Doughty
Muzzin-Martinez
McNabb-LaDue
Gravel
- MikeOxbyg

Yea, it shows you the lack of depth. FWIW, I think Gaborik's been good recently and "demoting" him may be more about balancing lines. Now every scoring center has a scorer to play with -- Kopi-Toff, Carter-Pears, Dowd-Gabbo.

Yea, it shows you the lack of depth. FWIW, I think Gaborik's been good recently and "demoting" him may be more about balancing lines. Now every scoring center has a scorer to play with -- Kopi-Toff, Carter-Pears, Dowd-Gabbo.
- Sheng Peng

I hope that is the logic behind it, because at first glance it looks desperate and un-calculated.


Davis Payne though, I have been real unhappy with his power play structure from day one. we have hands, shooters and talent to facilitate a power play built around player and puck movement like some of the other teams do.

secondly, in regards to the power play, (obviously not using tonights line combo's) I always thought that the top two lines should be used as the power play units so as to not jack up the lines that get jumbled when the power play is over.

Sheng this is a seriously good article. The people who are against advanced statistics seem - in my experience - to be almost political about it. They argue against this straw-man that doesn't exist - namely that people look only at one stat and make rash generalizations, which is untrue for 100% of the relevant 'expert' advanced stat commentators.

Second, Patrick O'Sullivan played in the NHL. He gets a certain degree of automatic respect for doing that, but there are other ex-NHL players who disagree with things he says. The argument that people who didn't play in the NHL can't disagree with him is one he pulls out all the time. He is interesting and not always wrong, but his disdain for advanced stats is far more rooted in his disgust that people who aren't hockey players and literally have 'never played the game' are trashing years of hockey dogma.

This protectionist attitude is prevalent throughout the main stream media and while it's despicable, it's also understandable.

I have spoken to actual mathematicians who confidently explained to me that shot-based analytics are best because of their huge sample sizes. I'm not saying learning details of interesting tracking projects won't add to our knowledge of the game, but it won't be drastically better either way.

There is no magic bullet that can tell you everything you need to know and everything does need context. But we know how many goals tend to go in any given amount of shots. It's not rocket science. You can get huge sample sizes and make massive generalizations and they'll almost always be right.

The problem lies far more in people's inability to understand probability. If you give an 80% chance of success, that is 'bet the farm' level confidence. But you're still going to lose one in five times. Advanced stats are not wrong when say a horrible Corsi team like Colorado and or Calgary of the past couple years makes the Playoffs. It was just improbable.

So yeah, specifics are helpful, but specifics are anecdotes. Boston may very well just happen to be bad at scoring from tough areas. But players of Bergeron's current advanced stats have a 99% probability of having more points than he currently does.

Just as, historically, teams that put top-five peripheral stats end up making the playoffs. The vast vast majority of the time team's records do reflect their Corsi stats far more than Boston does currently.

Could their be a reason for that? Sure. But does it matter if we know that reason, given it's relative rareness and therefore almost certain to not repeat next season? Probably not.

Anyways, all I'm saying is while O'Sullivan does have some fair points, he isn't correct that non-public stats are magically better.

I mean, last time I checked, Boston and LA were two of the four best teams in the NHL for about half a decade or more so far.

O'Sullivan is a moron. I turn off NHL on XM whenever he is speaking. Overrated player and analyst

No one in the NHL cares about Patrick O'Sullivan or what he has to say, its his opinion on a talk show. He is getting more annoying by the minute on SiriusXM.
He was a marginal player at best, he still is irrelevant.

Davis Paynes PP sucks, why is he there?

Sutters line combos have been dinosaur style for last couple seasons.
He still is working?..

DLs contracts have strapped this team. DL is still GM?

BTW, your beloved Kings D is: Muzzin -15, Amart -10 [Gilbert was -4]
Go figure why DS keeps this combo going, please tell me why.

BTW, the D plus players are: Doughty, Gravel, Forbort, McNabb, Greene(IR)
gee...Imagine that.. Notepoor LaDue is -2) not his fault joining a team
that loses 5-0 & 5-0 in last two games.

Andreoff on the first line? Sutter has lost it. His psycho combos again
make me wonder about his mind.

Dear God, please help the fans understand wtfisgo.

Still hope the Kings make some moves and make the playoffs. #GKG

Sheng this is a seriously good article. The people who are against advanced statistics seem - in my experience - to be almost political about it.
- James Tanner

James, you wrote a blog post last month that delved shamelessly into politics and compared people who don't believe in all of your political positions (like on global warming and trickle-down economics) to people who don't "believe" in advanced statistics. The problem is that you're the one who treats statistics like a political issue, so that's what you perceive others to be doing.

Your long defense of analytics here reveals just how sensitive you are to criticism of your position on this issue, just as if it were a hot button political issue. That suggests how devoted you are to that position and how personal it is to you. I'm going to throw your own words back at you and quote a bit of that blog post of yours that I mentioned:

...we want to value our own beliefs as much as the opinions of experts, and we've wrapped our identities around these beliefs.

So I can't just change my mind and say I now believe in Global Warming, I also have to completely change everything I believe, who I talk to, how I think about myself and worse - I may have started a chain reaction that causes me to challenge everything I believe.
- James Tanner

You thought that you were describing others, but it applies as much, if not more so, to you. You appear to be super sensitive to criticism of analytics because you've wrapped your identity around it, so, when someone like O'Sullivan challenges it, it's like a challenge to everything that you believe. You then feel the need to defend your position at length like this in order to defend your identity and convince yourself that you're right.

The point is that the way that you think that others view and treat things (as almost political issues) is really more a reflection of how you view and treat things. If you're not aware of how your own outlook is tinted, you'll forever be frustrated and confused that others don't see the world the same way.

James, you wrote a blog post last month that delved shamelessly into politics and compared people who don't believe in all of your political positions (like on global warming and trickle-down economics) to people who don't "believe" in advanced statistics. The problem is that you're the one who treats statistics like a political issue, so that's what you perceive others to be doing.

Your super long defense of analytics here reveals just how sensitive you are to criticism of your position on this issue, just as if it were hot button political issue. That suggests how in the tank you are in that position and how personal it is to you. I'm going to throw your own words back at you and quote a bit of that blog post of yours that I mentioned:

"...we want to value our own beliefs as much as the opinions of experts, and we've wrapped our identities around these beliefs.

So I can't just change my mind and say I now believe in Global Warming, I also have to completely change everything I believe, who I talk to, how I think about myself and worse - I may have started a chain reaction that causes me to challenge everything I believe."

You thought that you were describing others, but it applies as much, if not more so, to you. You appear to be super sensitive to criticism of analytics because you've wrapped your identity around it, so, when someone like O'Sullivan challenges it, it's like a challenge to everything that you believe. You then feel the need to defend your position at length like this in order to defend your identity and convince yourself that you're right.

The point is that the way that you think that others view and treat things (as almost political issues) is really more a reflection of how you view and treat things. If you're not aware of how your outlook is tinted, you'll forever be frustrated and confused that others don't see the world the same way.


- osprey

Amen osprey! His world is crushed when someone tells him the reality of analytics.

Why does this site always try to open up some other page whenever I'm on my phone? Never happens on the pc, just the phone. So annoying.

secondly, in regards to the power play, (obviously not using tonights line combo's) I always thought that the top two lines should be used as the power play units so as to not jack up the lines that get jumbled when the power play is over.
- MikeOxbyg

Interesting point, I'm not sure how most teams do it. But I believe most mix up lines.

Sheng this is a seriously good article. The people who are against advanced statistics seem - in my experience - to be almost political about it.
- James_Tanner

Thanks, James! However, I would say it's grown "political" on both sides.

Anyways, all I'm saying is while O'Sullivan does have some fair points, he isn't correct that non-public stats are magically better.
- James_Tanner

I agree with a lot of your prior points. I appreciate you taking your time to hash out these ideas. I'm very curious if these non-public micro-stats have gone through the same historical scrutiny that the public stats have. One of my favorite works is the old one by Wendorf, the admittedly imperfect one suggesting possession's impact on Cup winners since the '50s.

I doubt these micro-stats have gone through the historical wringer. Not to say that one or more won't bear fruit and prove better for predicting goals than Corsi.

Why does this site always try to open up some other page whenever I'm on my phone? Never happens on the pc, just the phone. So annoying.
- Stu17

What, like an ad? I have no issue reading HB articles on mobile. Anybody else have this problem?

Osprey pulls another fish from the sea!
100% correct on Mr. Tanner

James, you wrote a blog post last month that delved shamelessly into politics and compared people who don't believe in all of your political positions (like on global warming and trickle-down economics) to people who don't "believe" in advanced statistics. The problem is that you're the one who treats statistics like a political issue, so that's what you perceive others to be doing.

Your long defense of analytics here reveals just how sensitive you are to criticism of your position on this issue, just as if it were a hot button political issue. That suggests how devoted you are to that position and how personal it is to you. I'm going to throw your own words back at you and quote a bit of that blog post of yours that I mentioned:


You thought that you were describing others, but it applies as much, if not more so, to you. You appear to be super sensitive to criticism of analytics because you've wrapped your identity around it, so, when someone like O'Sullivan challenges it, it's like a challenge to everything that you believe. You then feel the need to defend your position at length like this in order to defend your identity and convince yourself that you're right.

The point is that the way that you think that others view and treat things (as almost political issues) is really more a reflection of how you view and treat things. If you're not aware of how your own outlook is tinted, you'll forever be frustrated and confused that others don't see the world the same way.
- Osprey

I have a wife, three children and two successful careers. I don't think I define my personal identity through hockey statistics. I was simply offering a rebuttal to something I saw that was wrong. If you think some old ex hockey player's views on math and facts effect me in anyway, I can assure you, they do not.

I have a wife, three children and two successful careers. I don't think I define my personal identity through hockey statistics. I was simply offering a rebuttal to something I saw that was wrong. If you think some old ex hockey player's views on math and facts effect me in anyway, I can assure you, they do not.
- James_Tanner

James, everybody has a family and a life outside of Hockeybuzz. The post was about your blogger identity, not your outside life, which nobody knows a thing about.

I have a wife, three children and two successful careers. I don't think I define my personal identity through hockey statistics. I was simply offering a rebuttal to something I saw that was wrong. If you think some old ex hockey player's views on math and facts effect me in anyway, I can assure you, they do not.
- James_Tanner

I think that you just assured us that they do affect you some, since, in trying to prove that they don't, you just put down O'Sullivan and his opinion again.

Regardless, suggesting that other people wrap their identities around their beliefs, but you don't, because your identity revolves around your family and career, is rather disingenuous. You're no different than others, but, like here, you seem to hold others to a different standard than you do yourself, which could have a lot to do with why so many around here have real issues with you.

So enough about that blowhard Tanner, let's talk hockey.

So I'm sure the Caps and the Bolts were real upset that they lost the corsi battle to us. I'm sure the coaches of their respective teams scolded them for failing to win the corsi despite the 5-0 score each team put on us. And I'm sure as well that the coach of Florida heralded the team for their win in the corsi fight despite the fact that they gave up six goals and lost the game. But let's be real here, the game of hockey doesn't bother with your advanced analytics. What matters is getting that puck into that goal and who can do it more.

If Kyle Clifford was to get a certain grade opportuniy x, he may score opportunity x 1 out of every 20 chances. Give Jamie Benn opportunity x and he will score it 12 out of 20. So even if Cliffy has 100 such opportunities to Benn's 20 the final score will be Cliffy 5 and Benn 12.

What I'm getting at is that the finish must be there to regardless of how many shots you throw on net. The Kings and the Bruins do not have finishers and that's what the point is. The Kings actually have more problems then that, such as leadership in the room and giving effort like in the glory years. But I have made my point and that's all.

What I'm getting at is that the finish must be there to regardless of how many shots you throw on net. The Kings and the Bruins do not have finishers and that's what the point is. The Kings actually have more problems then that, such as leadership in the room and giving effort like in the glory years. But I have made my point and that's all.
- verwustung

Boston has the best (#1) Corsi in the league and the worst (#30) shooting percentage. Of course, that shouldn't be too surprising, since taking more shots improves your Corsi, but tends to also lower your shooting %. Being at the two extremes shows just how badly Boston is doing at finishing.

LA is not far behind, being #2 in Corsi and #26 in shooting percentage. Another way to look at it is that they're #9 in shots for per game, but #23 in goals for per game. Like Boston, they can't finish and their plan is to just throw everything at the net and cross their fingers, which does wonders for their Corsi, but leaves whether or not they win the actual hockey games largely up to chance. The last three games are, perhaps, an extreme example of that. They usually just play those tight 3-2 games in which they cross their fingers that their system/Corsi edge is just enough to help them squeak out that 3rd goal more often than their opponents do.

So enough about that blowhard Tanner, let's talk hockey.

So I'm sure the Caps and the Bolts were real upset that they lost the corsi battle to us. I'm sure the coaches of their respective teams scolded them for failing to win the corsi despite the 5-0 score each team put on us. And I'm sure as well that the coach of Florida heralded the team for their win in the corsi fight despite the fact that they gave up six goals and lost the game. But let's be real here, the game of hockey doesn't bother with your advanced analytics. What matters is getting that puck into that goal and who can do it more.

If Kyle Clifford was to get a certain grade opportuniy x, he may score opportunity x 1 out of every 20 chances. Give Jamie Benn opportunity x and he will score it 12 out of 20. So even if Cliffy has 100 such opportunities to Benn's 20 the final score will be Cliffy 5 and Benn 12.

What I'm getting at is that the finish must be there to regardless of how many shots you throw on net. The Kings and the Bruins do not have finishers and that's what the point is. The Kings actually have more problems then that, such as leadership in the room and giving effort like in the glory years. But I have made my point and that's all.
- verwustung

Excellent points. The stats world would tell you to trust the process and the shot differential points to predictive results. The team I root for, the Flyers are 7th in the league in CF%. I assure you right now they're not a very good team, and they can't score a goal.

Setoguchi (LA) on waivers

— Elliotte Friedman (@FriedgeHNIC) February 12, 2017