Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.
posted at 3/2/2011 8:29 AM ESTwww.hockeyanalytics.com/" target="_blank" title="Hockey Analytics">www.hockeyanalytics.com/Perhaps, as this author says, "it isn’t easy to use statistics to gain an insight into the game of hockey. The first problem is the game does not lend itself to a meaningful statistical summary. A second problem is that nobody has ever spent much time thinking about what statistics should be captured and how. Finally, the game is “chaotic” and full of interrelationships."Baseball seems to lend itself more easily to deep statistical analysis, as there are more "individual" actions - at bats, for example. Hockey is a bit more slippery, and even "individual" actions in hockey are comprised of several external contributing factors and components. In that respect, baseball is more "mathematizable" than hockey - but it did take 20 years for baseball sabermetrics to reach adulthood. Hockey sabermetrics are certainly in their infancy, and maybe eventually a systems is constructed that takes peripheral stats like takeaways, giveaways and scoring chances, and plugs them into the metric in a relevant way.
posted at 3/2/2011 10:08 AM ESTI'm not much of a stats guy aside from goals, assists, wins and losses.
But I have recently been curious as to how many goals are scored due to pure skill - tape to tape passes resulting in a goal, breakaway goals, skillful tip-ins, pure snipes, etc.; versus "luck" goals - deflection off of an opposing defenseman's skate or body, a pass intended for one player deflects to another who scores the goal - or any other goal scored where the intent of the play didn't occur as the players planned, but ended up in the net anyways.
I bet the incidence of "luck" goals is pretty high - 30-40%. Not that I'm going to start counting though!