PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.

    Much has been said lately about the use (or over-use) of statistics in today's game. I came across this "Moneypuck" article from May in which PC and Burke shared some thoughts on the subject. Guess which one of them considers it a valuable tool when evaluating players and which one considers it "horseshit"?
    I also added an article from a Habs writer that some of you might find interesting.

    http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2012/03/05/brian-burke-peter-chiarelli-and-moneypuck-part-deux/

    http://www.habsworld.net/article.php?id=2865
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.

    This is a hockey forum Dez not a baseball forum darn it...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.

    In Response to Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.:
    [QUOTE]This is a hockey forum Dez not a baseball forum darn it...
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]
    I'm not sure what it is anymore San.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.

    love that habs article
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.

    In Response to Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.:
    [QUOTE]love that habs article
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]
    I figured some others would like it as much as I did Red. Cheers!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olsonic. Show Olsonic's posts

    Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.

    In Response to PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.:
    [QUOTE]Much has been said lately about the use (or over-use) of statistics in today's game. I came across this "Moneypuck" article from May in which PC and Burke shared some thoughts on the subject. Guess which one of them considers it a valuable tool when evaluating players and which one considers it "horseshit"? I also added an article from a Habs writer that some of you might find interesting. http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2012/03/05/brian-burke-peter-chiarelli-and-moneypuck-part-deux/ http://www.habsworld.net/article.php?id=2865
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]


    shocker.

    this may be a stretch here, but I feel on some level, the doubt of the potency of advanced statistics correlates to doubt of evolution and the proponents of intelligent design. People look around and see such an extraordinary amount of complexity, that they feel overwhelmed and determine it's impossible to understand anything systematic that could produce these changes. The feeling is, because we haven't developed the tools to understand everything about evolution, that we can't--in principle--ever do so.

    While Evolution now enjoys 99% of support within the national academy of sciences, it didn't start off that way, the doubters were slowly weaned out until the evidence was so overhwhelming that it became a career-ender for a scientist to doubt evolution in public. The obvious difference here is, the evidence isn't yet overwhelming and there aren't enough established authorities within hockey analytics in order to convince the masses (who, on average, are scientifically illiterate) that they should trust it.

    In that sense, I just look at hockey statistics as an undeveloped science. while much less complicated than evolution, hockey may still have enough variables to require computer modeling to make predictions of each player. If I were to guess, these systems will eventually be installed in every team. I suspect, like the stock market, mathematicians are going to move into professional sports and take over  player development/evaluation.

    When that happens, the laymen still won't know any more about statistics than they used to, but at least they'll have reliable authorities to trust. 


    I would also point to vegas' ability to use computer models to make accurate predictions (in general) about the outcomes of hockey games. People that imagine statistics cannot be used to appropriately estimate future performance probably believe Las Vegas is simply rolling the dice when setting lines and the over-under. While I don't know enough about Las Vegas' systems to explain what's going on (and will never understand given it's complexity) I'm assured by almost every authority that I've read that Vegas constently gets it right. This is another loose analogy, but i think it fits in some sense.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.

    Boy, I love Olsonic's comment above, seriously.  That's exactly the way I feel about this.

    People reject complicated explanations for things just because there are flaws and unknowns associated with it.  But of course the advanced statistics are a good tool.  They may be imperfect, incomplete, and the will always need interpretion, but to throw them out in favor of first-hand viewing (which is full of bias, human error, and sample size limitations) just seems lazy and short-sighted.

    I am really partial to Chiarelli's view here.  Get information any way you can.  To throw out statistical anaysis and metrics is foolish.  The key, to me, is how you choose to intrepret the data, how you decide which metrics you actually care about, which metrics are most measurable, and how heavily to weigh the information.

    If you can use a smart, practical approach to the information, I think it could be incredibly useful.  To ignore it all, is creationist thinking.  It'll get left behind, and so will Burke.

     
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.

    In Response to Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics. : shocker. this may be a stretch here, but I feel on some level, the doubt of the potency of advanced statistics correlates to doubt of evolution and the proponents of intelligent design. People look around and see such an extraordinary amount of complexity, that they feel overwhelmed and determine it's impossible to understand anything systematic that could produce these changes. The feeling is, because we haven't developed the tools to understand everything about evolution, that we can't--in principle--ever do so. In that sense, I just look at hockey statistics as an undeveloped science. while much less complicated than evolution, hockey does still have enough variables to require computer modeling to make predictions of each player. Eventually, these systems will be installed in every team. I suspect, like the stock market, mathmeticians are going to move into professional sports and take over  player development/evaluation.
    Posted by Olsonic[/QUOTE]
    Ols, I especially liked the reference to a young Gretzky creating his own set of "advanced stats" by tracking and tracing the puck's path. Regarding those who dislike stats, I haven't heard a persuasive argument yet for not using as much information as possible when making a decision. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olsonic. Show Olsonic's posts

    Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.

    In Response to Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.:
    [QUOTE]  To ignore it all, is creationist thinking.  It'll get left behind, and so will Burke.  
    Posted by Fletcher1[/QUOTE]


    I agree with this.

    Thanks fletch.

    I agree with you on the bias and self-deception. I think people deeply underestimate how prone to error eyewtiness accounts of behavior are.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olsonic. Show Olsonic's posts

    Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.

    In Response to Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.:
    [QUOTE]I especially liked the reference to a young Gretzky creating his own set of "advanced stats" by tracking and tracing the puck's path. Regarding those who dislike stats, I haven't heard a persuasive argument yet for not using as much information as possible when making a decision. 
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    wow I missed that, I'd love to know more about it.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from bim09. Show bim09's posts

    Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.

    Good read.

    Something that comes to mind is January birthdays.  It's not quanifiable but for some reason many successful players are born in this month.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olsonic. Show Olsonic's posts

    Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.

    As with all discussions between like-minded people: Crickets.

    anyways, now that I have a couple people that will actually read a statistics post, check out this one.... pretty complementary of Nathan horton

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.

    Playoff excitement/disappointment in March/early April + predisposition to committing kids to hockey = a lot of kids in hockey hotbeds born in January.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.

    http://canuckscorner.com/tombenjamin/2011/10/03/moneypuck-again/ 
          

    Some thoughts on why advanced stats in NHL hockey is met with question marks.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.

    In Response to Re: PC and Brian Burke Discuss Advanced Statistics.:
    [QUOTE]http://canuckscorner.com/tombenjamin/2011/10/03/moneypuck-again/          Some thoughts on why advanced stats in NHL hockey is met with question marks.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]
    Again, I don't think anyone was saying the statistics shouldn't be questioned. It's just another piece of information that a GM can either use or dismiss. I'm still waiting to hear a good enough reason to totally ignore the info.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share