Habsy
Yes, I'm kidding people.
He spent far too much in the box but I'm pretty sure the officials had it out for him.great player, that Mandela.
He spent far too much in the box but I'm pretty sure the officials had it out for him.great player, that Mandela.
I don't agree with this at all, to be honest.he was garbage in the series. hell, Mitchy even SAID he sucked. not even engaged in the first game.
My problem is that when these stats don't match up with real world results, it's reality that is questioned because the stats say x and that's that.
It piles a whole bunch of credibility onto something that, frankly, completely lacks it from any objective view.
Statistical/analytical examination of hockey is a great idea and maybe one day we can have a set of reliable measures on the chaos of the game we all love. It's a pity that the argument is so often oversimplified into "stats vs. eyetest" and all the characterizations both sides have of each other.
He spent far too much in the box but I'm pretty sure the officials had it out for him.
maybe you don't realize how obsessively you've been heckling me?
Probably.
But don't stop - I am flattered.
I said you spit fire. You dominated and I agreed with literally everything you said. This is now a heckle in zeke world.
View attachment 6891
I don't agree with this at all, to be honest.
The stats are a far more accurate 'objective' measurement of reality than the eye test. This is not to say these stats are without flaw or, more commonly, misused/valued. Corsi was all the rage initially but it was never a great stat.
To give a sense of this measurement error issue, I saw someone track manually all the shot locations recorded and it showed significant variance. This is what I was referring to above about the ME being pretty well established. But it's really important to note that we're talking about maybe 5 to 10% error.
I think that's exactly where the eye test fails most commonly -- mistakes are often magnified way out of proportion.I thought Mucho was great after game 1 personally. He created a fuckton. He's frustrating at times because he has the puck so fucking much.. So he's bound to make more mistakes with the puck. That can play tricks on the eyetest.
think point is a BraYdon, for what it's worthHey I liked Coburn. Point isn't bad either!
I thought Mucho was great after game 1 personally. He created a fuckton. He's frustrating at times because he has the puck so fucking much.. So he's bound to make more mistakes with the puck. That can play tricks on the eyetest.
Apologies for suggesting that. It should all be moot once they get the tracking going.I'm not an "eye test guy", I just want better data and better derivatives from it. I think the current quality is not sufficient that we can start judging performances by reducing players to one number.
Nope, not you. I just think a lot of complaints in general directed towards Mucho are a result of how puck dominant he is (so obviously you will notice his mistakes with the puck more often). Which is actually a good thing.If you're addressing that at me, I never said anything about mistakes with the puck.
I don't agree with this at all, to be honest.
The stats are a far more accurate 'objective' measurement of reality than the eye test. This is not to say these stats are without flaw or, more commonly, misused/valued. Corsi was all the rage initially but it was never a great stat.
To give a sense of this measurement error issue, I saw someone track manually all the shot locations recorded and it showed significant variance. This is what I was referring to above about the ME being pretty well established. But it's really important to note that we're talking about maybe 5 to 10% error.
They're coming around to usage. Still weighting (pardon the pun) for someone to develop a coefficient/adjustment. Silly we still don't have one.the biggest issue with analytics imo comes on the player side, not the team side.
and this is entirely due to the analytics community pretending that matchups don't matter just because they are hard to quantify.
the biggest issue with analytics imo comes on the player side, not the team side.
and this is entirely due to the analytics community pretending that matchups don't matter just because they are hard to quantify.
They're coming around to usage. Still weighting (pardon the pun) for someone to develop a coefficient/adjustment. Silly we still don't have one.
Pretty sure they used an iffy definition for QoC in this. Also, usage is not all QoC.From what I've read quality of teammate is significantly more important than quality of opposition. ie Micah Purdy who has actually done regression on the data.
From what I've read quality of teammate is significantly more important than quality of opposition. ie Micah Purdy who has actually done regression on the data.