Sharks Territorial Dominance over the Avalanche
by Hawerchuk on Apr 21, 2010 11:24 AM EDT
Email
PrintDon't think the Avs are getting lucky? Drink these digits in from the Sharks' perspective:
| Time | Down 1 | Tied | Up 1 | SF | SF | SF | SA | SA | SA |
| Game 4 | 0 | 2889 | 1335 | 0 | 57 | 24 | 0 | 43 | 16 |
| Game 3 | 0 | 3651 | 0 | 0 | 93 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 0 |
| Game 2 | 2438 | 1484 | 0 | 75 | 14 | 0 | 24 | 13 | 0 |
| Game 1 | 971 | 2629 | 0 | 12 | 45 | 0 | 13 | 32 | 0 |
| Totals | 3409 | 10653 | 1335 | 87 | 209 | 24 | 37 | 121 | 16 |
| Corsi | 70.2 | 63.3 | 60.0 |
Of course, the shooting percentage chart by state is much more telling...
| F/-1 | F/0 | F/1 | A/-1 | A/0 | A/1 | |
| Goals | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 1 |
| Shots | 87 | 209 | 24 | 37 | 121 | 16 |
| S% | 6.9 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.6 | 6.3 |
Everything seems to be in order...except San Jose's shooting percentage when the score is tied. Everybody who thinks the Sharks can continue to shoot 1.4% in tie games - including over many power plays - raise their hand. Yes, yes, I know the Sharks are cursed and Colorado's the chosen team, but the Avs have been getting abused on the shot boards, and the Sharks have been putting pucks away at roughly 1/3 their normal rate. The most likely thing that happens is the Sharks bounce back over the next two games, and Colorado is finished...But as we've seen, the most likely outcome is not the same thing as the actual outcome.
119 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The Anderson Factor
Luck plays a role, of course, in any short series.
But it’s not luck that Anderson is a great goalie.
He’s part of the team, too, and could easily have an impact on the opposing team’s shooting percentage in a single series (or two), could he not?
by David Staples @ The Cult of Hockey on Apr 21, 2010 11:35 AM EDT reply actions
Anderson is clearly having an effect on this series (he’s playing great), but I’m not to keen on him sporting a .989 save percentage for very long.
eyeballing it I thought the Sharks dominated the 1st period, and it was even the rest of the game. Game 1 was like that too, Sharks dominated a stretch, but the rest of the game was even. Games 2 and 3 were complete dominance by the Sharks, at almost all times.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Apr 21, 2010 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I think he’s played enough over his career that if you were to be on him (or goalies with his profile) being an above-average talent, you’d more than break even. Still, it’s not enough I think. Anderson might have to save more pucks than the best puck-stopper (Hasek) has ever done, and at that point you know there’s a significant luck component.
It’s funny, the casual wisdom is goaltending is the most important position, therefore even if you have a great skating team, you need highly talented goaltenders to go deep.
The first part is true I suppose, goaltenders have the biggest impact on winning, however the difference between goaltenders at this level is small enough that the marginal performance you can get in net is less important IMO. What you generally need is above-average puck-stopping performances, which is driven a lot by luck.
As always, luck is the biggest determinant of winning any one game or even any short stretch of games, moreso than skill.
Does San Jose crash and screen?
First of all, I agree that the team with the most scoring chances in a series is usually the better team and is often the team that will win the series. Team Canada in the Olympics — which had double the scoring chances of even its best opposition — was another example of that trend ( though it came close to losing to Slovakia (Slovakia!), a team that showed you don’t have to get many chances to win if you rely on an opportunistic counter-attack, clever zone defence and luck).
That said, shooting percentage as an indicator of a team’s performance can be confounded by the quality of the shots.
In San Jose’s case, could it be that the quality of shots is possibly reduced by the lack of players who drive the net and screen the goalie?
by David Staples @ The Cult of Hockey on Apr 21, 2010 11:39 AM EDT reply actions
David -
Through three games, Sharks Corsi was 66% and Scoring Chances were 63%. So I would say that average shot quality was not an issue.
We would need the Sharks scoring chance % to be under 50% for your theory to hold. The reason the Sharks are shooting 1.4% is about 25% Anderson and 75% bad luck.
So I should stop rooting for the Avs because it’s all a charade?
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
There isn’t any analysis being provided about why the team is winning. According to all the pundits, it’s 100% luck. Lucking shooting percentage, lucky bounces, unlucky Boyles, etc. Corsi, observations, chances, etc. all go the Sharks way, so the fact they are loosing has nothing to do with the Avalanche and everything to do with luck. That’s what I’m reading when you say that Anderson’s performance in this series is 75% bad luck on the part of the Sharks. Am I supposed to interpret that any other way?
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
Here’s what Jibblescribbits wrote a few comments above:
“Anderson is clearly having an effect on this series (he’s playing great), but I’m not to keen on him sporting a .989 save percentage for very long. eyeballing it I thought the Sharks dominated the 1st period, and it was even the rest of the game. Game 1 was like that too, Sharks dominated a stretch, but the rest of the game was even. Games 2 and 3 were complete dominance by the Sharks, at almost all times.”
I agree with what he wrote: Anderson can’t conceivably continue to post a .989 save percentage. He will regress to the mean, and so we should expect the Avs to give up more goals in the rest of the series. And territorially, in terms of scoring chances, the Sharks have dominated. Do you think NHL coaches and GMs build teams around getting dominated on shots? They don’t; it’s not something that has ever proven to be successful.
How do we explain Colorado winning two games then? Clearly, they have an advantage in goal, but they don’t have a goalie who’s orders of magnitude better than Dominik Hasek. They don’t have better shooters than the Sharks – I’ve documented that in detail.
What’s left over after we take out the talent (Anderson) is about 75% luck. Game 3. Was that not luck? The Sharks fire nearly 100 pucks at the Avs net, including many on the power play, and none go in. Then Dan Boyle puts the puck in his own goal. Replay that game 1000 times – how many times do the Avs win? I think Jibblescribbits will tell you that it’s not many. When a very unlikely outcome occurs – instead of the most likely one – that’s luck!
I don’t see why this bothers you. If the Avs get the most amazing bounces the rest of the way and were to beat San Jose, Detroit, Chicago and Washington and win the cup, they’d be the luckiest team ever. They would have a Stanley Cup, and I (and many others, like Jibblescribbits) would say it was very unlikely. And why would that matter to you? Even if it was 100% luck, you got to see your team win the Stanley Cup!
If you have testable theories about why the Avs are winning despite not getting scoring chances, I’m all ears. I fully admit that I understand just a sliver of how the game works and that there’s so much data we need to collect but don’t. But I do know that even over a 7-game series, goaltenders don’t post .989 save percentages, teams don’t shoot 1.4% in tie games, and defensemen don’t repeatedly shoot the puck into their own goals after their teams dominate for an entire game.
Your last paragraph runs counter to your previous ones. These posts do not appear to be testable theories about why the Avalanche are winning, but testable theories about why there is not bloody reason they are winning or in the playoffs.
I do enjoy the fans at FTF because they are knowledgeable and usually very cordial. However, as I commented over there, I think there are aspects of a sport, especially a team sport, that can effectively remove statistics from the equation. I will not venture to be a sports’ psychologist, I shall stick to law, but how is this as a “theory”.
Frustration on the Sharks and its effect on their skill. Based on paper skill, San Jose is better, no one will deny that. They enter the series “expecting” to win based on their preconceived notions and their proven skill. Suddenly this bad Avalanche team is playing well. San Jose grip their sticks a little harder; they second guess passes because what should be happening isn’t. Then enter Anderson, he seems nearly unbeatable. They second guess their shots; they take wider shots instead of pushing the hash-marks like they would in the regular season not for lack of skill but for that mental impediments of disbelief they can beat Anderson.
Another variable could be this rookie ignorance. San Jose expects the Avalanche rookies to collapse, crumble, and crack under the pressure. Instead they thrive, not in points but in passion. That can play into the minds of these athletes.
These are just possible reasons, I think a the very least a portion of these theories are in effect. But, if it is more than just a portion, this could explain why the statistics seem juxtapose to the outcome.
I refuse to believe that statistics are the only indicator of outcomes. I think they are supremely important, but not universally descriptive. Take the Roy v. Brodeur argument. Brodeur will have more wins, shutouts, and all kinds of records over Roy. Not taken into account is the defensive scheme of New Jersey. But when all is said it done, Roy possessed “it” factor, that certain undefinable ability to win in the more dire of circumstances; that I think made him the best ever. Statistics will point to Marty, but Roy was something else.
Avalanche 2009-2010: We'll beat the refs and the Sharks. We do not care.
Try to prove or at lest suggest with reason that anything that you just wrote is actually true.
And since you have some disdain using stats (you say they are important but you refute yourself with every word) break it down with video instead. Go over the entire history of goaltending in the league, then go over Anderson’s career puck-stopping history, then go over the the last couple of games that Anderson has played, then try to prove that he’s not getting lucky.
THEN do the same thing over the entire history of rookies, then these 09/10 Avs, then try to prove they’re not getting lucky.
THEN do the same thing over the entire history of first-seeds, then break down how hard the series winners gripped their sticks vs. how hard the series losers are gripped their sticks, then compare to how hard the Sharks are gripping their sticks.
For that last point you might have to actually go to San Jose yourself and measure the warping of their sticks or something, to see just how hard they gripped their sticks.
Or, if you find it easier, you can just admit that you don’t know what in the hell you’re talking about.
There is absolutely no need for this sort of an invective
I know precisely what I am talking about. You look at an opposing theory like it has the plague. If you take a minute to understand my point, I assume it’s not above your level of comprehension, I explained this Avs are an aberration in the statistical nature of the league. But I have a hard time saying it’s all luck. This is the primary issue at hand.
Back to my “mental” point. I assume you played hockey, at least I hope so. You know that even on a small level the mental effect of sports is paramount and intense. I simply explained that these players are men and affected by even the smallest aspect of mind games. You have been looking for a reason for the statistical anomalies. You offer luck, I offer mind games. You ask for proof or else I am lazy. People have studied the brain for hundreds of years, it is a science, and complicated and indefinite science. You are blaming everything on the “High Overlord of Luck.”
Avalanche 2009-2010: We'll beat the refs and the Sharks. We do not care.
You know that even on a small level the mental effect of sports is paramount and intense. I simply explained that these players are men and affected by even the smallest aspect of mind games. You have been looking for a reason for the statistical anomalies. You offer luck, I offer mind games.
See, luck can actually be evaluated in a reasoned way (looking at sustainability over time frames, comparing to random-chance models, etc.).
When you start to speculate about “mind-games” then you’re going beyond the realm. I could just as easily speculate about “home issues” and have just as sound a basis for reasoning (that is, no basis at all).
So sports psychology is not a valid science? Boy, it’s a good thing we don’t have schools teaching that all over North America or anything. That would really suck.
I do think there’s a psychological aspect to situations like this. Is it enough to explain the absurd percentages we’re getting here? Of course not. But it’s a real effect, and it drives me batty that people avoid a perfectly reasonable explanation because it doesn’t fit their worldview of God throwing dice.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Right on, Doog.
I bet R O doesn’t think homeopathic medicine or chiropractic is “real science” either. Lets make a list of all the schools teaching homeopathy and chiropractic just to prove him wrong!
Oh for Christ’s sake. I’m not even answering that.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
They second guess their shots; they take wider shots instead of pushing the hash-marks like they would in the regular season not for lack of skill but for that mental impediments of disbelief they can beat Anderson.
This is the funniest part, because it’s provably untrue.
www.coppernblue.com has been recording scoring chances for COL vs. SJS. San Jose has dominated scoring chances, it’s not even close. San Jose has provably NOT been hesitant in pushing into the hashmarks and the scoring zone, in fact they have penetrated it with ease time and again and the Avs skaters have been completely unable to neutralize them at doing so.
You did not read what I wrote then
You asked for testable theories. I offered some for consideration. However, if you read what I wrote, I said this is a possible mental block. It could possible infect their minds. I never said they did not take shots, but it could affect their accuracy, positioning, and some attempts to make a “better shot”.
Avalanche 2009-2010: We'll beat the refs and the Sharks. We do not care.
Maybe you should test these theories yourself. By looking at game tape or video from every first-seed that went 2-2 against the eight-seed, and seeing what is the same and what is different.
You won’t do it of course. You’ll just keep singing the same tune.
So you are accusing me of not watching the last game?
Avalanche 2009-2010: We'll beat the refs and the Sharks. We do not care.
Or the playoffs for the past 10 years as well?
Avalanche 2009-2010: We'll beat the refs and the Sharks. We do not care.
Not if you think the Sharks didn’t get into the hashmarks with ease.
Damn, that’s like a basic thing that you pick up from watching the game.
Did I say never?
I never said that. I said not as often as they would in the “regular season”. Read what i write. It’s a good way of understanding a counter argument, even if you disagree.
Avalanche 2009-2010: We'll beat the refs and the Sharks. We do not care.
I said not as often as they would in the "regular season
I count the Sharks with an EV chance advantage of 70-37 over four games. And a shots-directed-toward-net advantage of 320-174, at EV.
So both teams have a chances-to-shots ratio of 21%. I don’t know what this figure is for the Sharks regular season as nobody counted chances for them, but the Avs have no advantage in this.
And there tends to be nothing in this anyway. This is the infamous “shot quality” argument (how many chances can you get per shot) and its effect is smaller than you will think.
So your theory is that the San Jose Sharks – a group of players who’ve spent four hours a day at the rink since they were 14, who’ve played in all kinds of high-pressure games (previous playoffs, the Olympics, AHL championships, Memorial Cup, World Juniors), have an NHL coaching staff that includes a head coach from the Detroit Red Wings organization, and have been able to control the puck for virtually the entire series against Colorado – can score when they’re one goal down but have a low shooting percentage when the game is tied because they are mentally unprepared?
I invite you to put your ideas out there for public consumption and scrutiny. You seem to have a real lack of respect for professional hockey players and team management and the effort they put in to make sure that they reach their peak athletic performance.
I argue that in defense of R O
I believe these athletes are incredible. I really do. I do not think these heroes on the ice are affected that much. However, I offered that as a testable theory, a possible example of a small variable in this series and nothing more. It could play a factor that is not called “luck”. That was all.
Avalanche 2009-2010: We'll beat the refs and the Sharks. We do not care.
So let’s test it. Posit that when faced with adversity, the current Sharks roster – alone among NHL teams – folds, and fails to maintain a normal shooting percentage only when the score is tied.
Counterexample: Dan Boyle. Wins 2003-04 Stanley Cup. He’s a 7, plays 21 minutes a night, and shoots 8%.
Counterexample: Dany Heatley. Played in the 2006-07 SC finals. 22 points in 20 games. +4. 12% shooting percentage.
Counterexample: Rob Blake. Won the 2000-01 Stanley Cup. Played 29+ minutes a night. 19 points in 23 games as a defenseman.
Counterexample: Patrick Marleau. 16.2% shooting percentage in the playoffs, 14.6% in the regular season.
I could go on. Virtually every single Sharks player has been able to exceed his regular season performance in the playoffs, often frequently. There is nothing about them that would indicate that they are psychologically unprepared to win.
I don’t think the argument is that they’re psychologically unprepared. Just that Anderson got into their heads a little and they shot a few wide or at his chest that they might not have ordinarily. At least, that’s as far as I’d suggest it goes.
Clearly, the spell was broken last night. ;)
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Yes, very much broken – although the Sharks still shot 1-for-35 with the game tied.
I think the “get in their heads” notion comes from playing hockey as a 7-year-old. I don’t think professional hockey players get in each other’s heads so much as they get in each other’s faces with a stinky glove.
You don’t think guys run into a hot goalie and change where they shoot a little?
(I find it very ironic, incidentally, that amongst my friends, I’m the only one screaming “IT’S ALMOST ALL LUCK”, and yet I’m the only one here trying to present a reasoned argument that there are things other than luck at play. It’s very strange being me.)
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
When we get to the point where we’re all on the same page about luck, then maybe we can start talking about these types of nuances at the very extremes of performance.
Still, not sure it’s worth it. The relationship between goalscoring and wins is very accurately represented by goals occuring completely randomly. Whatever effect that clutchness has, is so small as to not be worth talking about.
Same thing with EVSV% and EVSH% I recall, the spreads over the NHL population look very similar to the results of coin flips with coin weights equal to career averages. Whatever real estate is left there for “other stuff”, is not enough even for Tom Thumb.
I don’t think that because something correlates with or resembles a coin flip, that it necessarily is (in essence) a coin flip, but I’ll confess to not having the mathematical background to prove this. I’m also not sure that anyone else in the room does, so maybe the point is moot.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Still, not sure it’s worth it. The relationship between goalscoring and wins is very accurately represented by goals occuring completely randomly. Whatever effect that clutchness has, is so small as to not be worth talking about.
I agree 100% with this.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Apr 23, 2010 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Absolutely a professional athlete can have issues with mental preparedness for a playoff situation among other aspects within his game. That’s why there is a very profitable business in sports psychology. The sharks have suffered from ghosts of playoffs past, and being outplayed by another eight-seeded team (and they were by their own admission outplayed, not outlucked, for significant portions of more than one game) affected their psyches. Did it stop them from being the power house they are? No. Are they the better team? Yes. But luck will not keep a team that good pinned in their own zone the way the as can do.
This is our team: underrated, filled with amazingly talented kids and veteran leaders, both young and old, who are buying into the vision of a hard working, fast moving, never-say-die game. They are the 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche.
by Cheryl Bradley on Apr 22, 2010 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions
sorry for the strike thru...posting from phone....
This is our team: underrated, filled with amazingly talented kids and veteran leaders, both young and old, who are buying into the vision of a hard working, fast moving, never-say-die game. They are the 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche.
by Cheryl Bradley on Apr 22, 2010 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry. I don’t usually say this, but I call bullshit. The Sharks do not “suffer from ghosts of playoffs past.”
Boyle, Blake, Huskins and Wallin have won the cup. Heatley played in the finals. Thornton, Marleau, Boyle and Heatley won Olympic gold. Pavelski won a silver.
Oh, but put them all together on the same team and they wilt in the face of a Colorado team that can’t get the puck out of their own end?
Chemistry?
Steve Moore’s last act as a hockey player was beating Matt Cooke’s ass, which makes him a great great person.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Apr 22, 2010 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions
So yeah, a bunch of guys who won a shitload of games during the regular season and are firing hundreds of pucks at Anderson are failing to score just when the game is tied (but not when they’re down) and that’s because they have bad chemistry.
Of course, Heatley/Marleau/Thornton had good chemistry when they won an Olympic gold in February.
Any other explanations you want to pull from your nether regions?
Right now they look like they have never played together before and obviously they have been the focus of the avalanche’s meager defensive scheme.
Steve Moore’s last act as a hockey player was beating Matt Cooke’s ass, which makes him a great great person.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Apr 22, 2010 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Andy just has them stifled. And Heatly’s not at 100%
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Apr 22, 2010 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with that and injuries could effect chemistry. If Heatley and Marleau (I’m not sure he’s hurt but at this time of the year he’s certainly dinged) can’t do what they normally could do, that throws the dynamic of the line off.
Steve Moore’s last act as a hockey player was beating Matt Cooke’s ass, which makes him a great great person.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Apr 22, 2010 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not so sure they’re not doing what they normally do. It could just be a good ol fashioned Anderson, Stastny line, and bad luck induced slump.
The Avs are putting their best line against them, which helps neutralize them out. That’s partly why their second line is getting so many chances. The Avs don’t have 2 lines to counter them.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Apr 22, 2010 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re really twisting yourself into knots on this one.
How does chemistry explain the following:
SJ Shooting percentage down 1: 6.9%
SJ Shooting percentage tied: 1.4%
Col Shooting percentage tied: 6.6%
Col Shooting percentage up 1: 6.3%
The league average is in the sixes. And chemistry explains why SJ is 26 standard deviations below the mean on shooting percentage, but only when the score is tied?
I’ll admit that what’s nice about your explanation is that you can change it on the fly to explain anything that happens. You can’t quantify it; you don’t even know how we’d measure it; and so nobody can ever prove you wrong.
I tell you what: San Jose is favored 70% to win tonight. Go throw some bucks on the Avs if you really think SJ’s chemistry means they’ll lose.
How can you argue against things the sharks themselves have admitted are true?
This is our team: underrated, filled with amazingly talented kids and veteran leaders, both young and old, who are buying into the vision of a hard working, fast moving, never-say-die game. They are the 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche.
by Cheryl Bradley on Apr 22, 2010 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions
By that I mean: 1. That the avs have frustrated them and they had to change their game to answer their trap system and anderson, 2. That they need to focus and not let the past affect how they appraoch this series (and I never said the avs in particular) and 3. That their top line wasn’t making it happen (admission evidenced by breaking it up).
Evidence to support an argument does not need to be numerical in nature to be valid. Observation of behavior is also valid. I know this to be true as my career is based on this premise.
This is our team: underrated, filled with amazingly talented kids and veteran leaders, both young and old, who are buying into the vision of a hard working, fast moving, never-say-die game. They are the 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche.
by Cheryl Bradley on Apr 22, 2010 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok, so the Sharks adjusted from game 2 to game 3. And they rained 99 shots at the Colorado goal. And they got zero goals.
And the reason is still chemistry? And not that Dan Boyle shot the puck into his own net? Come on.
Everything you’ve written here is pure confirmation bias.
Let’s say the Sharks are psychologically fragile, as a group, and much more so than any other team. What you’ve constructed lets you say you’re right if the Sharks lose, and pretend that nothing happened if they win.
And yes, evidence in sports needs to be quantitative and systematic. Every single thing we know about the NHL is a subjective judgment (goals are the most objective, but still can be in doubt) but when you accumulate these judgments, they give you a quantitative picture of what’s happening on the ice.
I have a friend who does psychological testing of NHL players. Believe me, there’s no systematic evidence that the Sharks players fold under pressure. But hey, you read the newspaper and watch the game on TV, so your opinion is probably correct.
But hey, you read the newspaper and watch the game on TV, so your opinion is probably correct.
Is that necessary? I’ve neither said nor done nothing that should elicit a disrespectful response from you, yet here you are giving one.
You asked for support for my assertions; I gave it. Yet you immediately dismiss it because it does not fit into your opinion of what constitutes the only acceptable justification for team success. The problem with your system, however, is the intangible aspect of human nature. For any team, desire, heart, discipline, will, confidence….all of these things are as necessary as skill to win. And sometimes, those things transcend skill to give athletes that extra “it” they need to overcome a more talented opponent.
The most famous example of this in hockey is the 1980 US Olympic team. They were a talented group of kids but they were nowhere near as talented as the Eastern European teams they faced. Yet the intangibles helped drive them to prevail over teams that should have beaten them, that numbers said should have beaten them.
Sports are full of these kinds of stories. Before you go off on me for comparing the Avs to these teams and stories, I’m not. I’m using them as an example of what numbers cannot give you as evidence in regards to how “good” a team can really be.
This is our team: underrated, filled with amazingly talented kids and veteran leaders, both young and old, who are buying into the vision of a hard working, fast moving, never-say-die game. They are the 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche.
by Cheryl Bradley on Apr 23, 2010 2:24 AM EDT up reply actions
All you’re “showing” (and I hesitate to describe it as that) is that an inferior team can win against a superior team.
Good Christ, we’ve known this since the dawn of sport. It’s not a new fact, in fact it’s kind of central to the concept of luck.
Intangibles is a lazy argument. You know why? Because nobody can go out and prove or disprove it.
I could dream up some rumor that the members of the Thornton line are collectively not getting enough action in the sack and that’s why they’re not converting on their chances, and I’d have just as much a leg to stand on as you (that is, none).
You’re basically making shit up that has never happened on the ice, and never will happen on the ice. For Chrissakes, just watch the game on the ice, or take that mumbo-jumbo bullshit somewhere else.
You are so moronic that you entertain me. Thank you for the laugh this morning. I needed it.
This is our team: underrated, filled with amazingly talented kids and veteran leaders, both young and old, who are buying into the vision of a hard working, fast moving, never-say-die game. They are the 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche.
by Cheryl Bradley on Apr 23, 2010 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Is ‘luck’ not as lazy?
Steve Moore’s last act as a hockey player was beating Matt Cooke’s ass, which makes him a great great person.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Apr 23, 2010 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions
“Is ‘luck’ not as lazy?”
No. You’ll have to do a little searching for the pieces on this issue, but essentially what you do is conduct a completely random experiment where you assume every team has identical talent and look at the standard deviation of the random experiment vs the standard deviation of the actual thing under study.
Team records have a bigger spread than random luck would suggest. So we know there is such a thing as actual talent (phew!)
Team shooting percentage, on the other hand, has only slightly more of a spread than the random experiment. So we say that luck plays a large role in shooting percentage.
The other thing we do is look at team shooting percentage in odd and even games. If it is a true talent (like Corsi), then there should be a high persistence between odd and even games. But there isn’t. I looked at teams back to 1987 on this questions.
Ok, I can see that, but to dismiss all other factors (chemestry, injury, psychology, sick dog etc.) it seems like you’re not including everything. With the stastics you posess, you can at least take into account injury, I can see how the others would be harder (but not impossible) to quantify, but would effect shooting %.
Steve Moore’s last act as a hockey player was beating Matt Cooke’s ass, which makes him a great great person.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Apr 23, 2010 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Look, I’m not saying any of those things couldn’t possibly have an impact.
But I think what RO wrote is valid:
“Intangibles is a lazy argument. You know why? Because nobody can go out and prove or disprove it.”
For most of the ideas I write about, I hold myself to a standard that requires me to formulate a testable hypothesis, locate data, analyze the data, and consider alternate theories. And you rightly hold me to this standard.
But what standard is “sick dog” held to? None, right? Nobody in the general public has any idea what’s going on in Joe Thornton’s head. That’s a lazy argument because you can never be wrong. You say it is so and because neither side can provide any evidence, it must be accepted as true.
But psychologists are cheap, right? So if this is such a huge issue – and presumably some team must realize how big it is – why are there 10 assistant coaches breaking down tape instead of 10 psychologists on every team?
See, it’s tough to argue that NHL GMs and coaches are completely wrong. And nobody has the balls to do that. So they attack me (or any other statistically-inclined analyst) because I’m just some guy somewhere. That’s lazy too.
Beachie – you wrote:
“Absolutely a professional athlete can have issues with mental preparedness for a playoff situation among other aspects within his game…The sharks have suffered from ghosts of playoffs past, and being outplayed by another eight-seeded team affected their psyches.”
Before you get annoyed with what I wrote, please consider what you’re saying here.
You are telling me that a group of professional athletes who spend 1000 hours per year on the ice and probably another 1000 in the gym and get paid millions of dollars a year…Are so fragile that having a low shooting percentage for a few games destroys them psychologically?
You are telling me that Todd McLellan, who came from an organization that won the cup, and Doug Wilson, who has assembled a team that has averaged 109 points over the last five seasons, are incapable of taking a group of professional athletes and making them mentally ready for a playoff game? And that Wilson, faced with a team that was supposedly psychologically fragile in 07-08 and 08-09, did nothing in 2009-10 to improve the team in this regard?
In other words, you think that Wilson, McLellan, Thornton, Marleau, Heatley, Boyle, Nabokov, Pavelski and all of the not-quite-star Sharks are such amateurs that they have repeatedly failed to address the need to achieve peak performance in their games?
And I’m being disrespectful?
Sure, it’s possible that the Sharks are crapping their pants because they have a low shooting percentage only in tie games. Anything is possible – see statistical mechanics – but it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to convince yourself that the Sharks – and Sharks alone – lack the mental toughness possessed by every other team in the league.
You are taking what I’ve said and applying it on such a grander scale than what I ever proposed it’s ridiculous. All I’m saying is that a team can be affected by the mental game, either for good or for ill, and that the mental game can transcend numbers. What looks good/bad on paper can be beat out by other factors that you cannot calculate. This is a fact of life. I truly wish I had the time to research this and post links to studies that support this as I know they are out there. Alas I don’t and it’s not laziness. It’s having something so much more important to deal with right now that I can’t.
This is our team: underrated, filled with amazingly talented kids and veteran leaders, both young and old, who are buying into the vision of a hard working, fast moving, never-say-die game. They are the 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche.
by Cheryl Bradley on Apr 23, 2010 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Really?
You wrote: “The sharks have suffered from ghosts of playoffs past, and being outplayed by another eight-seeded team affected their psyches”
You didn’t say “Oh, it’s possible that psychological issues reduced the Sharks ability to score.”
Your claim is pretty clear – past playoff losses and the shame of getting outscored by – but not outplayed by – the Avs has reduced the Sharks’ ability to score in tied games only, but not when they are down by 1.
Your ex post facto explanation doesn’t even match the facts of the situation. Can you explain why the Sharks’ shooting ability exists down by one but not when the score is tied?
I wasn’t speaking at all about down by one, tied, or anything of that nature. I was speaking in general. And I did say “suffered from” not that their “crapping their pants.”
There’s a term in hockey with I’m sure you’re familiar: gripping the stick. Players shoot the puck too soon or hold on to it too long when they are thinking too much – which can result from a goaltender “getting in their heads.” I don’t know if you play hockey (I think you mentioned that you do) but I do. I know that I play differently when faced with a goaltender that is on a hot streak than one that is scrambling to find his/her game. I try too hard with the first and relax more with the latter. I force my shots more with the first than I do with the latter. No, I’m not a pro. But the pros say the exact same thing. And before you or RO say, “Oh you read the papers, blah blah blah” I will tell you I know they do because I skate with retired players every single week. I have worked with a retired NHLer (no need to drop names and no I’m not lying) to establish a business for him to offer clinics and coaching services. He is now a friend and we have discussed this particular series. He has friends on the Sharks. And he has told me straight up that the issues from the past and the surprise talent of the Avs have, in fact, gotten in the players’ heads. This doesn’t mean that they haven’t fought through that nor that it’s been debilitating – obviously it hasn’t – but it was a factor coming into the series and that 51 save shut out definitely was an issue.
take what you will from what I’ve said. Call me out and say it’s bullshit and that I’m making it up. I suspect you will. I know it’s not. Your numbers do not tell the whole story and every professional hockey player out there will tell you the same thing.
This is our team: underrated, filled with amazingly talented kids and veteran leaders, both young and old, who are buying into the vision of a hard working, fast moving, never-say-die game. They are the 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche.
by Cheryl Bradley on Apr 23, 2010 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
How about what Patrick Marleau said?
“The puck just isn’t going into the net,” Marleau said. “It’s just one of those things that comes and goes. But it’s not going to stay this way…”
Seriously, just because you or I play men’s league hockey and doubt our abilities, it doesn’t mean a world-class athlete is going to have the same lack of mental toughness.
Except that they do…
This is our team: underrated, filled with amazingly talented kids and veteran leaders, both young and old, who are buying into the vision of a hard working, fast moving, never-say-die game. They are the 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche.
by Cheryl Bradley on Apr 23, 2010 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
And I am a woman
This is our team: underrated, filled with amazingly talented kids and veteran leaders, both young and old, who are buying into the vision of a hard working, fast moving, never-say-die game. They are the 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche.
by Cheryl Bradley on Apr 23, 2010 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. A player at his peak level of fitness who works with an in-house sports psychologist is not comparable to you or me.
I do, however, think that drug and alcohol abuse account for significant variations in performance in the NHL.
So I should stop rooting for the Avs because it’s all a charade?
It’d be appreciated if you just stopped commenting about how they’re not terrible (they are) and how they deserve to win (they don’t) and just enjoy this magic run they’re on until it ends (and it will).
Terrible teams don’t make the playoffs and take the #1 seed to a tie series after 4 games. Terrible teams play in Edmonton. Are they not as good as some of the bandwagoners trumpet? Absolutely. I’d also like to see where I (personally) have stated that the Avs aren’t flawed or deserve to win. This is a team that was picked dead last in the regular season, backed into the playoffs, expected to get swept in the first round, and is doing some remarkably bad things but still are in the series.
I just find the continued beating of the “Avs suck” drum to be tiresome. I’m sure there are plenty of Colorado trolls that are defending their team with as much vitriol as members of this board and others are decrying them as charlatans and child molesters. It’s the playoffs. It’s what people do. I’m just not seeing anything or anybody discussing why the Sharks aren’t performing, it’s all why the Avs are getting lucky. It just seems disingenuous to me. At the same time, I’m waving my fan flag pretty high and I can understand how that may be coloring my perceptions. I just get the feeling from many of these posts that I’m supposed to feel bad for rooting for my team, defending my team, or cheering for my team other than outside of my little MHH community.
I understand that the numbers and observables regarding the Avalanche this season are bewildering and extremely interesting for those who are inclined to care. At the same time, I wonder why this is still a story when the Avs have played like this all season. At what point does it stop being a statistical anomaly and become how the team operates, even for a brief window of one season?
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
Terrible teams don’t make the playoffs
Just not true. Every season there are good teams that get unlucky and bad teams that get lucky. Sometimes they back into the playoffs (e.g. 08/09 Blues). Sometimes they even win Conference titles (e.g. 07/08 Canadiens). Sometimes they go all the way to the Finals (e.g. 03/04 Flames, my home team).
take the #1 seed to a tie series after 4 games
Luck has taken the #1 seed to a tie series. Unless you plan to argue that Anderson can save more than 95% of the shots he faces on his own merit. In which case, you’ll be laughed out of here.
I’m just not seeing anything or anybody discussing why the Sharks aren’t performing,
Again, if you’re suggesting that the Sharks are converting on less than 2% of their EV shots (and a commensurately low amount of their scoring chances) on their own merit, then you are going to get laughed out of serious discussions.
At the same time, I wonder why this is still a story when the Avs have played like this all season. At what point does it stop being a statistical anomaly and become how the team operates, even for a brief window of one season?
Yeah, the Avs have gotten lucky all season, you’re right about that. It’s not an “anomaly”, in fact it’s kind of expected that at least one undeserving team will go deeper in the regular season and/or playoffs than they would in the majority a million other parallel universes. Just the vagaries of luck.
The reason it’s still a story is because certain people keep making it more about skills that the Avs don’t possess than about just plain luck. It will stop being a story when the Avs rightfully lose.
Don’t worry, we’ll go through this again next season when another undeserving team gets hot.
The reason it’s still a story is because certain people keep making it more about skills that the Avs don’t possess than about just plain luck. It will stop being a story when the Avs rightfully lose.
Let me see if I get this. We do not possess any skill? So Stastny, Duchene, Stewart, and Anderson are essentially minor league hockey players.
We should rightfully lose? So there is this preordained, omnipotent, truth that makes the team on paper win when they should.
I find these arguments have transcended into the realm of religious antagonism. We Avalanche fans understand this season may be an outlier and we are the first people to understand that. But all of your arguments only look at statistics and do not take into account personal variables. Those variables are what makes sports sports and very different than math and physics.
Avalanche 2009-2010: We'll beat the refs and the Sharks. We do not care.
Duchene, being a top prospect, obviously is a good bet to have good years ahead of him, but right now he really shouldn’t be in the NHL. That goes for O’Reilly, Yip, Stewart, Galiardi… a whole slew of players on the Avs. Obviously Stastny and Anderson are good players (Stastny in particular is incredible) but they are only two players and the team as a 23-man unit kinda blows, a lot.
That’s missing the point though, which is that there is vociferous contention that the Avs have the skill of “timely goals” or “counter-attack” or “better-than-Hasek goaltending” which is enabling them to win games on their own merit. Which is such a load of bullshit, those skills don’t exist in anywhere near the magnitudes they are being suggested, except in some mental fantasies.
And this “personal variables” bullshit is just a proxy for self-delusion and lazy argument.
I love how any argument you dislike become a “lazy argument”. I have seen that defense seven or eight times from you. You asked for testable theories for Mike. I gave you some. Instead of arguing against them, you called them a proxy for self-delusion. Another proxy for self-delusion is assuming a Flames team built around a single winger is going to consistently make the playoffs.
However, I offered a possible theory. I have a dozen floating around.
Avalanche 2009-2010: We'll beat the refs and the Sharks. We do not care.
See, I personally consider the luck argument to be at tad lazy so we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I guess what I’m after is for someone to explain to me why Thorton/Marleau/Heatley are trying to shoot a hole through Anderson’s chest. Are you trying to tell me that shooting at the logo on the goalie’s chest is a successful way to score goals?
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
Is it really?
Read: http://vhockey.blogspot.com/2008/03/he-was-fuckin-lucky.html
It’s pretty clear both by number and by eye that out-scoring (i.e. winning) over short periods of time (seven games series definitely counting), all other things being equal, is not in and of itself a sustainable phenomenon.
Out-scoring in today’s game does not predict, with any confidence, out-scoring in tomorrow’s game.
From which the natural conclusion is that winning any one game, all else being equal, is driven largely by luck.
However, the concepts of outshooting and zone time (both proxies for territorial advantage), well those are sustainable over short time frames (in the link above, half-seasons). And what’s more, the concept of territorial advantage is a better predictor of future out-scoring (winning) than winning now.
You can think of luck as whatever you like but you won’t just hand-wave it away, it exists in this game in enormous quantities. A lot of things in this game happen outside the players’ control.
Anderson saving more shots than the best goalie in history? If that was in Anderson’s control then he’d be the best goalie in history, I dare you to make that argument.
Heatley/Thornton/Marleau being amongst the worst finishers in the league and in history? If that was in their control then they wouldn’t have had long and prosperious careers that say otherwise. I dare you to make that argument.
So Calder Cup nominee Duchene isn’t ready for the show? Why? Cuz he isn’t handling Pavelski’s line effectively?
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
Because he and his linemates haven’t handled anybody effectively all season, and part of that is that they
I mean everyone on the Avs is underwater, and Duchene compared to say, Galiardi, well, the former has separated himself from the latter despite similar icetime but the fact that everybody is underwater suggests that this is because Galiardi is terrible and Duchene is less terrible.
Doesn’t take away from the fact that neither Duchene or Galiardi are ready.
Personally I think you’re focusing on the wrong group of players. I think the Avs shot and Corsi numbers are so bad are because of the defense players, not the offensive ones.
The Avs defense can’t make a pass to a forward to save their lives, which has become painfully obvious in the San Jose series. They can’t clear and it pins the Avs in their own zone, giving up more shots. The Avs only have 2 players on their defense who can pass the puck; Liles and Quincey. (And Liles gets overwhlemed physically, so even though he can pass it, he can’t really take it away from anyone in order to pass it).
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Apr 22, 2010 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I dunno Jibble, I look at the history of the Avs defenders and I see some good players. Salei and Hannan, especially, and it’s not like they’re running a bunch of untested defenders against good players.
Good defenders behind bad forwards will look bad, I think. Forwards are bigger difference-makers on the GF/GA ledger. I think the Avs defense is actually a strength, this manifested in game 1.
Look again. Hannan can’t pass the puck, period. He also can’t skate it out of his own end. Salei played one game all season prior to the Olympics. You can’t use him as a barometer to judge the Avs. Foote is old and slow. Cumiskey is one dimensional and Quincey seems to have worn down as the season went on. Wilson is suffering from the effects of two concussions and the most damning piece of evidence is the fact that we had Tom Preissing up with the big club at one point this season.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
Salei looks old right now, and Rusty from a lot of time off. He doesn’t look, at all, like the same player he used to be.
Hannan has cost the Avs at least 10 shots on net this series because he can’t operate a basic breakout. He’s given it away at least 2ce, and that led to another 5 shots on goal (and severla blocks). He’s solid at taking the puck, but he just has no clue what to do with it when he gets it.
Foote’s ok, but he’s a bit slower now, so he loses guys a lot easier.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Apr 22, 2010 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
He’s solid at taking the puck, but he just has no clue what to do with it when he gets it.
This is where good forwards really help.
I mean you think of a player like Crosby, who’s good at everything but one of the premier ways you see him influence possession is taking it out of his own zone. Especially when the guy behind him isn’t Gonchar, he’ll provide close support on the breakout so the defender doesn’t have to make a great pass (just adequate).
It’s the same with a lot of excellent forwards in this league, they won’t cheat for the long breakout which makes life so much easier for thier D.
But the Avs aren’t the Pens. They don’t have the same system. The Avalanche seem to break up ice at the slightest indication of possession. Again, they’re doing what they’re told and are working to get open, but coaching/management doesn’t have the players in the d-corps to facilitate that design. I really don’t think it’s the forwards, it’s the D. It was the same issue last season with supposedly more “NHL-ready” guys on the roster.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
I agree there. That’s why I’m not too worried about it, and probably why I would take offense to you saying the Avs forwards shouldn’t be in the league. This skill is something that’s easily learn-able and coach-able. The Avs oldest forward on the (healthy) top 9 not named Hejduk is Stastny at 25.
They are learning, it was supposed to be a rebuilding year. It’s just been more successful than anyone anticipated. The players deserve to be out there learning.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Apr 22, 2010 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Well yeah, but is it possible that they’d be better off learning in a lower league?
I mean, in a parallel universe, the Avs are (say) 12th. And in both that league and this one, the Avs young players were dominated territorially. Is that helpful to the development of young players?
It’s not a question I know much about. But, from the perspective of winning games, these young players didn’t help.
Not sure where the post is, but Gabe here (I think ) had a post showing it didn’t really matter what league they learned in. That players peak at a certain age no matter how many years they spend in the minors.
And playing below average doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be in the league. Below average has a place in the league too.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Apr 22, 2010 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Bringing guys up too soon may or may not impact their ceiling, but the Avs are burning up a year of entry-level contracts on a team that’s at best #8 in the West.
Yip, Galiardi and O’Reilly have some pretty rough shot totals when they’re on the ice. (Galiardi at least plays against the first line.) I wouldn’t have burned a year of cheap contracts to get that level of performance out of them.
Duchene and Stastny don’t look bad at all in this context. They’re slightly negative on SF/SA, but they played 1st and 2nd line competition all season.
The contract thing is true, and there’s certainly a strong argument to be made there, but I think the Avs still played it right. They expected TJ Hensick to finally have a good season, but he’s beginning to look like a bust. Small sample size and whatnot, but he doesn’t work very hard in his own end, and got sent down.
Yip was called up early to mid season, and played well enough to stay up. the Avs were going to call up someone, and they called up Yip ( a likely 3rd liner long term) instead of Stoa (a 1st round draft pick/ potential 1st liner in the future). Maybe the Avs should have signed more veteran wingers to give both a chance to develop in Lake Erie, but the salary mandate from ownership made that almost impossible.
O’Reilly was a bit in over his head, and the Avs probably would have been better served signing a guy like Dominic Moore or Malhotra, but the salary mandate from above made that nearly impossible.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Apr 22, 2010 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Like Jibbles said, I don’t think Galiardi, Yip, O’Reilly, and Stewie as the core of the group of forwards. I think they figured more on Hensick or Stoa but not those other guys.
They had a salary mandate and a ton of horrible contracts that will come off the books after this season, especially after the Smyth trade which was 100% salary driven. Long story short, another year of injuries (just like last season) accelerated the rebuild and they managed to squeak into the playoffs.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
That sounds reasonable because Yip is just getting destroyed out there, no matter who he’s with or who he’s against. If you’re saying he should be in the A or on the 4th, that explains things.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Also
Salei was out for almost the whole season.
I think the defense makes more impact than you’re saying here in the GF/GA. If they can’t operate a breakout, or execute a proper dump, it will completely stall the offense, and it will lead to a turnover which causes the Avs to play defense, without any chance at getting shots for.
The Avs biggest problem is reducing the number of shots against, and the defenders not being able to clear the puck is a big problem there. Some of that falls on the forwards, because it’s a team effort, but a lot of it is on the D.
I’m not sure how you would measure it, but I think that the Avs would be average at shot creation once the team got possesion in the offensive zone, but that most of the imbalance comes from not being able to get it there.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Apr 22, 2010 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions
My counter to that argument is that the blueline is atrocious and the style of play when the Avs are up a goal all season has been bend, don’t break. The fact (I’ve seen the x-rays) that nobody in the d-corps have the wrist strength of a 6-year-old girl in order to effectively clear the puck means that the younglings spend a disproportionate amount of time running around their own end. I wouldn’t say that’s a reflection of Duchene and Co. so much as it is a reflection of the defenseman sucking hind tit and the style of play being counter to “good”.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
Point 1: You’re 100% correct in that there are teams that make the playoffs that maybe shouldn’t. However, until I see a 60 point team make the playoffs, I’ll hold to my contention that TERRIBLE teams don’t make the playoffs. Over-rated teams, yes. Terrible no. It’s a semantics argument, but what do you expect. You called my team terrible while your team is golfing.
Point 2: Conceed. Luck has more effect on this series than almost any other. That being said the Avs weren’t lucky that Galiardi was parked in front of the net keeping Blake busy for the GW goal in game 1. They weren’t extremely lucky that a hard-working O’Reilly tipped Boyle’s pass and redirected it into an unprepared-Nabokov-guarded net. The results may be lucky, but the hard-work that generated the results wasn’t.
Point 3: I’m not suggesting anything like that. I’m asking the stats wunderkind why that is happening. You know why the Sharks aren’t converting at even strength? They continue to hit Anderson in the logo or the glove and nobody is there to bang in the rebounds he does give up. Couldn’t be equal parts luck and the fact that the Sharks aren’t doing much to increase said luck? Why is it all on the Avs side of the equation? If luck enters into the equation why can’t the Sharks underperforming enter into the equation. Why is everybody saying it’s luck-driven when it could just as likely be driven by the lackluster play of the top line for the Sharks?
Point 4: What people? Are you arguing with Avalanche homers now? They aren’t the most balanced people, I should warn you. Are you countering some MSM-based hype machine? Who is your argument with? From what I read over here, damn near everyone is in complete agreement. But why the continued beating of the dead horse?
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
I’m actually arguing with you. I mean, it’s implied in your comments that you think the Avs aren’t a terrible team. Especially when you imply points and standings position are a good an indicator of team strength.
I’m not a homer. I’ve got billions of posts describing how this team isn’t built for the playoffs, is playing over their head, will lose this series, how Clark is the anti-christ, etc. I still contend that they aren’t “terrible”, but rather over-rated or playing above their heads at times.
I’m just a little curious on why everybody is so giddy that the Avs get outshot and outchanced. I understand the human desire to have yourself proven right, but I see so much haterade for the Avs based on Corsi-this and chances-that, I figured I’d ask the question.
I understand that Hawerchuk and others have a vested interest in the statistical anomalies that is the 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche. I really do. I appreciate it immensely. I just don’t understand why he and C&B seem sooooooooooo fixated on it. I understand your motivations to an extent too, for what it’s worth.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
And your motivation for these attacks creates this whiny, vindictive bitching because the Flames couldn’t make the playoffs.
Avalanche 2009-2010: We'll beat the refs and the Sharks. We do not care.
You are in no way objective either.
Avalanche 2009-2010: We'll beat the refs and the Sharks. We do not care.
I’m not questioning anybody’s motivations or objectivity. Early on, I thought it was just hater-ish BS, but I’ve come around to the quirky stats issue that has presented itself. I’m just wondering if there isn’t something more than the great equalizer of luck and why nobody is talking about it.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
That’s why I’m asking R O, not telling. I don’t have all the answers all the time, R O, though I’m sure it’s comfortable to be in such a position in life.
by David Staples @ The Cult of Hockey on Apr 21, 2010 11:59 AM EDT reply actions
So where do you find these stats? I’ve been looking for a good, reliable source for detailed stats by game for some time, without success. More specifically, I’m looking for Corsi numbers by player by game.
Also, while I understand what is conveyed overall by the charts above, could you outline exactly what the numbers in the first chart represent? Are the SF and SA columns representing each of the 3 regulation periods?
..:Fear The Fin:..
The charts are by one-goal down, tied, and one-goal up. Corsi is hugely different in each of these categories.
Time Down 1 Tied Up 1 SF SF SF SA SA SA
Game 4 0 2889 1335 0 57 24 0 43 16
Game 3 0 3651 0 0 93 0 0 33 0
Game 2 2438 1484 0 75 14 0 24 13 0
Game 1 971 2629 0 12 45 0 13 32 0
What do the numbers in the Down 1, Tied, and Up 1 columns signify? (2889, 1335, etc.)
..:Fear The Fin:..
Time in seconds
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Apr 22, 2010 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I often think panelists and experts that are paid to give their opinion on sports games over analyze stuff. But reading this brings a whole new meaning to over analyzing.
And my two cents, statistics are a good way of looking at things and seeing which was the norm, and which deviated from that. They are not, however, indicative of what is going to happen. There’s a reason you only get the stats after a game is played.
In the short term, you’re obviously correct. In the long term, I disagree. The entire point of statistical analysis of sports is determining which characteristics are repeatable, because that’s what’ll lead to future success. That’s why there’s this intense argument on this board about shot differential vs. percentages. Shot differential and territorial domination are repeatable, save percentage less so, so if your present success is built on the percentages it’s shakier than a team (say, Detroit for the last 10 years) whose success was built on outchancing and outshooting.
Doesn’t mean jack squat for tomorrow’s game, obviously, but in the long term it does.
So you think that when NHL teams have ten guys watching the game all recording different stats, and ten other guys watching tape recording different things, and then they make statistical reports of everything that happened in the game, that’s over-analyzing?
Oh, and you get stats before the game and during it too.
I’m not picking on you, but I love it when people show up at this blog (see above) and basically say that what I’m doing here is bullshit and it has nothing to do with the game. Look, I’m not some Bill James who invented a bunch of new statistics because he was just that brilliant at understanding the game.
The main idea that I’m talking about here came from inside the Buffalo Sabres organization, not from me. It’s a brilliant idea and it has tremendous predictive value. And yet you would shoot this idea down – clearly without even looking at numerous pieces that discuss its value (and lack thereof)?
I guess I don’t know why you think you know the game so well that you can say so categorically that the tools people inside the NHL use to analyze it are worthless.
I admit that when I first commented I was a little annoyed, and that’s where the over analyzing comment came in, so I’ll apologize for that off the start.
Also, I don’t think what you’re doing here is bullshit at all. I agree that looking at past games is a good way of preparing for the future. And it’s also obviously true that looking at what’s successful most of the time is the best way to go in the future, since there’s a reason it happened that way.
My main point though is that it seems like a few people here are saying that because these are the stats, this will happen, and if not it’s luck. Sure it happened that way before, but it’s not necessarily going to happen that way right now. And I don’t buy that the only reason stats don’t repeat themselves is luck.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
