Should analytics be banned from normal everyday threads?

[SwampD]

And just to pick the original scab, calling Jack's goal lucky is pretty ridiculous. It was a skill shot from a guy known to make skilled shots. Not really sure how we got to "PA not understanding hockey through statistics" from there. Ah, the wonders of the internet forum.

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

And just to pick the original scab, calling Jack's goal lucky is pretty ridiculous. It was a skill shot from a guy known to make skilled shots. Not really sure how we got to "PA not understanding hockey through statistics" from there. Ah, the wonders of the internet forum.

Yeah, I thought Jack’s goal should be an early entrant for goal of the year 2019.  

[SABRES 0311]

1 minute ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Yeah, I thought Jack’s goal should be an early entrant for goal of the year 2019.  

Because he hit the net and not the boards. Lol.

[darksabre]

8 minutes ago, SwampD said:

And just to pick the original scab, calling Jack's goal lucky is pretty ridiculous. It was a skill shot from a guy known to make skilled shots. Not really sure how we got to "PA not understanding hockey through statistics" from there. Ah, the wonders of the internet forum.

Ridiculous?

More condescension that I'm just supposed to ignore eh? 

The window Jack had to hit to get that puck in the net was incredibly small. Like, Luke using the force to blow up the Death Star small.

It's amazing that he put the puck where he did on that goal. Absolutely amazing. I'd love to see him hit it twice in a row.

Edited January 17, 2019 by darksabre

[SwampD]

4 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Ridiculous?

More condescension that I'm just supposed to ignore eh? 

The window Jack had to hit to get that puck in the net was incredibly small. Like, Luke using the force to blow up the Death Star small.

It's amazing that he put the puck where he did on that goal. Absolutely amazing. I'd love to see him hit it twice in a row.

Isn't that true of every goal scored in the NHL? If so, is every goal scored in the NHL just luck?

Like the saying goes, you make your own luck, and Jack made his own luck there.

 

See what I did there.

[That Aud Smell]

3 hours ago, WildCard said:

lol what

This was my initial response.

1 hour ago, darksabre said:

There's a lot of disingenuous cross-bearing going on. 

Preach.

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

It's powerful enough to quell the drama in the Gilbert thread, even.

I made a funny sound trying to suppress a laugh at this one.

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

There.  That's it.  What's what I mean by "telling me how to feel."  There's a condescending overtone that poo-poos the win because the stats say we should have lost.

Some of this was from me, earlier today. I'm not telling you how to feel. I'm telling you my view of the world: That last night's win means less to me than a win where the team had the better of play.

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

It's the condescending part.

I will admit that the people talking stats don't realize they're doing it, but you could see it in the thread:  What a great game!  We won!  YEAH, BUT IT WASN'T SUSTAINABLE SO IF YOU TOOK JOY IN IT YOU'RE AN IDIOT.

Please, it's: Your an idiot.

38 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I'd strike "normal thread" and replace with "GDT thread." And "dedicated club" with "dedicated thread."

Take off.

11 minutes ago, SwampD said:

And just to pick the original scab, calling Jack's goal lucky is pretty ridiculous. It was a skill shot from a guy known to make skilled shots. Not really sure how we got to "PA not understanding hockey through statistics" from there. Ah, the wonders of the internet forum.

This is a curious confluence of debate.

That goal was, to borrow a term, RIDICULOUS. Filthy. Somewhat insane. 

In part was it also lucky?** Sure.

But that's sport.

** Skinner scored one the other night - against the Devils? - that was similarly crazy. He shot that thing through a keyhole (h/t to Bucky Gleason for providing me with that phrase when he was talking about Paddy Kane). That's not just meaninglessly lucky. That was also amazing.

[PASabreFan]

Everything's luck then. Every plane that took off in the U.S. yesterday didn't crash. Each was lucky not to strike birds and lose both engines and end up in the (insert name of local body of water).

Jack picked a small opening from fairly close-in and dropped it in. Is a three-point shot in basketball lucky? It didn't hit a bird, after all — something I was shocked to see flying around PPG Arena in Pittsburgh when I was there recently for the Pens-Isles game.

(Just trying to tie it all together lol.)

27 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I often support my ideas with traditional stats and historical context.  Analytics are just another tool to support an opinion and should be welcome.  They don’t need to be put in the corner.  They shouldn’t be treated like a political thread on a hockey board.  Anything that advances our understanding of the game we all love should be used and promoted.

Did we really need fancy stats to understand that possessing the puck is good?

[darksabre]

4 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Isn't that true of every goal scored in the NHL? If so, is every goal scored in the NHL just luck?

Like the saying goes, you make your own luck, and Jack made his own luck there.

 

See what I did there.

I don't think every goal scored is luck, mostly because not all goals are created equal. The events that lead to them, the quality of the area where the shot comes from, the capabilities of the shooter and the goalie. I could go on. There are a lot of non-luck variables that go into any given goal.

That's what makes Jack's OT winner so great. Yes, he's a great shooter, but he was shooting from a spot where few have success, and Rittich had things pretty well covered up except for the tiniest of holes which Jack just managed to get the puck through. Everything had to be just right for that goal to happen. I don't think he would score that goal 9 times out of 10.

He's good, but he also had a horseshoe in his pants in that overtime.

[darksabre]

1 minute ago, PASabreFan said:

Everything's luck then. Every plane that took off in the U.S. yesterday didn't crash. Each was lucky not to strike birds and lose both engines and end up in the (insert name of local body of water).

Jack picked a small opening from fairly close-in and dropped it in. Is a three-point shot in basketball lucky? It didn't hit a bird, after all — something I was shocked to see flying around PPG Arena in Pittsburgh when I was there recently for the Pens-Isles game.

(Just trying to tie it all together lol.)

Did we really need fancy stats to understand that possessing the puck is good?

You're missing the mark. When things are routine, they're routine. Luck beats the odds, no?

Jack's goal wasn't routine. It beat the odds. It was lucky. And it was great.

[PASabreFan]

1 minute ago, darksabre said:

I don't think every goal scored is luck, mostly because not all goals are created equal. The events that lead to them, the quality of the area where the shot comes from, the capabilities of the shooter and the goalie. I could go on. There are a lot of non-luck variables that go into any given goal.

That's what makes Jack's OT winner so great. Yes, he's a great shooter, but he was shooting from a spot where few have success, and Rittich had things pretty well covered up except for the tiniest of holes which Jack just managed to get the puck through. Everything had to be just right for that goal to happen. I don't think he would score that goal 9 times out of 10.

He's good, but he also had a horseshoe in his pants in that overtime.

Where does that lead us in terms of analytics then? Should Jack know the odds from that spot in overtime against a goalie who's a certain size and should that play into his decision to shoot?

[darksabre]

4 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Where does that lead us in terms of analytics then? Should Jack know the odds from that spot in overtime against a goalie who's a certain size and should that play into his decision to shoot?

I don't want Jack to think about that.

I would want Larsson to, though.

To add on, I think what we're seeing on the PP1 with its failures is that Jack and the other skill guys are thinking about the odds too much. They know their abilities and they can assess situations faster than a guy like Larsson. This leads them to avoid taking chances and letting luck play a role.

Edited January 17, 2019 by darksabre

[erickompositör72]

First, I'm only here because SwampD mentioned Mahler 4. Bravo

Re: Eichel's shot- hasn't he scored several goals with such a shot? Calling it lucky sounds pretty glass-half-empty, to me.

I'd rather characterize it as a shot he knows he can pull off every now-and-then, and has the skill to put himself in a position to allow him to pull it off every now-and-then. When it happens, I'd rather call it "magic" than "luck."

Mahler 4 is magic, too ?

[That Aud Smell]

12 minutes ago, darksabre said:

I don't think he would score that goal 9 times out of 10.

Ideally, Jack would have a running count of how many times he's missed from a low-percentage spot on the ice before taking another shot from that spot.

[SwampD]

10 minutes ago, darksabre said:

You're missing the mark. When things are routine, they're routine. Luck beats the odds, no?

Jack's goal wasn't routine. It beat the odds. It was lucky. And it was great.

This is the thing! NO! Luck does not beat the odds!  The odds are the odds.

You said that he doesn't make that shot 9 times out of ten. Guess what? We got to see the one out of ten that he does make it.

Those are the odds and that is not luck.

[Thorny]

2 hours ago, darksabre said:

The condescending overtones are largely imagined, in my opinion. There seems to be a perception among a certain group that the stats people are here to make everyone else sad or something. God forbid the stats people find the stats and discussion fun. Damn them!

The anti-stats people seem to love to snipe at the stats crowd and then get upset when the stats crowd gives it back. I don't know why anyone is surprised.

Don't start nothin wont be nothin.

And hell, my comment about Eichel's shot wasn't even a stats comment. It was mostly eye test based on knowing how the position is played. But that simple analysis was STILL too much for PA.

Basically, the anti-stats people need to stop acting like the way they enjoy the game is under attack. There's a lot of disingenuous cross-bearing going on. 

This post honestly touches on so much more than just hockey. It applies to many things today. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by Thorny

[Taro T]

 How in the world is this strawman based thread already 3 pages long?

If you don't believe people are using the Internet properly, ignore them.

Pretty sure the only people here that get to tell others they aren't using it right are Scott & the mods.

[Thorny]

Just now, Taro T said:

 How in the world is this strawman based thread already 3 pages long?

If you don't believe people are using the Internet properly, ignore them.

Pretty sure the only people here that get to tell others they aren't using it right are Scott & the mods.

Any sort of reasoned talk like this has no place on the internet. You aren't using it right. 

[darksabre]

9 minutes ago, SwampD said:

This is the thing! NO! Luck does not beat the odds!  The odds are the odds.

You said that he doesn't make that shot 9 times out of ten. Guess what? We got to see the one out of ten that he does make it.

Those are the odds and that is not luck.

Okay, if we're going to be pedantic, then fine. The odds are the odds. If this is gambling we know that some games of chance have better odds than others right. Games of chance.

Luck and chance are the same thing, right? It's something where the outcome is based not just on the actions you take, but on the environment around you. Things you can control vs things you can't.

So Jack, taking control of all of the things he has control over, can only do so much there, right? He can only impose his will so much there to make that goal happen.

And he probably knows what things he can control in that situation. He knows he's shooting the puck when he starts that drive to the net, but he doesn't know if the goalie is going to give him that hole or not, especially at that angle. And he knows it's a bad angle.

So, taking the chance, he shoots anyway. And wouldn't you know it: he gets lucky. Everything he didn't have any control over came together with all of the things he did have control over to let that puck in the net.

So what we're arguing over is how much control it is fair to say Jack has over that situation. That's what this is. And my calling it lucky is totally justified given how little control Jack had over all of the variables that make that particular goal so difficult and unique.

[darksabre]

I feel like people are taking my calling it "lucky" as some kind of diss on Jack.

[Thorny]

23 minutes ago, SwampD said:

This is the thing! NO! Luck does not beat the odds!  The odds are the odds.

You said that he doesn't make that shot 9 times out of ten. Guess what? We got to see the one out of ten that he does make it.

Those are the odds and that is not luck.

I mean, this is right. It's not a lucky outcome overall if the shot is 1 in 10, and Jack takes 10 shots throughout the game at it. It only appears to be a lucky outcome when viewed through the prism of that singular opportunity. 

With the amount Jack shoots, I'd argue it's not lucky, it's inevitable. 

1 minute ago, darksabre said:

I feel like people are taking my calling it "lucky" as some kind of diss on Jack.

Just semantics I think. 

[Mustache of God]

1 hour ago, darksabre said:

Ridiculous?

More condescension that I'm just supposed to ignore eh? 

The window Jack had to hit to get that puck in the net was incredibly small. Like, Luke using the force to blow up the Death Star small.

It's amazing that he put the puck where he did on that goal. Absolutely amazing. I'd love to see him hit it twice in a row.

I promise you Jack has worked on that shot hundreds of thousands of times in his life. That wasn't luck. That was pure muscle memory, which is a well honed skill, which is essentially the force.

[darksabre]

Just now, Mustache of God said:

I promise you Jack has worked on that shot hundreds of thousands of times in his life. That wasn't luck. That was pure muscle memory, which is a well honed skill, which is essentially the force.

Jack has worked on that exact shot hundreds of thousands of times? The one in that occurred uniquely in time and space last night?

I had no idea Jack was a time traveler.

[Mustache of God]

2 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Jack has worked on that exact shot hundreds of thousands of times? The one in that occurred uniquely in time and space last night?

I had no idea Jack was a time traveler.

It's why he would have been drafted 1st in any other draft if not for that pesky McDavid

[SwampD]

15 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Okay, if we're going to be pedantic, then fine. The odds are the odds. If this is gambling we know that some games of chance have better odds than others right. Games of chance.

Luck and chance are the same thing, right? It's something where the outcome is based not just on the actions you take, but on the environment around you. Things you can control vs things you can't.

So Jack, taking control of all of the things he has control over, can only do so much there, right? He can only impose his will so much there to make that goal happen.

And he probably knows what things he can control in that situation. He knows he's shooting the puck when he starts that drive to the net, but he doesn't know if the goalie is going to give him that hole or not, especially at that angle. And he knows it's a bad angle.

So, taking the chance, he shoots anyway. And wouldn't you know it: he gets lucky. Everything he didn't have any control over came together with all of the things he did have control over to let that puck in the net.

So what we're arguing over is how much control it is fair to say Jack has over that situation. That's what this is. And my calling it lucky is totally justified given how little control Jack had over all of the variables that make that particular goal so difficult and unique.

It's still not luck and I shouldn't feel grateful that we got lucky enough to win.

This gets to the core of this thread. As our team gets better, all the stats folk are going to have to get comfortable being on the "lucky" side of the odds.

 

 

1 minute ago, darksabre said:

Jack has worked on that exact shot hundreds of thousands of times? The one in that occurred uniquely in time and space last night?

I had no idea Jack was a time traveler.

Something something pedantic.....

[Thorny]

10 minutes ago, Mustache of God said:

I promise you Jack has worked on that shot hundreds of thousands of times in his life. That wasn't luck. That was pure muscle memory, which is a well honed skill, which is essentially the force.

All you have to do is look at shooting percentages. When an NHL player shoots the puck, it's unlikely to go in. Even with all of Jack's worldly talents factored in, there's always still come "chance" involved. What if the goalie reacts just a little bit differently? Or the build up of snow on Jack's stick is a tad different? 

This isn't diminishing the talent behind the shot at all. Most players wouldn't have the raw ability to give that shot even the odds that Jack did. Or have the skating ability and vision to make that play and get into position. But it was still the only shot he took that game where the factors beyond his control broke in his favor enough to close the gap between his natural talent and beating the odds. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by Thorny