Are the Sabres just unlucky?

[steveoath]

Browsing through some hockey stats sites and stumbled on these nuggets. Are we bad? Or suffering from bad luck/injury? You decide…. I don’t think these stats include the Jets games. And the last one I threw in for giggles.

[PerreaultForever]

Jacob Bryson as the most dominant player in the NHL last week. and people wonder why I pay little attention to stats. 

[French Collection]

4 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Jacob Bryson as the most dominant player in the NHL last week. and people wonder why I pay little attention to stats. 

Extend him!

[Doohickie]

5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Jacob Bryson as the most dominant player in the NHL last week. and people wonder why I pay little attention to stats. 

Matches the eye test, actually.  He's been playing very well.

5 hours ago, steveoath said:

Browsing through some hockey stats sites and stumbled on these nuggets. Are we bad? Or suffering from bad luck/injury? You decide…. I don’t think these stats include the Jets games. And the last one I threw in for giggles.

This is what happens when you let the analytics department build the team.  The team looks great but still loses.

[Doohickie]

And that last one invalidates their statistical method.  😉 

[mjd1001]

I like some of the analytics... And they can tell you a lot, but you cannot draw absolute conclusions from them.

[inkman]

21 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Matches the eye test, actually.  He's been playing very well.

This is what happens when you let the analytics department build the team.  The team looks great but still loses.

The analytics department built the Sabres? 

[Big Guava]

It's hard to suggest after 14 years it has anything to do with luck.

[Doohickie]

35 minutes ago, inkman said:

The analytics department built the Sabres? 

Maybe?  Isn't that why they brought Ventura in?  Not sure how much influence analytics has had on recent acquisitions. 

It was more of a joke than an actual statement of fact though:  If the Sabres were built based on analytics rather than traditional scouting, it would follow that they would look very good analytically but that does not necessarily lead to winning.  Haha.  Get it?  Haha.  

Edited 1 hour ago by Doohickie

[Archie Lee]

Hockey is the most random of the major league sports (baseball is close). On any given night a team can get "goalied", or they can score a month's worth of lucky-bounce goals. The best teams have a base, a system, a structure, an ethos, to fall back on, that in the long-haul of a season allows them to overcome the randomness of individual shifts, periods, and games.  The Sabres do not have that, and there is little reason to think or hope they are about to, because having it starts with off-ice leadership (owner, GM, coach).

[shrader]

And if one player looks great, guess what? He’s not out there for 75% of the game. 

[LGR4GM]

55 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I like some of the analytics... And they can tell you a lot, but you cannot draw absolute conclusions from them.

Agreed, you cannot draw conclusions from analytics alone.

[mjd1001]

A guy like Bryson can have a good shift, a good. Or even a good game where he could be the best player for the team over that short period of time. 

Two things you have to consider however.... What situation was he playing in, as if in who was he playing against and what was the game situation? 

And also, someone might be the best player for a short period of time, but those numbers should even out over a long period of time. 

The analytics I don't think are wrong, it's just that when you take such a small sample size, it is just that... A snapshot.

 

[LGR4GM]

6 hours ago, steveoath said:

Browsing through some hockey stats sites and stumbled on these nuggets. Are we bad? Or suffering from bad luck/injury? You decide…. I don’t think these stats include the Jets games. And the last one I threw in for giggles.

I think looking at xGF% over the course of a week (about 3 games) is a bad idea. xGF is a measure of in part of shot efficiency but also volume impacts it. If my team takes 50 shots from all over and your team takes only 20 from roughly the hd areas, our xGF might end up close. I'd guess what you are seeing in the last week is a Sabres team that played 2 really dominant games and the stats are reflecting that. It is why we have to be careful using stats in the micro, sometimes they look good for a short period of time. The Kansas City Chiefs are a great example. There were loads of stats last year that said they weren't that good of team and they won like 10 one score games. This year they are are like 1-5 in one score games because eventually they got where ppl thought they would. Stats should always be combined with the eye test and should always come with description. Yes, I actually do believe the eye test provides valuable information, contrary to what some might think.

[Night Train]

Only unlucky in love..

[PromoTheRobot]

51 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Agreed, you cannot draw conclusions from analytics alone.

I'm trying to understand where the expected goals stat comes from, like who exactly decides what expected is? I was told that it's based on where shots come from and how often those shots score or are saved based on all goals from that spot.

But apparently the stat does not take into account how that shot is generated. For example a shot from spot X is counted the same for a shooter who skates in and fires at the goalie who sees it cleanly, as a bang-bang crosser that requires a goalie to move across the crease quickly to make the save. There is no way on God's green earth those rate the same in difficulty.

 

Edited 32 minutes ago by PromoTheRobot

[matter2003]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

Maybe?  Isn't that why they brought Ventura in?  Not sure how much influence analytics has had on recent acquisitions. 

It was more of a joke than an actual statement of fact though:  If the Sabres were built based on analytics rather than traditional scouting, it would follow that they would look very good analytically but that does not necessarily lead to winning.  Haha.  Get it?  Haha.  

 

Ventura?  You mean this guy?? That explains a lot...probably has them fill out a long animal questionnaire before making decisions😂😂  

Edited 19 minutes ago by matter2003

[Carmel Corn]

Until “analytics” can properly assess the HEART of a player, I don’t otherwise have much use for them.  I don’t need to see numbers to tell me if a guy gives a crap about winning a game or sticking up for his teammates.

[matter2003]

Just now, Carmel Corn said:

Until “analytics” can properly assess the HEART of a player, I don’t otherwise have much use for them.  I don’t need to see numbers to tell me if a guy gives a crap about winning a game or sticking up for his teammates.

[PASabreFan]

[kas23]

2 hours ago, French Collection said:

Extend him!

Kevyn: “See guys? I told you so!”

[oddoublee]

I like analytics and the eye test combined. 

The eye test tells you what type/style category a player falls into. 

This is important to note when it comes to roster construction.

If you have 12 forwards with good analytics, but they all have the same skill set/playing style...your screwed. You need variability.

A couple Doans here, a few Tages there and a handful of Benson's everywhere! You get the point...

You need a GM that can identify player types with analytics to create the proper lines and pairings to compete league wide and season long....