Poll: What is the most useless stat in hockey?

Jim Hyla · January 19, 2010, 02:33:34 PM

Quote from: adamw
Quote from: RobbIt's a very common fallacy for people to assume that things they can't predict are random. If I tell you that there are some red balls and some green balls in a bin and ask someone to pick one out, a lot of people would assume that there is a 50/50 chance of getting a red or green. But what if there are only 2 red balls an 1000 green ones? So maybe I tell you there are 50 reds and 50 greens - now what's the probability - 50-50? Well, what if I arranged it so that all the green balls are on the far side of the bin where you really can't reach very well? Etc. Before we pull out the ball, we don't know what we'll get, but that doesn't mean that what we do get is actually random. Similarly, just because we can't predict whether a player will hit his next free throw does not prove that it's a random event.

Thanks Robb ... you put it a lot more scientifically (and succinctly) than I was able to. But that common fallacy is basically what I was trying to get at ... and Bill James as well, in his follow up paper that I linked.

I'm not assuming they're random, rather I'm saying there is no proof that the idea of clutch, streak exists. Til someone proves it, I'd rather keep an open mind. Keeping an open mind is what science is all about. Having your mind made up beforehand limits your possibilities of success.

Trotsky · January 19, 2010, 04:10:26 PM

Quote from: Jim HylaKeeping an open mind is what science is all about.

Maybe, but hanging on to your hypothesis until they pry it from your cold, dead fingers is what science funding is all about. ::rock::

Rosey · January 19, 2010, 04:17:40 PM

Quote from: RobbMy $.02 from my personal experience (sorry Tom) is that there definitely have been times when I'm doing anything - playing sports, playing my violin, working on engineering problem sets - where I just feel "on." And during those times, I really do perform better than at other times; everything slows down, the pieces just fall into place, and the end result is better.

Funny you should say this: I was remarking to a teammate a few weeks ago that right before I scored a goal in a recent game, I looked up and everything seemed to be going in slow motion. It was kind of freaky. I need to figure out how to reproduce this reliably.

Trotsky · January 19, 2010, 04:19:30 PM

Quote from: Kyle RoseI need to figure out how to reproduce this reliably.

One way.

Jim Hyla · January 19, 2010, 08:24:21 PM

Quote from: Trotsky
Quote from: Kyle RoseI need to figure out how to reproduce this reliably.

One way.

No, he'd be in slow motion, everyone else full speed. That is unless you find a way to put it in pizza.

Robb · January 20, 2010, 12:21:41 AM

Quote from: Kyle RoseI need to figure out how to reproduce this reliably.

Aye - there's the rub... The fact that we can't makes it seem random.

I heard a story one time of a Broadway actor who somehow got in a zone and just absolutely nailed a performance that he had done dozens or hundreds of times before - more standing ovations than ever, etc. Everyone in the building knew it. After the performance, people were lined up to congratulate him, only to find that he was completely distraught and trashing his dressing room. They said, "but you gave such a fantastic performance - it was amazing; you should be ecstatic!" He replied, "I would be - if I knew how to do it again."

Tom Lento · January 20, 2010, 10:40:33 AM

Quote from: Robb
Quote from: Tom LentoI don't think anyone would claim that player performance is the same under all conditions. After all they're human. But on average, across the course of a player's career, they tend to perform similarly across a variety of conditions. Well, maybe that's only true for the ones who are good enough to do it for a living, but that's who we track with all these fancy statistics.
My $.02 from my personal experience (sorry Tom) is that there definitely have been times when I'm doing anything - playing sports, playing my violin, working on engineering problem sets - where I just feel "on." And during those times, I really do perform better than at other times; everything slows down, the pieces just fall into place, and the end result is better.

No apology necessary - I'm not arguing against the hot hand here. For the record, I have had the same experience in several different sports, including the first time I ever scored a goal in a hockey game, and based on my experience in the one sport I was any good at I could (sometimes) reproduce those moments by getting all the fundamentals ingrained and going through mental preparation routines. Yet even with those there were those vexing off days where you're the one moving in slow motion and the game is just blowing right by you and you have no idea what's going on. Sports are weird that way (and so is any performance, I'm sure). Anyway, the hot hand is one that's very hard to prove or disprove for just this reason - we're human, and there are some internal shifts in our performance or feelings that impact how well we perform at any given moment, so it may well be that our probability of hitting a shot on an "on" day is higher than on an "off" day - that is, that the individual moments that make up our overall performance may not be random and independent.

I've just been saying - at length - that I see no reason why a pressure situation would *increase* the likelihood that someone will have a good day, and the only available evidence suggests that pressure has no such positive effect (i.e., clutch players don't exist). Incidentally, the clutch debate should end as soon as someone figures out how to control for the external pressure of a situation. Once you've got that, the analysis is a straightforward matter of using the pressure of the situation to explain variance in performance. If pressure is not a significant predictor, then the variance must be caused by something else. It doesn't mean it's random variance, it just means it's most likely not caused by pressure, and therefore there is no observable mechanism for producing a clutch player.

billhoward · January 21, 2010, 08:50:50 AM

Plus/minus has an air of randomness for a single game. Same with a shutout. But over the season or career, it's valuable. Plus/minus puts a number on a person's team play - such as getting to the clearing pass and keeping it in the attacking zone where it's touched three times before your team scores so you and one other skater don't get an assist. Mediocre player on a good line benefits but on average you're paired with people of like ability. For your career stats maybe there should be Adjusted Plus/Minus, relative to your team's plus/minus.

Maybe if GWG were conditional it would be more valuable. Something like a save in baseball: GWG only matters in the third period and not if you eventually win by three or more excluding an ENG. That baggage would make it too heavy to fly.

If you wanted a secondary-importance stat, how about Game's Final Game Tying Goal (Where Your Team Finally Won).

ftyuv · January 21, 2010, 11:44:25 AM

GFGTG(WYTFW). Pronounced "giff-gee-tig-whit-few". I like it.

Jim Hyla · January 21, 2010, 01:18:21 PM

Quote from: ftyuvGFGTG(WYTFW). Pronounced "giff-gee-tig-whit-few". I like it.

ftyuv, you would.

adamw · January 22, 2010, 04:54:08 PM

Quote from: billhowardFor your career stats maybe there should be Adjusted Plus/Minus, relative to your team's plus/minus.

I'm sure one day there will be, if there's not already a site doing it.

Quote from: billhowardIf you wanted a secondary-importance stat, how about Game's Final Game Tying Goal (Where Your Team Finally Won).

College Hockey Stats (collegehockeystats.net) keeps the stat "Last Lead" ... which is essentially the baseball rule of handling Wins/GWRBI.

Rita · February 19, 2010, 08:20:27 AM

Quote from: adamw
Quote from: RitaI bet there are several football coaches (Phillips, Wade; Turner, Norv) that might believe in "clutch" and that their kickers define the opposite of "clutch". What a time to go on a bad streak. Yikes.

Well - I came here to say just that .... Try telling the San Diego Chargers there is no such thing as "choke" and "clutch" .... Nate Kaeding is the most accurate regular-season kicker in NFL history. In the postseason, he is something like 8-for-15, with 4 misses inside 40 yards ... where he otherwise has hit 67 in a row.

Seems like the "clutch/choke" debate has come up in the curling world this week (and yes, in the match vs. the Swiss, choke is the first word that came to my mind to describe what happened to the US team ::blush:

"shuster (adj.) — the inability to be successful in a tense or must-win situation; the opposite of clutch. "

From today's (2/19/2010) Soxaholic comic strip.