Poll: What is the most useless stat in hockey?

[KeithK]

I think the one thing I believe in that staunch Sabermetricians don't is "streakiness." Timing, muscle memory, and physical well-being can come in and out of sync, I've felt that feeling where the ball seems like a beach ball, or I know I'm hitting the sweet-spot every time.  I believe in "streakiness" more than I do "clutch."

I totally agree with you.  There are times when you are physically or mentally out of whack and you play poorly for a time and conversely there are times when you are locked in and play extremely well. I find it hard to believe that anyone who plays sports would doubt this. Someone who only looks t stats could miss this by assuming that it's just natural variability of the random variable, a matter of sample size.  But life isn't just a random variable sampling even if lots of things can be modeled pretty well that way.

[Jacob 03]

I think the one thing I believe in that staunch Sabermetricians don't is "streakiness." Timing, muscle memory, and physical well-being can come in and out of sync, I've felt that feeling where the ball seems like a beach ball, or I know I'm hitting the sweet-spot every time.  I believe in "streakiness" more than I do "clutch."

I totally agree with you.  There are times when you are physically or mentally out of whack and you play poorly for a time and conversely there are times when you are locked in and play extremely well. I find it hard to believe that anyone who plays sports would doubt this. Someone who only looks t stats could miss this by assuming that it's just natural variability of the random variable, a matter of sample size.  But life isn't just a random variable sampling even if lots of things can be modeled pretty well that way.

I buy that there are times when players are doing well and "feel" it's because they have the touch...

I'm not quite convinced players "feelings" tell us much:

http://www.psych.cornell.edu/sec/pubPeople/tdg1/Gilo.Vallone.Tversky.pdf

[RichH]

I think the one thing I believe in that staunch Sabermetricians don't is "streakiness." Timing, muscle memory, and physical well-being can come in and out of sync, I've felt that feeling where the ball seems like a beach ball, or I know I'm hitting the sweet-spot every time.  I believe in "streakiness" more than I do "clutch."

I totally agree with you.  There are times when you are physically or mentally out of whack and you play poorly for a time and conversely there are times when you are locked in and play extremely well. I find it hard to believe that anyone who plays sports would doubt this. Someone who only looks t stats could miss this by assuming that it's just natural variability of the random variable, a matter of sample size.  But life isn't just a random variable sampling even if lots of things can be modeled pretty well that way.

I buy that there are times when players are doing well and "feel" it's because they have the touch...

I'm not quite convinced players "feelings" tell us much:

http://www.psych.cornell.edu/sec/pubPeople/tdg1/Gilo.Vallone.Tversky.pdf

It's a good argument. I believe muscle-memory is real (most evident to me in something like a golf swing), and that can contribute to a "feeling," whatever that means.  Take it a step further, and the concept of "confidence."  A feeling of confidence, as nebulous and difficult to define as that is, can manifest itself in a physical manner.  It can lead to more aggressive actions, for example.  A lack of confidence can turn up as a hesitation or some sort of hitch in a swing or motion that can directly impact the end result.  Athletes who are "in a zone" or at the very least putting in a superior performance often talk of "having a clear mind" or "not thinking," which generally means just not letting higher level thoughts affect their motion.  If suddenly a golfer has a "case of the yips" or a 2nd baseman suddenly can't make a routine throw to 1st, there's an example of a mental aspect or even a "feeling" that has input in the end result.

You can also apply the level of "being warm" to introduce another abstract quantity.  If a player comes off the bench "cold," there's more of a chance of playing differently than either a tired player being replaced, or the performance that same player would perform had they had a chance to make some warm-up throws/swings/whatever.  I feel that when I go to the 3-pointer line to shoot some hoops (as a caucasian who grew up in the '80s usually did, thanks to Larry Bird), that I need about 5 warm-up shots to train my body to use the correct muscle groups at the proper force.  Is that real or just a "feeling" thing?  I'm not sure.

[TimV]

I think the one thing I believe in that staunch Sabermetricians don't is "streakiness." Timing, muscle memory, and physical well-being can come in and out of sync, I've felt that feeling where the ball seems like a beach ball, or I know I'm hitting the sweet-spot every time.  I believe in "streakiness" more than I do "clutch."

I totally agree with you.  There are times when you are physically or mentally out of whack and you play poorly for a time and conversely there are times when you are locked in and play extremely well. I find it hard to believe that anyone who plays sports would doubt this. Someone who only looks t stats could miss this by assuming that it's just natural variability of the random variable, a matter of sample size.  But life isn't just a random variable sampling even if lots of things can be modeled pretty well that way.

I buy that there are times when players are doing well and "feel" it's because they have the touch...

I'm not quite convinced players "feelings" tell us much:

http://www.psych.cornell.edu/sec/pubPeople/tdg1/Gilo.Vallone.Tversky.pdf

Those guys got TWO grants for that study.  One from Cornell and one from the Navy.  Can you imagine the grant application?  "Funds will be applied to ticket purchase from box offices or 'other sources,' travel expenses, and post-game analytic meetings..."::banana::

[MattShaf]

::whistle::Can I vote for wins and losses. We all know that its the effort that counts

[adamw]

In fact, doesn't that prove the point?  Reggie Jackson is a HOF'er regardless of the month.  That he excelled in October is no surprise because he was an excellent power hitter normally.

I think the one thing I believe in that staunch Sabermetricians don't is "streakiness." Timing, muscle memory, and physical well-being can come in and out of sync, I've felt that feeling where the ball seems like a beach ball, or I know I'm hitting the sweet-spot every time.  I believe in "streakiness" more than I do "clutch."

In 318 lifetime plate appearances in the postseason - a decent sample - Jackson's AVG, sLG and OPS are all significantly higher than his lifetime totals. However, they are not drastically so - so it's within statistical norms.  However, that doesn't rule out its existence either.

I'm not sure why it's easier to believe in streakiness than clutch. To me, they sound pretty much the same conceptually. Some people have a better ability of blocking out negatives and willing themselves towards positives under stress, while some people crumble.  This holds true for life - why wouldn't in hold true for sports?

You're not necessarily contradicting Sabermetrics either way.  All Bill James has said on streakiness, clutch, etc... is that there is no evidence for it that can't be mathematically explained through plain old random fluctuation.  But he never asserted that it absolutely doesn't exist.

I think with such small sample sizes it's difficult to say whether it exists or not.  And normally, I am not one to buy into folklore, old-school axioms ("baseball is 90% pitching"), etc..... But in this case, I think anecdotal evidence / personal experience would lead us to believe there is something to "clutchness" or "streakiness"

The one thing I absolutely do not think is true is "momentum" --- Actually, I think it can be true WITHIN one game.  But from game to game, it doesn't exist.  For every time someone pontificated "wow, that big win the night before really propelled them into this game" ... there are just as many examples where a team that suffered a devastating loss bounces right back, and so on.

[Tom Lento]

In 318 lifetime plate appearances in the postseason - a decent sample - Jackson's AVG, sLG and OPS are all significantly higher than his lifetime totals. However, they are not drastically so - so it's within statistical norms.  However, that doesn't rule out its existence either.

The point is that across many players - Reggie Jackson included - there was only one case where a player actually performed significantly better in the clutch. Everyone else - even those who performed consistently better (like Jackson) - were within the range of normal statistical variation. If I remember correctly, the one guy who performed significantly better wasn't widely regarded as a clutch hitter, which brings me to my next point.

I think with such small sample sizes it's difficult to say whether it exists or not.  And normally, I am not one to buy into folklore, old-school axioms ("baseball is 90% pitching"), etc..... But in this case, I think anecdotal evidence / personal experience would lead us to believe there is something to "clutchness" or "streakiness"

Personal experience and anecdotal evidence are TERRIBLE ways to measure the validity of a claim. Humans are great at finding patterns where none exist. Personal experience and anecdotal evidence might be useful for creating a claim - I've seen x happen many times so I think x is true - but if you want to say that your claim is definitive you need to evaluate it properly. If someone else shows up with a ton of data and systematic analysis and says "there's no evidence to support x" then it's far more likely that your personal experience and anecdotal evidence is biased. Basically, the absence of evidence for clutch does not definitively prove that clutch doesn't exist - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - but it is highly suggestive. Until I see some evidence, I'll continue to not believe in the concept of a clutch player.

[Jim Hyla]

You're not necessarily contradicting Sabermetrics either way.  All Bill James has said on streakiness, clutch, etc... is that there is no evidence for it that can't be mathematically explained through plain old random fluctuation.  But he never asserted that it absolutely doesn't exist.

I think with such small sample sizes it's difficult to say whether it exists or not.  And normally, I am not one to buy into folklore, old-school axioms ("baseball is 90% pitching"), etc..... But in this case, I think anecdotal evidence / personal experience would lead us to believe there is something to "clutchness" or "streakiness"

So what you are saying is that streakiness and clutch are religions. You can't prove them, nor can you disprove them, but all science and math goes against them. I personally hate the "you can't prove that it doesn't exist" position. It's up to the assert-er to prove their point it's not up to the opposition to disprove the point. Until someone can prove the point I chose to sit back and enjoy the moment and not worry about such silly stuff.

[KeithK]

So what you are saying is that streakiness and clutch are religions. You can't prove them, nor can you disprove them, but all science and math goes against them. I personally hate the "you can't prove that it doesn't exist" position. It's up to the assert-er to prove their point it's not up to the opposition to disprove the point. Until someone can prove the point I chose to sit back and enjoy the moment and not worry about such silly stuff.

It is entirely not true that "science and math" all go against the ideas of players going on streaks of good or poor performance. For example, look at the time history a batter's hitting performance and you will see periods of good performance and periods of poor.  Sometimes these variations are explainable simply by statistical variations - whether mroe balls fall in than usual or whether more line drives are hit right at a fielder.  But sometimes they're not. Sometimes the fact that hitter is 1 for 16 is because he's swinging poorly at pitches, striking out, popping up. Detailed analysis of results would show this.

Athletic performance over a large sample usually can be represented by a random variable. But the underlying activity is NOT a random variable. There are actual reasons for many of the fluctuations aside from pure statistical variabiliy.

If you're looking at a player's performance at the end of a season and trying to project future performance, it's perfectly reasonable to simply look at the statistics, given a large enough sample. That doesn't mean that the actual games are essentially the same as an invisible hand rolling dice.

[Jim Hyla]

So what you are saying is that streakiness and clutch are religions. You can't prove them, nor can you disprove them, but all science and math goes against them. I personally hate the "you can't prove that it doesn't exist" position. It's up to the assert-er to prove their point it's not up to the opposition to disprove the point. Until someone can prove the point I chose to sit back and enjoy the moment and not worry about such silly stuff.

It is entirely not true that "science and math" all go against the ideas of players going on streaks of good or poor performance. For example, look at the time history a batter's hitting performance and you will see periods of good performance and periods of poor.  Sometimes these variations are explainable simply by statistical variations - whether mroe balls fall in than usual or whether more line drives are hit right at a fielder.  But sometimes they're not. Sometimes the fact that hitter is 1 for 16 is because he's swinging poorly at pitches, striking out, popping up. Detailed analysis of results would show this.

Athletic performance over a large sample usually can be represented by a random variable. But the underlying activity is NOT a random variable. There are actual reasons for many of the fluctuations aside from pure statistical variabiliy.

If you're looking at a player's performance at the end of a season and trying to project future performance, it's perfectly reasonable to simply look at the statistics, given a large enough sample. That doesn't mean that the actual games are essentially the same as an invisible hand rolling dice.

Statistical variations do not say you can't explain what happens on any at bat, rather that they occur to everyone who plays. Good hitters hit good pitchers better than bad hitters, it's not a random variable. But you have to prove that something such as streaks occur, just saying it doesn't make it so. You say that sometimes you can't explain streaks by random variations, well show me the evidence. Come up with a streak that was somehow out of statistical variation. Then I'm willing to start believing. Otherwise it's just a belief, like religion. Now I know to some, sports is a religion, so it all makes sense.

[jtwcornell91]

So what you are saying is that streakiness and clutch are religions. You can't prove them, nor can you disprove them, but all science and math goes against them. I personally hate the "you can't prove that it doesn't exist" position. It's up to the assert-er to prove their point it's not up to the opposition to disprove the point. Until someone can prove the point I chose to sit back and enjoy the moment and not worry about such silly stuff.

It is entirely not true that "science and math" all go against the ideas of players going on streaks of good or poor performance. For example, look at the time history a batter's hitting performance and you will see periods of good performance and periods of poor.  Sometimes these variations are explainable simply by statistical variations - whether mroe balls fall in than usual or whether more line drives are hit right at a fielder.  But sometimes they're not. Sometimes the fact that hitter is 1 for 16 is because he's swinging poorly at pitches, striking out, popping up. Detailed analysis of results would show this.

Athletic performance over a large sample usually can be represented by a random variable. But the underlying activity is NOT a random variable. There are actual reasons for many of the fluctuations aside from pure statistical variabiliy.

If you're looking at a player's performance at the end of a season and trying to project future performance, it's perfectly reasonable to simply look at the statistics, given a large enough sample. That doesn't mean that the actual games are essentially the same as an invisible hand rolling dice.

Statistical variations do not say you can't explain what happens on any at bat, rather that they occur to everyone who plays. Good hitters hit good pitchers better than bad hitters, it's not a random variable. But you have to prove that something such as streaks occur, just saying it doesn't make it so. You say that sometimes you can't explain streaks by random variations, well show me the evidence. Come up with a streak that was somehow out of statistical variation. Then I'm willing to start believing. Otherwise it's just a belief, like religion. Now I know to some, sports is a religion, so it all makes sense.

I think the thing that one needs to demonstrate is that there's a model that consistently fits the data better than a stationary random variable.  The problem is that the "streakiness" hypothesis is difficult to formulate in a way that can make quantitative predictions.  What determines when the "hot" and "cold" periods occur?  I guess one thing you could try is a model where the probability of success had some parametrized correlation or anticorrelation built into it, and try to measure that parameter.

[CowbellGuy]

...a model where the probability of success had some parametrized correlation or anticorrelation built into it, and try to measure that parameter.

Things you don't hear on Gopher Puck Live's forum for $600, Alex.

[David Harding]

So what you are saying is that streakiness and clutch are religions. You can't prove them, nor can you disprove them, but all science and math goes against them. I personally hate the "you can't prove that it doesn't exist" position. It's up to the assert-er to prove their point it's not up to the opposition to disprove the point. Until someone can prove the point I chose to sit back and enjoy the moment and not worry about such silly stuff.

It is entirely not true that "science and math" all go against the ideas of players going on streaks of good or poor performance. For example, look at the time history a batter's hitting performance and you will see periods of good performance and periods of poor.  Sometimes these variations are explainable simply by statistical variations - whether mroe balls fall in than usual or whether more line drives are hit right at a fielder.  But sometimes they're not. Sometimes the fact that hitter is 1 for 16 is because he's swinging poorly at pitches, striking out, popping up. Detailed analysis of results would show this.

Athletic performance over a large sample usually can be represented by a random variable. But the underlying activity is NOT a random variable. There are actual reasons for many of the fluctuations aside from pure statistical variabiliy.

If you're looking at a player's performance at the end of a season and trying to project future performance, it's perfectly reasonable to simply look at the statistics, given a large enough sample. That doesn't mean that the actual games are essentially the same as an invisible hand rolling dice.

Statistical variations do not say you can't explain what happens on any at bat, rather that they occur to everyone who plays. Good hitters hit good pitchers better than bad hitters, it's not a random variable. But you have to prove that something such as streaks occur, just saying it doesn't make it so. You say that sometimes you can't explain streaks by random variations, well show me the evidence. Come up with a streak that was somehow out of statistical variation. Then I'm willing to start believing. Otherwise it's just a belief, like religion. Now I know to some, sports is a religion, so it all makes sense.

I think the thing that one needs to demonstrate is that there's a model that consistently fits the data better than a stationary random variable.  The problem is that the "streakiness" hypothesis is difficult to formulate in a way that can make quantitative predictions.  What determines when the "hot" and "cold" periods occur?  I guess one thing you could try is a model where the probability of success had some parametrized correlation or anticorrelation built into it, and try to measure that parameter.

"Steakiness" is not even wrong? ;-)  
Trying to build a testable hypothesis you would have to take into account the opposition.  Thinking baseball, if you're on a road trip playing three games against three teams all with better records than your team's record, you would expect a higher probability of a "batting slump" than during a home stand of the same duration against lower performing teams.  How about taking the B-T approach up another notch to analyze the performance of individual hitters against individual pitchers? ::rolleyes::

[ftyuv]

I believe the conspiracy theory that Christopher Marlowe wrote Shakespeare's works. I hold this belief not because I have any really good evidence for it, and in fact in spite of the fact that there's no good evidence for it. I believe it not because I have a good reason to do so, but rather because it's a fun theory and it doesn't actually matter, so I'm okay having fun even while knowing that I'm very probably wrong.

You may apply this allegory to discussions of the unbiased scientific validity of streakiness, clutchiness and several other ideas in the world of sports -- including, actually, that it makes any sense to root for any one team over any other.

(That said, I argue about stats in the same light; I know that the discussion is pretty much impossible to resolve, but then again, it doesn't matter and it can be fun.)

[jtwcornell91]

I believe the conspiracy theory that Christopher Marlowe wrote Shakespeare's works. I hold this belief not because I have any really good evidence for it, and in fact in spite of the fact that there's no good evidence for it. I believe it not because I have a good reason to do so, but rather because it's a fun theory and it doesn't actually matter, so I'm okay having fun even while knowing that I'm very probably wrong.

You may apply this allegory to discussions of the unbiased scientific validity of streakiness, clutchiness and several other ideas in the world of sports -- including, actually, that it makes any sense to root for any one team over any other.

This is exactly why we believe in jinxes and superstitions even though we know they're nonsense: it's fun.