baumerman77 Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 4 minutes ago, oldnews said: I think your belief that Gudbranson is a better offensive than defensive blueliner says about all we need to know about your concept of 'analyticz'. I've made my predictions - not a waffle to the effect of 'the Canucks will make the playoffs... if their corsi is positive, and they make more saves than the opposition.....but if the opposition takes more shots, and theCanucks goaltender's sv% is lower, then they'll miss the playoffs. Genius stuff. I think they'll win all the games they outscore their opponents, and lose the others. Over 1/3 of the teams that made playoffs last year had a PDO below 100: LA Chicago Detroit Dallas Nashville ANA Thus, PDO doesn't have a perfect correlation with wins/losses as you are implying. I'm saying that the Canucks have to have a considerable amount of luck on their side to make playoffs this season. In other words, if the Canucks do make playoffs this year I predict it will largely be driven by luck not skill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 4 minutes ago, baumerman77 said: I'm saying that the Canucks have to have a considerable amount of luck on their side to make playoffs this season. In other words, if the Canucks do make playoffs this year I predict it will largely be driven by luck not skill. LOL. You're the 'outsmarting yourself' gift that keeps on giving. The 'analyticzz' of luck vs skill in determination. I can just imagine how exact your 'science' of quantifying skill vs luck is lol. Thanks for coming out baumermann. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 12 minutes ago, baumerman77 said: I'm saying that the Canucks have to have a considerable amount of luck on their side to make playoffs this season. In other words, if the Canucks do make playoffs this year I predict it will largely be driven by luck not skill. How exactly does one measure luck? Is it similar to how advanced stats predicted how injured we'd be last year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 10 minutes ago, J.R. said: How exactly does one measure luck? Is it similar to how advanced stats predicted how injured we'd be last year? deltaPDO! It's PDO.....with luck vs skill factored in. Ya needz da learn moar bout analyticzzzz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 54 minutes ago, oldnews said: deltaPDO! It's PDO.....with luck vs skill factored in. Ya needz da learn moar bout analyticzzzz. It's the four z at the end that seals the deal for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumerman77 Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 2 hours ago, J.R. said: How exactly does one measure luck? That's a great question. And I think attempting to separate skill from luck in hockey is a cornerstone of analytics. To keep it brief, by luck, I mean randomness. It's simpler to think of it in opposition to skill, which is repeatable. There are currently a few different ways to measure luck in hockey all of them imperfect; they can't completely removing skill from luck, yet they are good enough to be primarily driven by luck. I picked PDO because it is primarily luck driven and it is readily available to everyone. But there are other measurements like Hockey Abstract's Luck Chart, among others, that are perhaps more encompassing. Thus, the prediction that the Canucks won't make playoffs unless a very high PDO (ie they are very lucky) is more a prediction about how low the level of skill I think the Canucks will have next year rather than where I think they will finish in the standings. I should say that in the unlikely situation that the Canucks make playoffs and receive favourable luck AND score high on skill (by empirically proven determinants of success that are primarily skill-driven such as many possession-proxy stats) I will be the first to gladly admit that I was wrong and be delighted to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Sparkle Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 and if the 'nucks make the playofs, i'll ****in jump in the lake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 48 minutes ago, Twilight Sparkle said: and if the 'nucks make the playofs, i'll ****in jump in the lake In April it's still a bit cold I guess. Otherwise you aren't really taking on that much risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 1 hour ago, baumerman77 said: That's a great question. And I think attempting to separate skill from luck in hockey is a cornerstone of analytics. To keep it brief, by luck, I mean randomness. It's simpler to think of it in opposition to skill, which is repeatable. There are currently a few different ways to measure luck in hockey all of them imperfect; they can't completely removing skill from luck, yet they are good enough to be primarily driven by luck. I picked PDO because it is primarily luck driven and it is readily available to everyone. But there are other measurements like Hockey Abstract's Luck Chart, among others, that are perhaps more encompassing. Thus, the prediction that the Canucks won't make playoffs unless a very high PDO (ie they are very lucky) is more a prediction about how low the level of skill I think the Canucks will have next year rather than where I think they will finish in the standings. I should say that in the unlikely situation that the Canucks make playoffs and receive favourable luck AND score high on skill (by empirically proven determinants of success that are primarily skill-driven such as many possession-proxy stats) I will be the first to gladly admit that I was wrong and be delighted to do so. First the "hero chart", now the "luck chart" lol. Now I've heard it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam126 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 6 minutes ago, oldnews said: First the "hero chart", now the "luck chart" lol. Now I've heard it all. Apparently, analytics can measure randomness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 A "luck" analyst. That's what the Canucks need. Anything that can improve theirs.....luck is a factor the team really needs to work on lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Luck has nothing to do with making the playoffs, unless you wanna use it to explain injuries. If you want to simplify things down to easily measurable stats, goals for and goals against are the simplest stats to look at. Neither of those have anything to do with luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 6 hours ago, baumerman77 said: Over 1/3 of the teams that made playoffs last year had a PDO below 100: LA Chicago Detroit Dallas Nashville ANA Thus, PDO doesn't have a perfect correlation with wins/losses as you are implying. I'm saying that the Canucks have to have a considerable amount of luck on their side to make playoffs this season. In other words, if the Canucks do make playoffs this year I predict it will largely be driven by luck not skill. And when you look at the skill that those teams command, above average, to good, to top echelon teams have a good chance to make the playoffs even if their PDO is low. That said PDO is best used in fantasy hockey to determine if an individual had very unlucky or very lucky pucks the previous year as part of your arsenal in making your final picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumerman77 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Jam126 said: Apparently, analytics can measure randomness. Yes there is some good work around this. Josh Weissbock's thesis is a decent starting place as he explains things clearly and thoroughly. https://www.ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/31553/3/Weissbock_Joshua_2014_thesis.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 1 hour ago, oldnews said: A "luck" analyst. That's what the Canucks need. Anything that can improve theirs.....luck is a factor the team really needs to work on lol. Sadly, this is true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tajun Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Ah, the Canucks message board, where one can begin with people raging about a clearly ridiculous article and end with a pointless discussion of the value of analytics, all in one topic. I think I'll come back in October. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiloFrenzy Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Dont wet your nicker ! Its treatable . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 11 hours ago, oldnews said: A "luck" analyst. That's what the Canucks need. Anything that can improve theirs.....luck is a factor the team really needs to work on lol. So we need to start scouting for, and drafting, lucky players. I got lucky last night. Maybe I should ask for a tryout. Alflives ate Lucky. Don't think that would qualify him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Baggins said: So we need to start scouting for, and drafting, lucky players. I got lucky last night. Maybe I should ask for a tryout. Alflives ate Lucky. Don't think that would qualify him. Perhaps it could have even helped at the draft lotto. We sure lacked luck there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 31 minutes ago, J.R. said: Perhaps it could have even helped at the draft lotto. We sure lacked luck there! Well Juolevi was drafted higher than most expected. Maybe that makes him a lucky player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.