[Article] Scott Walker on Heavy Analytics Approach

[J-23]

“…show me an analytical team that’s won the Stanley Cup”

 

The team that’s about to 3Peat.

[Elias Pettersson]

38 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

 

To be honest, I see this as more Walker trying to piss on his territory. Analytics are dangerous to people who refuse to learn about them (just as they are dangerous to people who blindly follow them). 

 

I think people don't like analytics because (a) it can take passion out of the sport if you're reducing a player to a number, (b) it makes debates about the sport less interesting (to some), (c) they are harder to learn than eye tests, and (d) the people who use analytics often poorly communicate their value to the public. 

 

I'm not saying it is good that Scott Walker left, but I think there is probably someone out there who could replace him and do a better job. Why wouldn't you want a coach who is going to use the tools made available to him?

 

 

 

Tampa Bay, the current back-to-back Stanley Cup champion, for one:

 

https://www.nhl.com/lightning/team/hockey-staff/michael-peterson

 

Does this mean TB relies purely on analytics? No. But that doesn't discount their importance, especially in a salary cap era where races are so tight. 

 

 

Doesn’t every NHL team have an analytics department?

 

Scott Walker is a coach. He doesn’t watch the game from the press box. He’s behind the bench. I’m sure he would prefer to coach based on how he learned the game, which wasn’t from a computer. 

[TheRussianRocket1994]

3 hours ago, Zhukini said:

The Rah Rah approach wears off fast. It's probably why Bruce was a last minute decision. 

This comment makes zero sense!! I don’t know why that would even remotely apply to him when he has a constant & consistent winning record. It’s not like his teams do really well for a short period, then s*** the bed! 

[Canuck Surfer]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

How did teams draft and develop talent in the 80's and 90's without analytics?  Did they actually go to the games and scout them using the eye test?  

 

Would analytics allow you to figure out the character of a hockey player and his desire to win a Stanley Cup at all costs?  

 

Not sure how you can use computers and charts to figure out if someone is going to be a great NHL player.  It's a lot easier just to visit and talk to their moms, that will open up alot more information about the player than a WAR chart...

Analytics should, quote / unquote ''should,'' point to where to look at. 

 

Still should never replace actually looking!  Who has skills, the ability to execute and when to do it is the essence of scouting.  How to teach those skills, when to deploy & where to position the essence of coaching. 

 

 

 Even if you think Analytics might help teach a coach when to teach skills... Even then good coaching teams do full video analysis of each player, each play, each game.  And they should already know when guys are executing, not, what skills they have, need help with.

 

Probably helps more with prep for other teams.  Particularly out of conference. The same amount of time to the other teams tendencies & details just needs analytics. And prep with players brought up, how they are developing.  

[Josepho]

I've grown to have more problems with the JFresh type charts, but anyone who straight up refuses to consider new data like this is not good to have in the organization.

[MrCanuck94]

Everyone within our organization, even the analytics department, has said that analytics is a tool to help make decisions, not the only truther.

 

We clearly didn't use data and analytics enough with how dinosaur our organization became after we were the most progressive under Gillis and Gilman.

 

Glad we're getting back to progressive ways of doing things!

[Ghostsof1915]

2 minutes ago, MrCanuck94 said:

Everyone within our organization, even the analytics department, has said that analytics is a tool to help make decisions, not the only truther.

 

We clearly didn't use data and analytics enough with how dinosaur our organization became after we were the most progressive under Gillis and Gilman.

 

Glad we're getting back to progressive ways of doing things!

If it means winning a cup I'm all for it. 

[frank einstein]

This confirms what I've been uneasy about with this seemingly corporatized management by committee. I'd rather have a hockey-smart horse-trader like Jim1 than this box-ticking invisible hand. 

Trading Motte was the first sign, now this. Not much in between. 

I've followed this team from the beginning and for so many years come trade deadline or summer dealings, aside from a few instances, there were only crickets. Jim1 was great, always making adjustments. 

Walker walks. Motte's given away. My fear that Motte was traded because he didn't have the right demeanor (ie nothing to do with his on-ice contributions) is growing with this latest news. It doesn't bode well for JT if this is the case.

But corporate entities prefer personalities clustered around the norm. 

 

[King Heffy]

52 minutes ago, Qwags said:

The Lightning and the Avs were built by analytics, I'm just saying.

Under the supervision of qualified hockey people.  They didn't let the inmates run the asylum.

[Down by the River]

57 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Doesn’t every NHL team have an analytics department?

 

Scott Walker is a coach. He doesn’t watch the game from the press box. He’s behind the bench. I’m sure he would prefer to coach based on how he learned the game, which wasn’t from a computer. 

There's this strawman logic out there that assumes the use of analytics precludes the use of coaching based on trying to develop skills, develop rapport with players, etc. 

 

It isn't one or the other, and I've never heard an analytics person with any merit behind their name argue for as much. 

 

Of the major professional sports in North America, hockey players have got to be the most poorly-educated athletes, and it doesn't surprise me that a lot of former players turned coaches are pig-headed about this. Ultimately, if you're competing at the highest level of anything, you should be using every advantage you have. Ignoring analytics simply because you don't like them (read: you don't understand them) is a sign to me of someone who has decided to put their ego ahead of winning. 

[King Heffy]

14 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

There's this strawman logic out there that assumes the use of analytics precludes the use of coaching based on trying to develop skills, develop rapport with players, etc. 

 

It isn't one or the other, and I've never heard an analytics person with any merit behind their name argue for as much. 

 

Of the major professional sports in North America, hockey players have got to be the most poorly-educated athletes, and it doesn't surprise me that a lot of former players turned coaches are pig-headed about this. Ultimately, if you're competing at the highest level of anything, you should be using every advantage you have. Ignoring analytics simply because you don't like them (read: you don't understand them) is a sign to me of someone who has decided to put their ego ahead of winning. 

And losing quality coaches because some spreadsheet genius who doesn't understand the game wants them to change their approach for no reason is a sign that there's a serious issue in the other direction.

[Elias Pettersson]

42 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

There's this strawman logic out there that assumes the use of analytics precludes the use of coaching based on trying to develop skills, develop rapport with players, etc. 

 

It isn't one or the other, and I've never heard an analytics person with any merit behind their name argue for as much. 

 

Of the major professional sports in North America, hockey players have got to be the most poorly-educated athletes, and it doesn't surprise me that a lot of former players turned coaches are pig-headed about this. Ultimately, if you're competing at the highest level of anything, you should be using every advantage you have. Ignoring analytics simply because you don't like them (read: you don't understand them) is a sign to me of someone who has decided to put their ego ahead of winning. 

Scott Walker was a head coach in junior hockey for 5 years.  He was also the player development consultant for the Canucks for 2 years, working directly with our prospects.  He was also the assistant coach of the Canadian Olympic team in South Korea in 2018.

 

You don't acquire those positions by being dumb and not knowing how to evaluate players.  Scott Walker is old school.  So are alot of other coaches in the NHL, namely Bruce Boudreau.  Boudreau was the one who hired Walker in the first place, so obviously he thinks highly of him.

 

I'm not saying that analytics doesn't have a place in hockey or in sports, but alot of the so called analytic computer nerds who know nothing about hockey think analytics is the only thing that matters, which of course is not true.

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, King Heffy said:

Under the supervision of qualified hockey people.  They didn't let the inmates run the asylum.

They did in Arizona.  And look what happened...

[c00kies]

4 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

How did teams draft and develop talent in the 80's and 90's without analytics?  Did they actually go to the games and scout them using the eye test?  

 

Would analytics allow you to figure out the character of a hockey player and his desire to win a Stanley Cup at all costs?  

 

Not sure how you can use computers and charts to figure out if someone is going to be a great NHL player.  It's alot easier just to visit and talk to their moms, that will open up alot more information about the player than a WAR chart...

I like analytics as a launching point in deciding to scout a player. I feel like the difference between young players is so much greater than the NHL, so analytics can get skewed easier. 

 

As an example, go see why that d-man has a low percentage of turnovers and high efficiency breakouts. Maybe he is making simple plays, plays with an offensive d-man (so passes to him for breakouts), or is just bigger and stronger than his current competition so they can't get the puck away from him. These reasons might put some caution into drafting him.

 

Numbers always need context to be useful, but they do have a place.

[King Heffy]

11 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

They did in Arizona.  And look what happened...

Same with Toronto.

[mll]

51 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Scott Walker was a head coach in junior hockey for 5 years.  He was also the player development consultant for the Canucks for 2 years, working directly with our prospects.  He was also the assistant coach of the Canadian Olympic team in South Korea in 2018.

 

You don't acquire those positions by being dumb and not knowing how to evaluate players.  Scott Walker is old school.  So are alot of other coaches in the NHL, namely Bruce Boudreau.  Boudreau was the one who hired Walker in the first place, so obviously he thinks highly of him.

 

I'm not saying that analytics doesn't have a place in hockey or in sports, but alot of the so called analytic computer nerds who know nothing about hockey think analytics is the only thing that matters, which of course is not true.

Boudreau did an analytics joke in his opening presser when he talked about how the Wild had the lowest expected goals but allowed the most.  He looks into numbers.  Probably not at the same numbers that Rutherford has been looking at but he says he looks into analytics.  In Minnesota he even went to the analytics department to have them help him out in OT.

 

It feels more like it's those who don't understand analytics that are quoting them as absolute.  Statisticians understand modelling, ranges and volatility in results as well as context.

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by mll

[Ballisticsports.]

Analytics is just another way of analyzing how your your team is performing in both good and bad

No where is it mentioned that a coach must solely base his judgement on analytics 9or he was fired because he isn't that type of coach)

To me it sounds like Scott Walker made a decision to retire and be at home with his family in Guelph with Young adults graduating and is a part-time owner of the local hockey team there and it is even possible his vertigo played a part in his decision

 

Walker as a coach may be just as he was a player, Effective, but not the best, either way it sounds like he made the decision on his own and best of luck to him on his retirement

[iceman64]

6 hours ago, Zhukini said:

The Rah Rah approach wears off fast. It's probably why Bruce was a last minute decision. 

No it was family issues and he runs a Jr league team and something else had something to do with it, can't remember it but it was 3 things and none of it to do with the Canucks except for being far from TO where his elderly mom lives. 

[iceman64]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Scott Walker was a head coach in junior hockey for 5 years.  He was also the player development consultant for the Canucks for 2 years, working directly with our prospects.  He was also the assistant coach of the Canadian Olympic team in South Korea in 2018.

 

You don't acquire those positions by being dumb and not knowing how to evaluate players.  Scott Walker is old school.  So are alot of other coaches in the NHL, namely Bruce Boudreau.  Boudreau was the one who hired Walker in the first place, so obviously he thinks highly of him.

 

I'm not saying that analytics doesn't have a place in hockey or in sports, but alot of the so called analytic computer nerds who know nothing about hockey think analytics is the only thing that matters, which of course is not true.

It's actually a balance of both analysis and variables and the actual answer lies somewhere in the middle but analysis doesn't always show the big picture as it doesn't take into the variables well at all, especially when a player has intangibles for instance, for us, a good example if Myers, for him analysis is everything but his importance of size that's an intangible and factors in, in whatever degree but that's all only one example, but others like who are linemates, what systems are run, what kind of players are they geared towards.. etc etc.. so at the end of the day, I think whoever balances both well has a pretty good shot at success. 

[Grape]

6 hours ago, King Heffy said:

As someone who personally agrees with Walker on this, I'm not pleased to seeing this at all.  We've seen what happened in Toronto and Arizona when the qualified hockey people were driven out by the analytics dweebs.

Toronto is such a horrendous example to use if you're against analytics. I think it shows a lack of understanding of the variability and randomness of hockey if you're using them as an example. Toronto just happens to have hilariously come out as disadvantaged from such an aspect of this sport.

 

Also, just because a team isn't built by analytics does not mean that analytical tools will think they are worse. And just because a team is built through analytics does not mean analytics will love them. There are tons of variables in determining the competency of a GM/coach other than: do they use analytics? For example, predictive analytics never saw Arizona as a good team. Predictive analytics did however, see that the cup-winning STL team, despite being dead last in January of that year, was much better than their record indicated.