Analytics are a big part of the picture, if the were not every team in the league would just ignore them. I think that Patty Roy said it this past season.. " we love the Analytics when they support our pov, hate it when they don't, but in the end there is some truth to find in them" or something to that effect. Where they fall down imo is how you read them. You cant just take raw numbers because there are so many factors that are not accounted for. Some players play on a line that never has to go up against the other teams best, they are always sheltered so they have a clearer path to good metrics. They don't take into account someone who is playing through a injury or things like that. Its all in how a team reads them, and buyer beware if you are building based just on the numbers.
As I say, analytics are a tool that are useful as context to a player's performance. I don't disagree with you at all, analytics are a tool that need context applied to be successful, however I will note on the clearer path part, sometimes players have good metrics in sheltered minutes and keep that going into better minutes, see Jared McCann as a prime example (No clue why Toronto did what they did with him)
@@opinionaytedonhockey Analytics are fine as it is really just counting. I question the usefulness of public analytics as there is little to no context on what the people analyzing the play have been instructed to interpret. Things such as quality of competition, quality of linemates, game score, schedule, game style etc. all factor into the resultant numbers. That is why NHL teams employ their own analytics departments since they can control the context of what and how something is being counted so that the person interpreting the data has the same perspective as the person who generated it.
Analytics are great as long as you aren't using "wholistic" ones as proof. Stuff like WAR. They're useful to find players who may be under of overrated but they have the least context of them all. However, the only thing you share that analytics can't track is game style. Many models have found ways to integrate the other parts. However, they are up to subjectivity
The metrics are correct, but the interpretations from the data are where the mistakes occur. The eye tests are correct, but the conclusions from the observations are where the mistakes occur.
Eye tests are inherently incorrect as they are notoriously small sample sized and biased. Even if you watch your whole team for a whole season, you still can't accurately compare players to the rest of the league without using data
@@opinionaytedonhockey but the analysis of the eye test is how that player interacts within that team, and against opposition. The analysis isn't there to form hierarchies with the rest of the league and how that player would do if they played every game in the league. There's value there that can't just be dismissed because interpretations and jumped conclusions are commonplace
I'm not saying that context is inadmissable. I'm more aimed at those who say "Eye test" with no context whatsoever just to validate their opinion over statistics. I never said to not use what you watch on screen, I'm stating that sometimes, what you see on screen isn't the total picture. I'm more aiming at the "Eye Test" as an excuse for fans to hold opinions of players that are unrealistic when opposed to analytics, ie. Evander Kane, modern Alex Ovechkin, and sorts. Context will always be needed to interpret analytics, but analytics cannot be ignored.
Analytics fail to take into account intangibles. A "healthy " Evander Kane helps you in the playoffs. Kane blows up Quinn Hughes with a big check, Hughes proceeds to ghost the rest of the series. Kane also kept Zadorov occupied, absorbing alot of punishment that would have been directed to other players. Mcleod probably does offer more value in the regular season, but in tje playoffs you need guys like Kane. Every team needs an a$$hole that knows how to play hockey.
Hughes didn't ghost due to injury, reports verified he wasn't injured. Hughes just wasn't ready for the structured edmonton defence he never faced at full capacity (first 3 games were woody, and last had some sits). And saying a guy took hits is nothing. Derek Ryan couldve taken those hits. Corey Perry, Henrique, anyone couldve. Our comeback games in the finals against the most aggressive team we faced was without Kane.
@@opinionaytedonhockey yes other players could have taken those hits. But evander kane was in his head. Had him chasing and looking for it. I dont think Derek Ryan for example would have had that same effect. Yes maybe hughes wasnt hurt, but he also stopped rushing the puck. If you think the kane hit was irrelevant than you have never neen blown up by someone twice your size. Analytics do tell a story and are important, but they are not the whole story. Evander kane helps you in the playoffs, and i would geuss his team mates would all agree.
I have been blown up by a guy twice my size. You get back up, and make your way to the bench, but hockey players care about one thing... playing the game, no matter how hurt, every player wants to be in that lineup come crunch time. Kane did not help us this season. He had one good playoffs where half of his goals were fed on platters that over half the roster could score, nevertheless he was good in 2022 playoffs but inflated statistically. He hasn't been a 5 mil guy since.
When/if Kane stays healthy this year, He'll be more valuable then some seem to think , more so even in the playoffs imo. Worth his contract. Oilers are to soft as it is, without him it's worse.
You'd be astonished at the levels of defense for Kane. I live in the city and I know so many people who still think he is top 6 material, so this video was sort of a locally directed video
@@opinionaytedonhockey With that are they saying he's a good player? Or that he's a top6 style of player, i.e. lacking the hustle of a bottom6 player nowadays?
all sorts, but it mostly comes down too "he adds grit to the top six" and "he's an excellent shooter". Others will try and skate around their real opinion once confronted on kane but thats just humans
“The blood of the heroes is closer to God than the ink of the philosophers and the prayers of the faithful.” ― Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World
@@opinionaytedonhockey All professional sports have become soulless and bureaucratized like our civilization itself. Its an analogy--and no, the hockey players themselves are far from heroes in this age.
Anyone who can't watch a player play, and then know that's players worth at that time, knows jack shet about hockey talent. They can be helpful, but People who NEED analytics to make assessments should never ever be hired in hockey. Ever.
You do realize a scout can't watch every game, right? Analytics are a tool to measure performance over time. I could watch one random game every season and think Frank Vatrano is an elite goalscorer because he has a hat trick every season, even though he's been a bottom 6er most of his career. Analytics put the talent you see into context on how often you see it done. At the beginning of the season I saw Draisaitl commit some solid backhecking, but he still gives up a lot of chances. Watching allows highlight and lowlight bias to cloud minds in how we perceive the game, while you may notice more unique qualities such as skating or certain techniques, you cant entirely know their impact until you look at the big picture. I'm not saying games don't need to be watched, I'm saying analytics need to be used
@@opinionaytedonhockey And I'd say Analytics can be helpful to someone who can already read a players talent level, strong and weak points and and contribution to a team. To people who can't do that, analytics seem to all to often cause them to think that decent players should be benched, and excellent goalies run out of town, while telling everyone that D men who are nowhere near playoff ready will be the next Bobby Orr. Helpful, but if it's needed? Then I'd get a new whoever needs it. I guess we disagree on that then.)
Goaltending is the most variable position in hockey, with very few consistently top 5 goalies statistically. But we like to make "top 5's" because they're simpler. I haven't seen analytics run elite goalies out of town though. Defensemen are a weird case, where I'll entertain the point. This is often a cause of people using analytics out of the context for dmen in sheltered minutes. I'm not advocating for analytics to be a be-all, end-all, and use such as the aforementioned is wrong, however analytics are a useful tool that often get dismissed in the sake of "I like this guy more". They need to be used properly, but they need to be used to add context to bigger pictures.
