Basically, if you're not using both objective data and the eye test, you're doing it wrong. Part of the problem in evaluating players using only data is that (at this point in time) you don't have an objective measurement of everything that is valuable in a player. Part of the problem in evaluating players using only the eye test is that your eyes can deceive you, especially if you enter the observation period with less than 100% objectivity.

One of the reasons I lean more heavily on player observation is that the real point of evaluating a player is to determine future value. Data only presents past value. It may be a proxy or predictor of future results, but it ignores real factors in a player's development (that may or may not have produced results yet) like speed and hockey IQ.

On the data side, while I know next to nothing about how they are measured objectively, I prefer the stats that incorporate QoC and QoT because no two shifts are exactly the same.

Neither are perfect but the problem with the eye test IMO is confirmation bias. Which we as fans certainly are subject to.

blog post up now.

http://hockeysimplified.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Have at it.

At least, it's not just based on sitting on my couch looking through the periscope (games on TV) and pontificating.

Happy Saturday.

Big game tonight.

UMSLBlues12 wrote:Neither are perfect but the problem with the eye test IMO is confirmation bias. Which we as fans certainly are subject to.

Confirmation bias.

The availability heuristic (horns, halo, salience, recency).

It is just how our brains work if we leave our brains to their own devices.

As for:

"Especially if you enter the observation period with less than 100% objectivity."

It has been proven that entering the observation period with 100% objectivity is an impossibility.

You get your own opinion Mook, but not your own facts.

It's gettin' deep in here.

Going to get my waders.

And, this of course is why clinical trials are double-blind.

The doctor doesn't know who is getting what.

The patients don't know who is getting what.

Wow.

barnburner wrote:

ledzeppelinfan1 wrote:I pretty much disagree, with all due respect. Most things are really obvious if you watch a team all the time like most of us do.

Totally agree. You can watch a player, knowing absolutely nothing about his stats, and form a pretty solid opinion on his worth as a productive hockey player

I agree.

In addition to that there are just some things that stats can't quantify. Leadership on the ice is a big one. One could make an argument that the stats will correlate with those other qualities but still, take for example Jackman, a solid bottom pairing D man, not many points, but still brings a lot to this team on and off the ice. Those things can counter balance any negative stats.

I'm all for advanced stats (my minor is in applied math) but any honest statistician will tell you the number can't tell you the full story.

An honest statistician will tell you that you can measure anything if you want to and try hard enough.

An honest statistician will tell you that if you are not trying to quantify and objectively record and analyze the observations of human observers that you are likely to get junk coming out the end of the process.

For example, there are many validated tests of leadership.

Glad to hear about your minor.

If we're throwing credentials around, mine are on my blog.

ABD in Psychology plus 30+ years of experience.

Done.

How does one quantify leadership?

No need to have a pissing contest over who knows more about what here. This is a sport after all and while some of us may have more experience in quantitative data analysis none of us are scouts, coaches in the NHL, etc (except for Hockey Pete I believe is a scout?).

There are a ton of tests out there to quantify leadership though lzfan1. How those would work in hockey who knows though?

I like looking at the data a lot but I also like looking with my eyes a lot. Sometimes my eyes and the data don't agree so I go back and evaluate again.

Everyone in hockey circles agrees though that data is at least part of the picture in measuring a player.

ledzeppelinfan1 wrote:How does one quantify leadership?

My gosh.

This has been an active area of empirical research for decades.

From in-box tests and work simulations to pencil and paper tests.

Including empirical research of what different types of leadership there may be and in what situations are they most beneficial.

Googling Kotter and Leadership might be one place to start.

Or The Center for Creative Leadership.

Or dozens of other sources.

[quote="UMSLBlues12"]No need to have a pissing contest over who knows more about what here. This is a sport after all and while some of us may have more experience in quantitative data analysis none of us are scouts, coaches in the NHL, etc (except for Hockey Pete I believe is a scout?).

There are a ton of tests out there to quantify leadership though lzfan1. How those would work in hockey who knows though?

I like looking at the data a lot but I also like looking with my eyes a lot. Sometimes my eyes and the data don't agree so I go back and evaluate again.

Everyone in hockey circles agrees though that data is at least part of the picture in measuring a player.[/quote]

Sorry, Dad.

I'll be better.

I promise.

WebSant wrote:[quote="UMSLBlues12"]No need to have a pissing contest over who knows more about what here. This is a sport after all and while some of us may have more experience in quantitative data analysis none of us are scouts, coaches in the NHL, etc (except for Hockey Pete I believe is a scout?).

There are a ton of tests out there to quantify leadership though lzfan1. How those would work in hockey who knows though?

I like looking at the data a lot but I also like looking with my eyes a lot. Sometimes my eyes and the data don't agree so I go back and evaluate again.

Everyone in hockey circles agrees though that data is at least part of the picture in measuring a player.

Sorry, Dad.

I'll be better.

I promise.[/quote]

Haha I'm not trying to be dad or anything. I'm just saying, the who knows more thing and I have this degree never seems to end well on the internet in the context of an argument. Besides...none of our degrees are in hockey right?

WebSant wrote:An honest statistician will tell you that you can measure anything if you want to and try hard enough.

An honest statistician will tell you that if you are not trying to quantify and objectively record and analyze the observations of human observers that you are likely to get junk coming out the end of the process.

For example, there are many validated tests of leadership.

Glad to hear about your minor.

If we're throwing credentials around, mine are on my blog.

ABD in Psychology plus 30+ years of experience.

Done.

Way to take it personally.

Validated test of leadership - Okay this much is true, those exist. Now show me where those are in advanced sports stats?

Don't be a prick just because someone disagrees with you.

UMSLBlues12 wrote: I like looking at the data a lot but I also like looking with my eyes a lot. Sometimes my eyes and the data don't agree so I go back and evaluate again.

Everyone in hockey circles agrees though that data is at least part of the picture in measuring a player.

I agree with you here. I just can't agree with measuring players off of data alone and not seeing them with your own eyes.

siebe41 wrote:
Way to take it personally.

Validated test of leadership - Okay this much is true, those exist. Now show me where those are in advanced sports stats?

Don't be a prick just because someone disagrees with you.

UMSLBlues12 wrote: I like looking at the data a lot but I also like looking with my eyes a lot. Sometimes my eyes and the data don't agree so I go back and evaluate again.

Everyone in hockey circles agrees though that data is at least part of the picture in measuring a player.

I agree with you here. I just can't agree with measuring players off of data alone and not seeing them with your own eyes.

Exactly the same for me.

siebe41 wrote:

WebSant wrote:An honest statistician will tell you that you can measure anything if you want to and try hard enough.

An honest statistician will tell you that if you are not trying to quantify and objectively record and analyze the observations of human observers that you are likely to get junk coming out the end of the process.

For example, there are many validated tests of leadership.

Glad to hear about your minor.

If we're throwing credentials around, mine are on my blog.

ABD in Psychology plus 30+ years of experience.

Done.

Way to take it personally.

Validated test of leadership - Okay this much is true, those exist. Now show me where those are in advanced sports stats?

Don't be a prick just because someone disagrees with you.

UMSLBlues12 wrote: I like looking at the data a lot but I also like looking with my eyes a lot. Sometimes my eyes and the data don't agree so I go back and evaluate again.

Everyone in hockey circles agrees though that data is at least part of the picture in measuring a player.

I agree with you here. I just can't agree with measuring players off of data alone and not seeing them with your own eyes.

I don't think anyone is saying to do that. At least I'm not saying to do that.

“What analytics taught me is your eyes and your mind are lying sons of bitches in the worst absolute way,” Dubas said.

This has been empirically confirmed time after time after time.

It is sad, but it has been proven.

It's how our brains are hard-wired.

All of our brains.

Yours and mine.

See:

Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahenman (Nobel Prize Winner)

or

The Signal and The Noise by Nate Silver

or

Fooled By Randomness, N. Taleb

Dubas recommends all three and he isn't the only one to do so.

I've listed them in the order that I would recommend them.

UMSLBlues12 wrote:

siebe41 wrote:

WebSant wrote:An honest statistician will tell you that you can measure anything if you want to and try hard enough.

An honest statistician will tell you that if you are not trying to quantify and objectively record and analyze the observations of human observers that you are likely to get junk coming out the end of the process.

For example, there are many validated tests of leadership.

Glad to hear about your minor.

If we're throwing credentials around, mine are on my blog.

ABD in Psychology plus 30+ years of experience.

Done.

Way to take it personally.

Validated test of leadership - Okay this much is true, those exist. Now show me where those are in advanced sports stats?

Don't be a prick just because someone disagrees with you.

UMSLBlues12 wrote: I like looking at the data a lot but I also like looking with my eyes a lot. Sometimes my eyes and the data don't agree so I go back and evaluate again.

Everyone in hockey circles agrees though that data is at least part of the picture in measuring a player.

I agree with you here. I just can't agree with measuring players off of data alone and not seeing them with your own eyes.

I don't think anyone is saying to do that. At least I'm not saying to do that.

Wasn't trying to say you were. But based on what others are quoting and suggesting they are.

UMSLBlues12 wrote:

siebe41 wrote:

WebSant wrote:An honest statistician will tell you that you can measure anything if you want to and try hard enough.

An honest statistician will tell you that if you are not trying to quantify and objectively record and analyze the observations of human observers that you are likely to get junk coming out the end of the process.

For example, there are many validated tests of leadership.

Glad to hear about your minor.

If we're throwing credentials around, mine are on my blog.

ABD in Psychology plus 30+ years of experience.

Done.

Way to take it personally.

Validated test of leadership - Okay this much is true, those exist. Now show me where those are in advanced sports stats?

Don't be a prick just because someone disagrees with you.

UMSLBlues12 wrote: I like looking at the data a lot but I also like looking with my eyes a lot. Sometimes my eyes and the data don't agree so I go back and evaluate again.

Everyone in hockey circles agrees though that data is at least part of the picture in measuring a player.

I agree with you here. I just can't agree with measuring players off of data alone and not seeing them with your own eyes.

I don't think anyone is saying to do that. At least I'm not saying to do that.

This appears to be the false dichotomy of which I wrote previously.

Yes, watch them with your own eyes.

Use your own expertise to evaluate players.

But, record your observations so that you can refer to them later.

Otherwise your mind will trick you.

You will readily recall certain events, but not others.

The availability heuristic and confirmation bias and ... will distort your conclusions unless you have the ability to go back and re-create what you were thinking at the time. And, relying on your memory is a notoriously bad way to do this.

It's not stats.

It's a documented record of what took place.

Not complicated.

Simple.

Watch the game. I always do.

If you don't like the standard metrics, document what you see in a way that you and others can consult later.