Oh boy ... here we go, looks like I got myself an angry SNAHR-metrician by the tail ...
hmmm, how does that saying go ... "lies, ****ed lies and statistics" ...
Who says the math is "very useful and valid"? Maybe the better question anyway is ... "is it relevant" in hockey? I say no, it isn't. And before you get too full of yourself amd your generation "looking inside the numbers"
I can assure you I understand how "the numbers" work very, very comfortably - thank you. Even if I am a generation older than you, we still had thingies like calculus and statistics back in the day. I know - shocking, isn't it?
Did pretty well on my standardized testing, too. But all that aside, I do know enough not to wallow in self-assured smugness and self-serving vanity that this is all somehow explainable in numbers and "advanced metrics", and the rest of us (now or before) who have not "seen the light" of advanced metrics in hockey are just plain "ignorant". I think that's what you're saying, right?
This is really some good stuff, thanks for sharing. I'm going to put that stuff right up on my personal USCHO revelations board, between "penalties are bad because it makes the penalized team play with one less player", and "you can't win if you don't score, and you can't score if you don't shoot".
No, sorry ... UNH has gotten exactly what it's deserved. You are what your record says you are, and against a pretty strong schedule to date, UNH has clearly shown it's not up to their level. This is not about "puck luck" evening out. They are simply losing to more talented teams, and teams that are finding a way to win close games.
I remember a discussion we had on here a long time ago, when UNH was knocking on the door of a National Championship, and some folks were bemoaning "puck luck" but were completely assured that eventually "puck luck" would even out, and the title was there for the taking. I laughed at that then, and I laugh at that now.
Hockey is not baseball. In hockey, you have to go toe-to-toe against an opponent for one (1) puck, and if you get the puck, then the only thing that matters is sticking that puck in your opponent's net, with six other players doing all they can - legally and oftentimes illegally - to prevent that from happening. It is physically confrontational in a way baseball does not even approach - aside from an occasional take-out slide, or maybe the emotional factor of avoiding high inside heat. If you can measure heart, determination and "compete level", I'm all ears. In baseball, every single at-bat that's taken place in the last century-plus has come with a pitcher and batter in relatively fixed positions, with fixed distances between the bases, over a fixed ball-strikes count in a fixed number of outs over a fixed regulation number of innings. NONE of that exists with hockey.
Has it possibly occurred to you that *maybe* neither of the UNH goalies are "very capable"? Or do you have an advanced metric that says they are? 'Cuz last time I checked, one was a senior career back-up with less career starts than I have fingers (maybe even on one hand?) ... while the other guy has played pretty well for stretches, and played well enough to play the previous senior goalie out of his starting job, while keeping the current (alternate captain) senior goalie in career back-up status ... but has never won recognition outside of his own program. Gosh, isn't UNH lucky to have two "very capable" goalies, and not the run-of-the-mill guys in the league like Hellenbucyk or Gillies.
Oh - BTW - with all the "we" and "us" ... my apologies, I didn't realize you were on the team. Which one are you?
They may "start scoring and winning games very soon" (I sure hope they do, anyway), but that's not down to luck. That's down to the level of the opposition.
As far as Toronto goes, when they eventually fall back (see - we agree!
) it won't be because of some statistical hocus-pocus. It will be because they just aren't that good (yet), but they do have some pretty talented young players, and an above-average coach. And if they can "man up" and find a way to overcome the massive choke job they pulled last Spring to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in their first round playoff loss to the B's, it will be because some of their players learned from the experience, grew up/matured, and will not freeze up (again) in the heat of battle.
Which is a nice way of rounding back to the "sonar theory" (which I wholeheartedly agree with) that you can have all the best numbers in the league, but if you can't handle the pressure of the big moments - on the ice OR behind the bench - you are VERY unlikely to EVER win anything of real significance. And really, that's the way it should be. It's what makes competitive sports different from playing the gaming tables in Vegas, or "fantasy football" with your buddies from work. Numbers don't win you a loose puck, numbers don't throw themselves in front of a 90 MPH slapshot, and numbers don't give you grace and focus under pressure. Thank goodness for that.
