Advanced Stats VS. Eye Ball Test

[Rev Kev]

Brian Burke is of course former GM of Anaheim Ducks, Toronto Maple Leafs, Vancouver Canucks and is currently the President of Calgary Flames has said on more than one occasion...


“Statistics are like a lamp post to a drunk,” .

“Useful for support, but not for illumination.”

Actually, he said it twice. Once in 2012 and again at the 2013 version of the event:


I personally don't think it matters what the sport -> a person also has to visually look at the competition the players you are scouting are facing. I want to see how much effort the other team has put into stopping "said" player being scouted


I also heard Burke say on local sports radio, if there were an Advanced Stat Resource that worked he would buy it so he could use it exclusively against other GMs

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/puck-...-brian-burke-hates-fancy-stats-130255951.html

 

[MiamiDolphin618]

I think advanced stats are the future of evaluation...and probably already play a huge role...its just not public knowledge. Baseball is slowly accepting these things in the media, things like WAR, WRC+, etc etc.

Some stats are just archaic. For example, as a pass rusher, your efficiency at getting pressures, hits, and sacks is critical. Yet what do people look at? Sacks. Pass rushers can dictate games without sacks...thats just one example.

 

[roy_miami]

It seems like that analogy should be clever but I can't make any sense of it.

 

[GasPed]

It seems like that analogy should be clever but I can't make any sense of it.

It's typical Brian Burke stuff. He makes funny, crass statements that are entertaining and quotable, but his performance in his job (GM) is pretty underwhelming...

 

[Rev Kev]

It's typical Brian Burke stuff. He makes funny, crass statements that are entertaining and quotable, but his performance in his job (GM) is pretty underwhelming...

His trading is pretty good -> he won more than he lost his draft history is heavily scrutinized

He puts very little into advanced stats is the point of the quote -> he prefers the eyeball test

 

[GasPed]

Brian Burke is of course former GM of Anaheim Ducks, Toronto Maple Leafs, Vancouver Canucks and is currently the President of Calgary Flames has said on more than one occasion...


“Statistics are like a lamp post to a drunk,” .

“Useful for support, but not for illumination.”

Don't you think though, rev, that hockey is a bit different than say baseball or football that way? I.e. Because of the relatively free-flowing, unstructured nature of hockey, where individual player roles/assignments are not clearly defined, it's very difficult to assign useful performance metrics and evaluate players against them? For instance, in football I can evaluate an OT's pass pro ability by measuring things like total pressures allowed, etc. because the OT's role in pass pro is very clear and the associated metric is as well. However, in hockey, the role of say a d-man as an individual is very fluid and situation dependent, almost on a second-by-second basis. As a result it's very difficult to find a good metric for his performance. Even hockey's so-called "advanced stats" (e.g. Corsi) are very dependent on team and situational play rather than the individual. I guess what I'm saying is that I largely agree with Burke when it comes to hockey, but less so when it comes to football or baseball...

 

[GasPed]

His trading is pretty good -> he won more than he lost his draft history is heavily scrutinized

He puts very little into advanced stats is the point of the quote -> he prefers the eyeball test

I agree about his trade history, although the Kessel trade takes the shine off a lot of his successes. Also, his drafting (at least with my Canucks) was pretty bad. He picked 5 good players (like the sisters, Kesler, etc>) and 100 total busts. But maybe his new protege (Treliving) will be better?

 

[So Be]

Interesting topic. Many fans believe they know best because they watch games, and go with what their eyeballs tell them. This is for most, not all, watching a game with food, drink, friends, and emotion. Yet, their eyeballs tell them everything.

When Philbin is asked about how certain players have played in post game, he always says he has to watch the tape but, fans know better and have no need to do this.

Let's take PFF for an example. Many believe they know nothing and are a waste at what they do. However, they take 10 hours to "eyeball" our team to grade each player on each play. No matter, fans watched the game, and, in some warped sense of reality, believe they know better. Amazing.

 

[roy_miami]

The stats are interesting but it sucks when people say we should sign this player because he's great at pass protecting but they are basing that opinion 100% off of pff stats. If you are posting an opinion solely based off stats you should say so.

 

[MiamiDolphin618]

The stats are interesting but it sucks when people say we should sign this player because he's great at pass protecting but they are basing that opinion 100% off of pff stats. If you are posting an opinion solely based off stats you should say so.

I tend to disagree with this. PFF is certainly not the be all end all..but they base their "stats" off of film review. As Southbeach pointed out...they spend hours reviewing each individual player and grade each play. Just as the teams do. We watch the games...and yes we can garner information from that...but its impossible to watch every player on every snap. Either way its based on game film. Some people might trust their own eyes more..and more credit to them. But I certainly dont have time to isolate every player on each snap.

 

[QFFL]

So it comes to subjective criteria and objective standards, for the eyeball test, the scouts have to really good, with the huge number of players to evaluate, it is very hard to compare players scouted by different persons.

Another thing missed here is the intangibles, most of the top ranked players are physical freaks, but do they have the heart and work ethnic to play the game?

 

[NY8123]

If you are too Objective or Subjective it isn't good. Just like any NFL team, scouting is the best when there is balance. Balance makes a good offense, balance makes a good defense and balance makes a good scouting department, you use every tool at your disposal to make an assessment.

The quote is kinda goofy however, a light pole is not good for illumination? I don't put my light on the ground because they don't illuminate well in the grass. I also don't put them on a mile high pole, too far away. You have to use the right size pole or it makes the light highly ineffective as well.

 

[roy_miami]

Yeah and why are drunks immune to the effects of illumination from street lamps? Drunks can still see right?

 

[So Be]

Yeah and why are drunks immune to the effects of illumination from street lamps? Drunks can still see right?

Going by many a stadium experience, drunks can see better than anyone. LOL

 

[whizafriz]

I've never been a fan of looking at stats extensively -- at most I'll look at QB statistics or RB/WR numbers.

For example, I was reading that Tannehill / Russell Wilson debate thread, and felt like comparing them based on each facing the winless Tampa Bay Buccs last year (where both teams didn't fare that well). *Keep in mind, I hadn't actually watched the Seattle game with my eyeballs*
I wanted to make the case that Wilson wasn't really anything special over Tannehill since their QBR's and TD/INT's are very close, with Tannehill's actually slightly better with one less INT. However, of the 2, who won that game? Wilson in the 4th with a couple of scoring drives. In Tannehill's 4th, he got his only INT and also got a 3 and out. Not trying to spark a sentiment that Wilson's way better or anything like that, but things like momentum and timing are more important for me in evaluating a team and/or player, since it also largely dictates eeking out / rallying to wins.