#24 – Not Sure If Serious or Playing Dumba

[dekedangle_rpf_mod]

This is the twenty-fourth post of Deke Dangle RPF Anon, a community for all your ice hockey anon meme needs.

THE RULES

1. Mods retain the right to delete, freeze, and/or screen threads and comments.
2. Meme rules do not require warnings.
3. Respect flock. Do not repost or share information from private tumblrs, locked twitter accounts, flocked LJ posts, etc.
4. No linking fans to their real life identities.
5. No looks bashing or body shaming. This applies to players and people associated with those players and their clubs, as well as fellow fans.
6. No embedded music.
7. No embedded images.
8. No spamming the meme, whether through repeated comments or other means. 
9. No discussing trolling, individual trolls, or their efforts.





Meme rules do not require spoiler cuts. However, this layout does allow for them. Any of the following tags will create a spoiler cut when closed: <div cut>, <span cut>, <font cut>, <font color="white">

If you have any questions or concerns, please direct them to The Mod Post. 

Threaded View
Flat View
Top-Level Comment View

Next post opens at 5,000 comments.

Comments

Re: Game Day Thread: June 1, 2016

[(Anonymous)]

I'd love to see that! The chart that got posted to meme earlier with the models' predictions versus the pundits' predictions had the models in order of how they've fared so far, and @DTMAboutheart's is third. I believe the two above him also have only been "wrong" on one each, but the rankings reward/punish the "confidence" of the model (so a model that predicted 60/40 Sharks vs Blues ranks gets more credit than one that predicted 51/49).

@IneffectiveMath made a good point the other day though that the models are not really predicting winners, they are predicting probabilities. It seems a little unfair to say a model predicted "wrong" if something happened that the model said had a 45% percent chance of happening.

Re: Game Day Thread: June 1, 2016

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, that's why I would want a post like that to include things like PDO, take a closer look at series where there was less agreement or the outcome was different than expected by most and maybe try to explain why, things like that. I'm not sure if all people with stats-based models on Twitter have disclosed which metrics they've included, but it could be very interesting.

Were there this many models for last year's playoffs? I don't remember them, but I was less active on Twitter back then.

Re: Game Day Thread: June 1, 2016

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

I'd love if someone would do that. A lot of analytics folks' twitters and blogs have some information about what their models take into account and privilege, so even if none of them make a big detailed post comparing all the models, we could possibly try it ourselves on meme. With the caveat that I am really not a fan of looking at PDO in the playoffs and especially in the context of a single series, where PDO is a zero sum game and basically just amplifies the difference between save percentages: the team with the higher sv will always have the higher PDO.

Re: Game Day Thread: June 1, 2016

[(Anonymous)]

the team with the higher sv will always have the higher PDO.


To be more precise, the team with the higher save percentage will always have PDO > 100 while the team with the lower save percentage will always have PDO < 100.

Re: Game Day Thread: June 1, 2016

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

I said PDO when I really meant SV%, I forgot that shooting percentage only includes shots that reach the goal.
Related, if anyone knows of a good article about the differences between looking at shots on goal and shot attempts and what kind of shots are included, please let me know.

Re: Game Day Thread: June 1, 2016

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

I believe shot attempts = shots on goal + shots missed + blocked shots. A lot of analytics people have said "shot attempts" should more accurately just be called "shots".