#26 — Vanek! with a Jurco

[dekedangle_rpf_mod]

This is the twenty-sixth 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: Hockey Media

[(Anonymous)]

http://www.beerleagueheroes.com/hockey-desperately-needs-better-competition-metric-part-2-2/

Fascinating article on why analytics should change how it measures Quality of Competition faced. (Link is to part 2, as part 1 is basically just an introductory primer to fancystats and written kind of annoyingly.)

Re: Hockey Media

[(Anonymous)]

I was actually going to say that I found this part written kind of annoyingly too. Just tone-wise it's offputting. I'm not sure why the writer was so allergic to topic sentences but it makes for a meandering article. And on top of that I had a big problem with their argument. The three factors they mention as being used to measure QoC are TOI, raw Corsi, and relative Corsi (I...think). Then their breakdown for why that sucks looks at each metric separately instead of considering them together, when weighing a player's Corsi by their ATOI helps fix a lot of the problems they bring up with both metrics.

They're not necessarily wrong, but their argument is flawed.

Re: Hockey Media

[(Anonymous)]

na

Agreed with all of this. Plus, it looks like their lack of statistical understanding is being carried over to the QoC model they're proposing as a "solution" to this problem, where they've presupposed that QoC matters in the parameters of their model before using that model to produce results suggesting that it does. They also seem to not know the difference between qualitative and quantitative, as they seemed to think their separation of players based on quality is number based (when their whole rationale for the separation is the flawed nature of the numbers). This (very long) thread sums it up well: https://mobile.twitter.com/IneffectiveMath/status/755193498727514112. Like you said, they're not necessarily wrong, but their methods render their results practically meaningless. Here's their model: http://becauseoilers.blogspot.jp/2016/07/woodmoney-new-quality-of-competition.html?m=1.