Stars @ Leafs - Nov. 1st, 7:00pm - TSN4, TSN 1050

[ZBBM]

I'm pretty sure we're talking past each other here so not much point in continuing, but I would have hoped my saying that players are 100% in control of their actions is not understood to mean they "are infallibly accurate."

I guess my one-line argument is that talking about "luck" in any form just obscures things.  There is no such thing as luck, only shifting probabilities.

There's no Leafs game today, so I have lots of time to digest what you're trying to explain. To me, luck, skill, and probability are all part of the same mesh. Skill is the individual's ability to shift probabilities in his or her favour. Luck is the rest that the individual cannot control.

Auston Matthews, for example, has the ability to add pre-shot movement to his shot (on top of any movement that came prior) that shifts the chances of scoring closer to success than most players. That's a skill and not luck. Once it leaves his stick, the puck is still subject to the bodies in between the puck and the net, and those individuals' respective decisions.

I don't think we're talking about different things, but I also don't know what you're talking about yet and I hope you have the time to enlighten me.

I don't either, but what I'm pointing out is that mixing talk about "luck" into discussions of probability and advanced hockey stats just muddies the water, and blending metaphors like "luck" with what really is happening makes it easy to fall into statements like the one I bolded earlier that, literally, are wrong. 

Hockey is struggling mightily to move beyond intuitive "analyses" and "eyeball tests" to real quantitative evaluations of success/failure on the ice.  People like you are proponents, and rightly so.  (Although I will add as a purely parenthetical aside that IMO the current crop of 'advanced stats,' while a huge improvement over junk stats like +/?, are still laughably inadequate.  To my mind, because of the nature of the game truly valuable stats will only come when they embed chips in the players' equipment, both sticks and skates, and come up with 3-d recording of where players and sticks are at every moment of the game, and sophisticated modeling of how all of that interacts with each other.  And that will happen, maybe sooner than we think.)  Talking about "luck" or anything else being "outside of players' control" is not useful, I think.

EDIT: Just to add, I agree with your concept of "skill"?it is indeed just the differential ability of individuals to shift probabilities in the favor.  You didn't offer a probabilistic definition of "luck."  What I say is that there isn't one that is meaningful.

 

[Highlander]

Or do we factor in the intangible of belief, can our mental states affect the reality around us? Belief in luck, self confidence to a very high level or call it faith, we all have these to some extent or the other. If some believe in self luck, does that not in fact layout a subconscious blueprint to attain the very faith or imagination of self luck.
Creative visualization is taught in many books and cultures. Golf is a game where all pros say the biggest part of their success is to completely visualize a shot before they strike it or a putt before they stroke it.

I have always believed in luck and in great things happening to me and for the most part, I continue I have been a very lucky individual.  Can you hear the knocking on wood?

 

[L K]

The ice is bad because of the basketball court and concerts.  I?m not sure why they can?t come up with a more creative solution to improve ice quality though.  They sure as hell have the resources to find a way.  It?s a lack of desire to do it.

 

[herman]

I don't either, but what I'm pointing out is that mixing talk about "luck" into discussions of probability and advanced hockey stats just muddies the water, and blending metaphors like "luck" with what really is happening makes it easy to fall into statements like the one I bolded earlier that, literally, are wrong. 

Hockey is struggling mightily to move beyond intuitive "analyses" and "eyeball tests" to real quantitative evaluations of success/failure on the ice.  People like you are proponents, and rightly so.  (Although I will add as a purely parenthetical aside that IMO the current crop of 'advanced stats,' while a huge improvement over junk stats like +/?, are still laughably inadequate.  To my mind, because of the nature of the game truly valuable stats will only come when they embed chips in the players' equipment, both sticks and skates, and come up with 3-d recording of where players and sticks are at every moment of the game, and sophisticated modeling of how all of that interacts with each other.  And that will happen, maybe sooner than we think.)  Talking about "luck" or anything else being "outside of players' control" is not useful, I think.

EDIT: Just to add, I agree with your concept of "skill"?it is indeed just the differential ability of individuals to shift probabilities in the favor.  You didn't offer a probabilistic definition of "luck."  What I say is that there isn't one that is meaningful.

So it sounds like our difference, ZBBM, is merely a semantic one, or a labeling one.

I'm not referring to luck the way Highlander is (which is also different than visualization).

Luck, as I'm using it, is just the catch-all term the hockey community uses for all the uncontrollable variables that go into this game that can mask or magnify a player's skill (on top of the biomechanical execution and decision making variables). It's a significant enough of a factor that it can't not be talked about.

It leads to 36.75M commitments like the David Clarkson contract where one player's shooting percentage bender coincided with one team's sudden regression to the mean during a playoff drive leading to a union destined to fail. It leads to Nazem Kadri being one of the lowest cap hits for a top 40 centre.

 

[bustaheims]

The ice is bad because of the basketball court and concerts.  I?m not sure why they can?t come up with a more creative solution to improve ice quality though.  They sure as hell have the resources to find a way.  It?s a lack of desire to do it.

It wouldn't shock me if there's a structural issue with the building that contributes to it, as well. But, yeah, it does feel like it's more of a lack of desire to do anything out it - as it would probably mean shutting the place down for a little while in the summer instead of having concerts and other events there in that time.

 

[IJustLurkHere]

I don't either, but what I'm pointing out is that mixing talk about "luck" into discussions of probability and advanced hockey stats just muddies the water, and blending metaphors like "luck" with what really is happening makes it easy to fall into statements like the one I bolded earlier that, literally, are wrong. 
...

...

Luck, as I'm using it, is just the catch-all term the hockey community uses for all the uncontrollable variables that go into this game that can mask or magnify a player's skill (on top of the biomechanical execution and decision making variables). It's a significant enough of a factor that it can't not be talked about.
...

So I would only describe myself as a novice of advanced metrics, but surely part of their goal is to bring luck (or if we don't like the word, chance, or variation) into the discussion, not try to remove it?

Probabilistically speaking, luck is in math... if I have a coin, everyone knows the odds of heads/tails are 50/50. However, the odds of me flipping 100 times and getting exactly 50 heads and 50 tails are only 1%. That's not defying physics, indeed, if you ever met someone who was flipping perfect head/tail/head/tail every time, you'd identify it as a rigged coin.

Concepts like statistical significance and reversion to the mean are built around luck being important. When Nazem Kadri goes 10 games without a goal, and then scores 3 in 3 as we build up a significant sample, it's completely fair and statistically true to say he was unlucky in the first 10 and lucky in the latter 3.

 

[herman]

A couple of offensive blueline turnovers (after extended possession) were quashed beautifully by Holl on the lateral pinch to support the vertical defensive pinch. He is a much better skater than anyone else we?ve had on that 3RD slot since forever.

Here?s that play
https://twitter.com/nickdesouza_/status/1058491253514518530

Johnsson sure looks like a completely different player out there when he?s with teammates he?s familiar with.

The play above is more complicated than I remembered. It was Holl that pinched first to present an offensive option on the weak side (Johnsson filling in nicely), and when the puck gets turned north, Dermott sags back in recognition there?s speed coming up, and Holl already to the slot to support the intended play winds back up to shut down the break out as F3 normally should.