I’m trying something different, going to the hockey analytics talk. Tony A Monte, Peter Chiarelli, Mike Millbury, Michael Schuckers, and Brian Burke make up the panel. It’s a nice mix of players and management. Kathryn Tappen moderates.
Update: The panel:d
Update: Chiarelli says weight is very important in drafing players, more important than height.
Update: Chiarelli is also trying to use a probabilistic +/-, by looking at location of shots.
Update: Brian Burke is not sold on advanced metrics. Notes +/- is bad for players on ‘horseshit’ teams. I don’t think he understands how to use the stat. Says Moneyball is boring baseball. I wish they had skeptics like this on the baseball panel. Much more fun.
Update: Millbury notes that hits are tracked, but not quality of hits.
Update: Monte says even in youth hockey, weight makes a huge difference.
Update: There are a lot of baseball references. It seems the NHL is feeling pressure from the baseball analytics advances.
Update: All say how tough it is to draft an 18 year old. Schuckers, the academic, points out there league equivalences. The GMS say they have little value. The NHL needs a Theo Epstein. The front office is the inefficiency to be exploited in the NHL.
Update: Schuckers says you need to win 100 faceoffs to score one goal on average.
Update: Burke brings up intangibles! Maybe they should try to measure those, since he describes tangible examples.
Update: Burke says eliminating hits eliminates concussions, but then no one will watch. I agree. Women’s hockey doesn’t allow hitting at the college level, and it’s boring.
Update: Millbury notes that rule changes that increase speed are leading to more concussions.
Update: They’re asked about replacement player analysis, but I don’t think they understood the question (at least in a baseball sense) .
Update: Schuckers understood the question, and says the analysis is developing.
Update: Burke finishes with this criticism of Moneyball, that if you’re just going to be good, you’re going to get your ass kicked.