Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Hey! Speak Up!

It's been a roller coaster ride over the last 50 days since Driving Play was founded. We've experienced the dizzying highs, the terrifying lows, the creamy middles. We've gotten way more hits than we thought we would, and the right people are noticing what we're doing over here.

Still, one thing that's a little disappointing is the lack of comments on the posts. Are people not interested? That's cool - the last two articles I wrote were on Anton Stralman and Jack Hillen; I don't expect many people to be interested in that. Are people afraid to comment, maybe? A fair amount of thought goes into the analysis here, but that doesn't mean your rebuttal has to be a dissertation, complete with WOWY analysis. We're interested in hearing what the readers have to say, even if it's not full of numbers and jargon. At the very least, it could give us ideas about future posts.

So, I'm going to open up the floor: What would the readers like to see a post about? I can't promise anything, but I'm curious about what you guys are interested in.


  1. I would like to see analysis on whether the so-called "conventional wisdom" is right. For example, is it true that faceoffs are super duper important? Do Europeans "disappear" in the playoffs? How important is goaltending in the playoffs? Do the refs favor the Original Six teams? Do you need a stud defenceman to win the Stanley Cup? And so on.

  2. "Do Europeans "disappear" in the playoffs?"

    I love this question, I've never seen anyone try to answer it, and I would love to try to.

    "For example, is it true that faceoffs are super duper important?"

    This has been answered by people smarter than myself (the answer is 'no, not really'); I'll dig up the links for you later and post them here.

    The rest of the questions are also excellent and I'm thinking about ways to try to answer them.

  3. I apparently missed the article defining WOWY. So um, ya. What does it stand for?

  4. Re: faceoffs - here's a good place to start: http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=3670 - the comment by Hawerchuk (aka Gabe Desjardins) is also illuminating.

    WOWY stands for With Or Without You (although I suppose it should be With And Without You) - it's a type of analysis where you look at Player X and see how his teammates fare with him on the ice, and without him on the ice.

  5. Keep up the good work folks. There's usually a big lag between building readership and building a lively comment section.

  6. Tri - it's good stuff; i read all of it even if i don't comment.

    keep up the good work.

  7. How about Brodeur vs. his backups? (Brodeur Is A Fraud/Contrarian Goaltender sort of covered this in a few posts but not comprehensively, and mostly focused on Corey Schwab, IIRC.)

    FWIW, 1993-2011:
    Brodeur .913 SV%, 2.22 GAA
    backups* .907 SV%, 2.50 GAA
    * e.g. everyone else, including his rookie season when Terreri played 44 games

    I have no clue how the SV% breaks down for ES/PP/SH or where one would find historical data (e.g. before Behind The Net) or how else one could break Brodeur & his backups down (e.g. shots/60), but based on the unsophisticated SV% and GAA stats, I was actually expecting Brodeur's numbers to be CLOSER to his backups'. & I'm not a Devils fan or a Brodeur hater...just curious.

    Excellent site, BTW; it's now on my Blogroll.

  8. I think you guys do great work. Some incomprehensible charts in there though, I don't know how heavy you would have to be into this stuff to understand it at one read ... but I'm guessing that damn near nobody does.

    Maybe before one of you posts, you could get one of the others to read through it first. If it isn't grasped with one read, perhaps it's due for a rewrite.

    That's not intended as a criticism, I love you guys. Just a suggestion from a lazy reader, that's all.

  9. Thanks for the comments guys.

    Vic, that's a good suggestion. I think I am guilty of getting too sucked into what I'm doing and not thinking enough about how clear it is to the reader.

    We'll definitely work on the presentation side of things.

  10. Vic,

    Thanks for reading/commenting - speaking for myself, I usually have to read these things twice also. It's difficult to make them light enough to comprehend on a first try, unless we want to split things up into more articles. That presents another problem, the 'Get to the goddamn point' problem. You usually have solid illustrative examples/metaphors, maybe that's something we need to start thinking about.

    JL - thanks.

    Dejesus: Yeah, that's something that can be tackled. NHL.com has even strength save percentages going back to 1998 I think, so we have enough data there to form a conclusion.

  11. More Leafs content!

    Great work though. Really glad i found this site.