|
coldwind posted:See, it's brought up that "consciously," it's never a problem. But you can't rule out that it is causing some real and effective subconscious problems for you. It is difficult to seperate what your mind consciously and subconsciously processes, but I do feel that in cases where I've tracked the puck for a while ("quiet eye" scenarios) that I am watching the puck first, so something like the color of the tape really isn't going to break my focus at that point. Now if it's a quick shot like a one-timer or I lose track of the puck and pick it up again at the last second, then I could see that as a scenario where it would be easier to get confused. That being said, I don't know which would be harder to track, a white blade against a white surface or a black puck against a black blade? I could see both having advantages at times, but I really don't know if one color is really harder to track the puck off of than the other? Anecdotally, I've noticed that a lot of the guys that used to play Juniors or above like to tape their entire blades, including the end of their blade, white. Now are their shots harder to track because they have white tape on their blades and there isn't that constrast of the end of the blade to allow your mind to fill in the gaps or are their shots harder to track, because they are more skilled players and they do a better job of disguising their shots? There are a lot of factors to tracking pucks, I brought up the angle of the blade and where the puck leaves the stick, since they both directly related to the stick blade. However, the angle of the shooter's shoulders, their posture, where the puck is in relation to their body at the time of the shot, whether they are looking forward or down, what type of shot they select, and many other factors contribute to how well you track or estimate the position of the puck. As you well know, tracking the puck is a complex skill and it's hard to isolate one factor like stick tape color and determine whether it has an absolute advantage. The goalie boards are full of endless threads talking about pad colors and patterns that supposedly create optical illusions and at least the consensus over there is that your own level of talent is a much bigger factor than any optical illusion. Maybe there are instances where a particular color or pattern make it harder for a shooter to find a gap, but it's doubtful that it is a big enough effect for it to make a difference over a long period of time. That being said, there are some pretty hilarious things people have tried, like the Stomp pads with the netting on the face or Fleury's insistance that yellow pads make it easier for shooters to find gaps, which if I remember correctly was based off of some sketchy science. Aniki fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Apr 26, 2011 |
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 08:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
Aniki posted:STUFF Goalies conducting thought experiments and self-reporting anecdotal evidence, while interesting and (marginally) useful, isn't nearly enough for people to conclusively say the tape color doesn't matter. Maybe it's true, but the support is highly lacking. I guess I just find it interesting that people think that they don't notice an effect of tape color, so it must not have an effect. I'll admit that anecdotal evidence is much of what we have to go on and I've definitely made decisions based on it. I painted my goal stick white after losing a puck under the black paddle and it squirted out backside and the enemy put it in the net. (Also, I just sorta wanted to paint my stick.) That's fine. I think the important part is keeping it in perspective and remembering that this is a simply a story told by a human being with flawed perception, imperfect memory, recall bias, etc.. It should not be taken as gospel. I'm gonna keep using black on my player stick because that's what's on it now and it's nice and waxed. And I think that it does give me an advantage, even if it's small and infrequent. Once that's done for, I might go crazy and use the American flag tape I got for Easter. AMERICA!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 16:47
|
|
|
It can't be that expensive to test.. set up a computer with a program that moves objects against backgrounds of different colors (both solid backgrounds and alternating), convince a neuroscientist to get interested in it, get a bunch of data points, release paper. I'd be surprised if research applicable to the question hasn't already been done, but have no idea how to go about finding it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 16:54
|
|
|
Somebody needs to go to grad school and write their dissertation on this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 17:29
|
|
|
Wolfy posted:Somebody needs to go to grad school and write their dissertation on this. The AHL is the laboratory of hockey. It's where they try out all Brendan Shanahan's dumbass ideas. I bet someone with the right connections could get a controlled study done in which black vs. white stick tape was randomly assigned to players for X weeks of the season. No way to blind it, but it should show any statistically significant difference over a long enough period of time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 17:44
|
|
|
Black/Yellow bumble bee stick tape is the only correct answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 17:47
|
|
|
Henrik Zetterberg posted:Black/Yellow bumble bee stick tape is the only correct answer. Clearly this is the only correct answer. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 17:49
|
|
|
Green Submarine posted:Clearly this is the only correct answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 17:59
|
|
|
Ok, I looked at the top 25 goal scorers from the regular season and using google image search tried to determine what tape color they use on their blades. The results are: White: 14 players, 501 goals Black: 11 players, 373 goals
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 18:03
|
|
|
White tape is better 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
xzzy posted:It can't be that expensive to test.. set up a computer with a program that moves objects against backgrounds of different colors (both solid backgrounds and alternating), convince a neuroscientist to get interested in it, get a bunch of data points, release paper. Green Submarine posted:The AHL is the laboratory of hockey. It's where they try out all Brendan Shanahan's dumbass ideas. I bet someone with the right connections could get a controlled study done in which black vs. white stick tape was randomly assigned to players for X weeks of the season. No way to blind it, but it should show any statistically significant difference over a long enough period of time. Green Submarine posted:Clearly this is the only correct answer. I actually just taped up my knobs with American tape, and I got the sticks at a USNTDP sale and they already have American flags on the stick as part of the graphic. I probably have the most patriotic hockey sticks in North America.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
While we're discussing tape, does anybody actually use friction tape? That stuff is the bane of my existence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 18:08
|
|
|
coldwind posted:The more I think about it, the more I think that this would actually be quite easy to test. Well, in terms of developing methodology. The technology and testing techniques are all there and have been used before. I can't imagine the funding would be there, though. There's always the placebo effect. If you feel that black tape makes your shot harder to track and it gives you confidence, then maybe that results in better performance. However, I agree that until someone produces or finds a study on the subject, then we aren't going to go far with anecdotal data. We all have our suspicisions of whether it has an effect or not, but the plural of anecdotes is not data.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
coldwind posted:But there are so many other variables, many that you would probably measure with uncertainties greater in magnitude than the effect you're measuring. Player's true skill level alone, for instance, probably has an uncertainty that would dwarf the effect. Plus, you have goalie's true skill level. You'd have to run this experiment for such a long time that I don't think anybody would be willing to invest. I'm no stats whiz, but there are ways to massage data sets like that to filter out signal from noise. For instance if you only considered data from skaters and goalies within one standard deviation of the mean in goals scored and save percentage respectively that would filter out the extreme numbers that might muck up the data (like the league's three highest scorers randomly being assigned white tape). And with a large enough data set, anything left uncontrolled would balance out as noise. The AHL has 30 teams. Let's assume they average 30 shots per team per game. If you do it for one game for each team that's already 900 shots. Ten games? 9000 shots. An 80 game season? 72,000 shots. I'd imagine, say, half a season would provide a large enough sample size to see if there would be a statistically significant signal if one existed. Now, my guess would be that there is not, but it's a doable experiment, and it would avoid the problems of having to infer from computer based lab test to real game conditions. And really, if you can't find any signal over the course of a season, the point would be moot anyway. That's about the maximum length of time over which anyone is likely to give a poo poo. Teams and players might be pissed, but I imagine they were pissed about having to play with orange blue lines too. Green Submarine fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Apr 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
The league average shooting percentage in the years since the lockout has been 9.55% with a standard deviation of 0.33% (small sample size, I know). This last season, total shots in the NHL was around 75,000. If the true effect of tape was less than 2 standard deviations (0.66%) from the mean, you would fail to show that the tape had any effect and assume the result was due to variance. Meaning any effect up to 0.66% (2SD's -> 95%) could be completely masked by league variance year-to-year. This turns out to be ~18 goals per team per season. If you also consider the fact that shot variance for forwards is higher and that they take, on average, 2.5-3 times more shots than defensemen, the goal variance bumps up to 19. (OMG 1 extra goal LOL) Now, this would be for a team transitioning from 100% black to 100% white or vice versa. That's probably zero teams. But still, there could be a 19 goal effect that you straight up wouldn't be able to detect reliably. Nineteen goals for switching tape colors. (Basically, due to the variance in scoring year-to-year, this experiment would be unable to detect small results, i.e. wouldn't be very sensitive.) Of course, what 0.66% means to the beer league heroes like us (most of us) is far less substantial. You'd need to take ~150 shots before getting an additional goal out of it. Which kind of speaks to your point. ...Though, you probably can't really apply the results to beer league players. The effect of tape color might be more marginal for players at higher skill levels. OK, I'm back to the stance that the AHL experiment is not a good solution. coldwind fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Apr 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
coldwind posted:The league average shooting percentage in the years since the lockout has been 9.55% with a standard deviation of 0.33% (small sample size, I know). This last season, total shots in the NHL was around 75,000. it looks like you assumed normality  (i just got home from my engineering stats class and quite frankly i have learned very little. though i'm pretty sure that, since your sample size for players' shooting percentage is over 30, you can assume that just fine. maybe this thread will help me with my final in two weeks  )
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
Lets have a SAS game, one team with white tape and the other with black tape and see who wins.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
poser posted:Lets have a SAS game, one team with white tape and the other with black tape and see who wins. But don't you need a control group with no tape for the results to be reliable? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 21:19
|
|
|
1st period nobody uses tape and flip flop tape colors between the second and third.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
Lawnie posted:it looks like you assumed normality The biggest problem I see is the variance on the shooting percentage. Since there's only 5 seasons post-lockout, the sample size for that is pretty bad. I wanted to use that, though, because there were some rule changes during the lockout. I'd guess if you go back to about 2000 the variance would come down a bit but going back too much further than that the variance will start going up. It's kind of hard to compare season-to-season and come up with a good sample or meaningful results because there's confounding factors like rule changes/evolving technology/changes in fitness of players. poser posted:Lets have a SAS game, one team with white tape and the other with black tape and see who wins.  .
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 21:43
|
|
|
coldwind posted:Guess I did. I have to admit I didn't think that'd be a problem (didn't think about it at all) and don't really know the requirements to assume normality anyways. I'm not extremely well versed, but I like math so when it comes my way it takes pretty well. My background isn't extensive, I've mostly been given "enough to know how to interpret papers." It wasn't super detailed. I also had an intro in UG and a class or two that applied it. My basic understanding is that you actually do have a rather statistically significant sample. This is because you are using point estimates of a very large population. the population is almost certainly normally distributed, therefore using those point estimators you should be alright. shooting percentage actually isn't a very complicated statistic. there is really very little noise when you consider that there are ~540 skaters in the NHL per year, so even with, say, OV's low shooting percentage and lee stempniak's really high shooting pct, you have a pretty good amount of data creating those point estimates. then again i think i'm only gonna get like a C in this class so take that for what you will.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
Lawnie posted:My basic understanding is that you actually do have a rather statistically significant sample. This is because you are using point estimates of a very large population. the population is almost certainly normally distributed, therefore using those point estimators you should be alright. The problem here is the nature of your population though. The color of the blade of a defenseman's stick as he takes a shot through a screen is irrelevant because the goalie cannot see it, the color of an open winger trying to hit a nearside corner from 15 fett might be. The shooting percentage of the latter is going to be far higher than the former.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 22:08
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The problem here is the nature of your population though. The color of the blade of a defenseman's stick as he takes a shot through a screen is irrelevant because the goalie cannot see it, the color of an open winger trying to hit a nearside corner from 15 fett might be. The shooting percentage of the latter is going to be far higher than the former. http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_ShotPercentage.php Though, I think your point would be more worrisome if we expect that the forward/defense makeup of the population is changing significantly from year-to year. Alternatively, we could repeat the analysis only on forwards. (Guys, let's just quit the song and dance and get published together.  )I think after all this conversation, I'm gonna carry a white stick for poke checking and hiding my release, a black stick for hiding the puck, a stick with reflective tape on the blade for distracting the goalie and an untaped control stick for data collection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The problem here is the nature of your population though. The color of the blade of a defenseman's stick as he takes a shot through a screen is irrelevant because the goalie cannot see it, the color of an open winger trying to hit a nearside corner from 15 fett might be. The shooting percentage of the latter is going to be far higher than the former. this is actually probably the best explanation. you can talk about all kinds of statistics but, unfortunately, you have no control over what the goalie sees and there's poo poo tons of variation in shots. there's no way to gain enough control over the numbers on nhl.com to draw any useful conclusions honestly this is the most i've talked about statistics in my life. so i am most likely talking out of my rear end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
coldwind posted:
There is only one solution.Perform tests and then publish faulty material in our favor, distribute it to USA Hockey and any place we can in the media with the conclusion that gray tape with black and white dots* increases scoring at all levels by 11-14% across the board, regardless of skill. *We of course have patented said tape and hold a monopoly on it until our ruse is found out, in which case we blame government bureaucracy and Muslims in order to isolate the market. This decreased demand will initiate part two of the plan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
WouldDesk posted:There is only one solution.Perform tests and then publish faulty material in our favor, distribute it to USA Hockey and any place we can in the media with the conclusion that gray tape with black and white dots* increases scoring at all levels by 11-14% across the board, regardless of skill. I say this: bring the number down, say it does depend skill and when the NHL numbers don't go up, point to the diminishing returns at that professional level and random variance. Repeat for a few years, all the while everybody else is scoring slightly better due to placebo and inflating it when they tell their friends to avoid buyer's remorse. In a few years, it will have gained so much momentum that it won't matter when we have to print the retraction. I know it'll work because there are people out there who believe that vaccinations give you autism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
Doesn't black tape rub off on the puck, though?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
made my own stick wax
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
Individual registrations for summer league were today and all rosters are apparently full...and have been for 5 years  Hopefully someone will pick me up off the free agent list.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
Thufir posted:Individual registrations for summer league were today and all rosters are apparently full...and have been for 5 years
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
coldwind posted:(Guys, let's just quit the song and dance and get published together. I'll take the intro and/or concluding text. Any takers for whipping up some fake methods, data, and analysis sections? Heavy on the jargon, please.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 15:14
|
|
|
coldwind posted:Make sure to invite the goalies. If we can also get some results on white-base pads we might be able to get two publications out of this Dammit, I was about to jump in with that. Goalies wear white/black/Fleury yellow pads each period.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 15:42
|
|
|
Green Submarine posted:I'll take the intro and/or concluding text. Any takers for whipping up some fake methods, data, and analysis sections? Heavy on the jargon, please. i can talk about tape materials! (please give me this opportunity to make my major feel useful)
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 21:32
|
|
|
Oh hi new skates! (Reebok 10k's) I wish I wasn't in the middle of my final finals week or I would be skating right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
Benson Cunningham posted:Oh hi new skates! (Reebok 10k's) Those are sweet. Are Reebok's the kind of skates that douchebag Ryan Smyth and Matt Duchene wear?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
trilljester posted:Those are sweet. Are Reebok's the kind of skates that douchebag Ryan Smyth and Matt Duchene wear? All I know is that Crosby wears 11k's. Not that I think I will suddenly be able to skate like him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
Benson Cunningham posted:All I know is that Crosby wears 11k's. Not that I think I will suddenly be able to skate like him. They are Reeboks, just don't know what model. They are gross and disgusting and douchebag-looking. Hehehehe..
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 00:17
|
|
|
Nowhere near as douchebaggy as anybody in these Sergei Fedorov, the original Nike Hockey poster boy, disliked their skates so much he wore Grafs with Nike branding. However, he did like money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 01:09
|
|
|
Speaking of new skates, the hockey shop told me this weekend is the big weekend.. everyone's getting their shipment of the new year of skates. Anything special worth keeping an eye out for? I've got them bringing in a pair of wide Graf skates to try, and they're saying there should be a bunch of EE width CCM and Reebok's to try. Hopefully something fits my foot.  (I think of the flashy style of skates, Reebok looks the best. CCM looks pretty douchey, everyone else has way too much chrome. Why doesn't anyone make a plain black skate anymore? Even Graf has the stupid neon green accents all over the place)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
The Supreme line is pretty much black.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 01:24
|
|
