Talk:Analytics (ice hockey)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LiorLeibovitz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Formula

Should we include the formulas for each stat? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Using the math article formula templates? Feel free if you like. Resolute 04:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed new name

First, thanks very much for creating this article—it's become a key topic in hockey circles. I suggest, though, that it may be preferable to call it Hockey analytics (or Ice hockey analytics), as analytics seems to have become the general analogous term to sabermetrics in baseball. "Advanced" is a bit of a misnomer; the stats are non-traditional, but mostly quite straightforward counts of things. What do you think? isaacl (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

On a side note, I'd never heard of the term "fancystats"; it seems more like a cutesy name given by the media than a commonly used phrase. Is it necessary to include in the lead section? isaacl (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I have often heard to it referenced as "advanced statistics/analytics". -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ha! I figured a naming issue would come up. I'm fine with hockey analytics too. I just picked something to get the article going. As to "fancystats", it's been a common name on Twitter and message boards as well. (It's even what I called the article while I had it sandboxed.) Resolute 04:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It just seems more like a passing trend of the day than a notable term of art, and also isn't very sport-specific. isaacl (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be hard to call something a passing trend of the day when the subject itself is relatively new itself. I'd say leave it until it gets to a point where it isn't common. -DJSasso (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

By default, I think of anything trending on Twitter as ephemeral... My experience is probably shaped by the fact that I generally read the sites posting analyses and not message boards discussing them, and it's not a likely term for a primary source to use to describe itself. isaacl (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

(pasted from WP:HOCKEY) Advanced statistics (ice hockey) seems like it has a disambiguator, which is unnecessary because we don't have an article on Advanced statistic. Since it is discussing the topic of "Advanced statistics in ice hockey," I'd like to suggest the article be renamed to reflect that. Tavix |  Talk  03:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I would probably do Analytics (ice hockey). -DJSasso (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, so any objections to moving the article to "Analytics (ice hockey)"? isaacl (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because it implies a disambiguation that isn't necessary. I'd prefer something along the lines of "Analytics in ice hockey" or "Ice hockey analytics". Tavix |  Talk  05:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Analytics is an existing article, so some type of qualifier is required (whether it is in parenthetical form or an additional adjective) to narrow the scope to hockey. isaacl (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A disambiguator is necessary because there is an article Analytics for straight statistical analytics. I prefer the brackets because the word on its own is more likely to be typed that the full phrase. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Of the three phrasings presented, I prefer the parenthetical form. Resolute 17:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with my own suggestion of Ice hockey analytics, but amongst those who weighed in, there is a small consensus for the parenthetical form. Thus I propose that the article be moved to "Analytics (ice hockey)". If anyone has any further comments, please chime in. isaacl (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

If there is no further discussion, I plan to proceed with the proposed move. Thanks to everyone for their input. isaacl (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have completed the move. isaacl (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)