Other NHL games

Forum for hockey posts that are not Penguins-related.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: Other NHL games

Postby slappybrown on Mon May 13, 2013 12:42 am

To continue the discussion from the other night:

So if shot quality exists in the long term, team-wide sense, we’d expect to see certain teams shoot at a relatively higher rate over the long term and multiple seasons and teams that lack the ability to generate high quality chances have lower shooting percentages. But that’s not the case:

http://canucksarmy.com/2011/11/9/can-te ... lity-shots

To really see if shot quality matters offensively, we’d want to look at the entire league, over a period of years. Thanks to Behind the Net, we can do that – we have four years of 5-on-5 shooting data, from 2007-08 to 2010-11. We’ll run mathematical correlations, to see the relationship from one year to the next – a score of 1 represents a perfect correlation, a score of zero shows no correlation whatsoever.

2007-08 to 2008-09 correlation: 0.179
2008-09 to 2009-10 correlation: -0.067
2009-10 to 2010-11 correlation: -0.121
Average year-to-year correlation: -0.003

The average correlation is actually slightly negative over these years, but it’s very, very close to exactly zero. In other words, there seems to be no connection between how good a team’s shooting percentage is from one year to the next. This is a significant argument that there is no major difference between individual NHL teams in their ability to score on any given shot – over the big picture, shot quality in 5-on-5 situations evens out.


But you know what does have some correlation year over year: shot generation.

While a team’s shot quality seems to bounce around erratically from year to year, the same is not true of the number of shots that they take. Here are the same correlations, but this time instead of looking at team shooting percentage, we will look at team shooting rates (shots/60) in 5-on-5 situations:
2007-08 to 2008-09 correlation: 0.578
2008-09 to 2009-10 correlation: 0.453
2009-10 to 2010-11 correlation: 0.462
Average year-to-year correlation: 0.498

That’s not a perfect correlation by any means, but there’s clearly a relationship between how teams perform from one year to the next – something we didn’t find when we looked at shot quality.


Why? If a team is capable of generating higher shot quality chances, why is there no connection between a team’s shooting percentage one year to the next?


Because the real driver is the ability to maintain puck possession and generate shots in general. More shots leads to more quality chances leads to more goals:

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Travis-Y ... ZBjHLUp-So

“The overarching point: a game can be stolen by a goaltender, and a game can be stolen by forwards shooting at a ridiculous percentage clip. But, over time, luck will wash it all out. And, shot quality -- one of the last bastions of old-time hockey -- simply doesn't play the role many wrongfully assumed, self-included, in producing consistent, winning hockey. “


mikey287 wrote:We really still think save percentage isn't a team stat at this point with modern defending...? Yeesh...

Brodeur sucks, Rask is the greatest goaltender in history and Ottawa has three of the eight best goalies in hockey...I'm sold.

It's such a beautiful game...


On the flip side, if “team defensive systems” are capable of influencing shot quality to the point that save percentage is irrelevant to the point that you don’t care about it as you told me, we’d expect that when a goalie plays Season 1 with Team X and Season 2 with Team Y, there should some pretty significant swings in save%, right? As you said, save% is a team-specific stat – which, by the way, makes it all the more hilarious that you would reject save% as it relates to Reimer of all people, who is playing behind one of the worst defensive corps in the NHL. You specifically pointed to Bryzgalov here, and the history of Boston goaltenders as supposed evidence that goalies switching teams or arriving on teams with defensive systems that suppress shot quality as “proof” that save% isn’t a very valuable metric for evaluating goalies, so I would assume you’d agree that looking at year-over-year goalie moves from team to team should show significant changes.

Guess what, they don’t at all:

http://vhockey.blogspot.com/2009/07/sho ... ntasy.html

The thinking was that if teams were the ones impacting the save percentage, it would reveal itself when the goalies switched squads. I'm giving the same idea a more rigorous test here.

And the universe [he means random; he built a model based on coin flips and ran it 100 times per goalie who qualified] requires that the EVsave% change as the goalie moves from team to team, if shot quality doesn't exist at all, well it will average .0122. With these 66 goalies it averages .0133. There is nowhere near enough veracity to even declare that a difference in shot quality exists at all, but again the distribution is a smidge wider with the real than it is with the random, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say that, on average, the difference in shot quality from any two teams selected at random ... the expected difference will be 2 goals on the season.



If shot quality exists such that it influences save%, why doesn’t this show up in the 66 goalies who qualified [min. 300 EV shots against per season]? The difference between a completely random expected change in save% from year to year and what actually happened is nearly identical. Please explain how that can be if save% is a “team-based” statistic? Citing a single instance – Bryzgalov – is meaningless (and I haven’t looked at how PHX v. PHI plays in terms of S/A, times shorthanded, etc., plus soft factors, like Bryz is a headcase who thrived in a low-pressure hockey environment but broke down in a place that eats goalies alive like PHI).

More specifically as it relates to save%:

The average change in a goalie's save percentage from year to year when he stays with the same team is just 0.0005 larger than simple random chance would predict, and when a goalie changes teams the sv% difference is just 0.0011 larger than random chance. The best shot-quality-influencing system of this era (Jacques Lemaire's) reduced Fenwick shooting percentages by about 0.0015. The result is that any team effect on a goalie's save percentage doesn't add up to more than a goal or two per season.

The point is not: "All teams face the same shots, so ignore shot quality completely."
The point is: "Differences in shot locations are small and require a very large data set to overcome noise, so you won't be wrong by much if you ignore them."


http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/7/3/shot-qua ... t-how-much

So yes, you very much should start paying attention to a goalie's save% in evaluating them. Good team defensive system's reduce shots against as a whole; limit special teams opportunities; and drive possession themselves by possessing the puck and taking more shots than the other team (and having a good goalie who bails them because he's talented and makes a lot of saves -- and as a result, horror of horrors, posts a high save%).

The sum total is that shot quality exists on a shot to shot basis, and certain players generate higher quality chances because they are talented enough to generate shots in the first instance. Individual players can drive shooting percentages, but its not big enough that its driving team outcomes and/or save%. Most peg shot quality as maybe 5-10 percent of outcomes in the long term.

You’ll no doubt dismiss this as “garbage in, garbage out” or some other such nonsense because it challenges your pre-conceived notions about the game. If you’d pay attention, you’d notice just how rigorous and valuable this information is.

mikey287 wrote:Stat community: "We don't want human subjectivity to get in the way of player evaluation...so, we'll use these statistics based on human subjectivity from humans that may or may not know even less about the game than we do to eliminate this subjectivity..."

I mean, how does shot quality not exist? Because it can't be quantified, therefore it's attacked? That seems too convenient.


Image

The real issue here is that quote above. You seem to think that people who “like” statistical analysis somehow believe that the “traditional” means of player evaluation are useless and should be discarded. You completely invented that part of your post; I never said that. Its a complete and utter strawman and you shouldn't have written it.

Shot quality can be quantified -- imperfectly sure, but we're at a point that we have enough data and enough independant charting of scoring chances and shot charts that this isn't the "crap" you're disingenuously making it out to be.

The people building these fantastically complex models and thinking creatively about how to utilize the data generated by a hockey game don’t think that human analysis should be removed either. I can look at a player’s Corsi or QualComp or Usage Chart as a way to tell me about that player and his value; it doesn’t tell me WHY he is good/bad according to analytics. Maybe it’s his skating ability; maybe it’s positioning and hockey sense; maybe its passing. I can look at player X and have a decent idea of his value, but I can't provide the same expertise about the nuts and bolts of why like you can. But to pretend that “stats” are this boogeyman; man, you are being left behind. It happened in baseball in the 2000’s and its happening in hockey now. Its the exact same thing I was reading on FJM then; pre-conceived notions challenged ---> traditional thinkers get very nervous, say things like DERP DO YOU EVEN WATCH THE GAMES YOU LIVE IN YOUR MOTHERS BASEMENT YOU WANT THEM PLAYED BY ROBOTS YOU DONT WANT THE HUMAN ELEMENT -----> eventually everyone comes to their sense and realizes that like every other highly competitive industry, information -- and the ability to process it effectively -- is power. John Davidson(!) hired a GM who said this:

'Stats are facts...In the long run they hardly ever lie. Thorough analytical work, like that done by Hockey Prospectus, is needed to make a proper evaluation of them."
- Jarmo Kekalainen


There's no "magic stat" that I can give you to tell you who is the "best" goalie or center or coach. What I can give you is a bunch of data generated by the actual players playing the actual games that reflects their performance, and that is processed to take into account many, many variables like competition, context, special teams, linemates, score effects, home arena bias, etc. Combined with experience and knowledge, that's a pretty good picture of a player's ability.

There’s a lot more to address your posts (Reimer in particular) and I will eventually, but this is a good starting point. If you disagree, try to do better than "because I say so." I am genuinely interested.
slappybrown
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,859
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 am
Location: Noted Board Henchman

Re: Other NHL games

Postby bhaw on Mon May 13, 2013 12:47 am

life!
bhaw
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 27,002
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: From Hockey Siberia to Hockey Hell

Re: Other NHL games

Postby DudeMan2766 on Mon May 13, 2013 12:47 am

Image
DudeMan2766
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 10,631
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:33 pm
Location: Squares don't fit in my circle.

Re: Other NHL games

Postby Pens2595 on Mon May 13, 2013 12:47 am

Delay of game penalty strikes again. 3-2 Detroit.
Pens2595
Junior 'A'
Junior 'A'
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 3:18 pm

Re: Other NHL games

Postby FreeCandy44 on Mon May 13, 2013 12:47 am

Ducks make it interesting...
FreeCandy44
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 20,822
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:55 pm
Location: The biggest Pearl Jam fan in Pittsburgh.

Re: Other NHL games

Postby FreeCandy44 on Mon May 13, 2013 12:48 am

DudeMan2766 wrote:Image

I don't remember posting that pic. ;)
FreeCandy44
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 20,822
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:55 pm
Location: The biggest Pearl Jam fan in Pittsburgh.

Re: Other NHL games

Postby DudeMan2766 on Mon May 13, 2013 12:50 am

FreeCandy44 wrote:
DudeMan2766 wrote:Image

I don't remember posting that pic. ;)


Mind our own business!
DudeMan2766
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 10,631
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:33 pm
Location: Squares don't fit in my circle.

Re: Other NHL games

Postby Pens2595 on Mon May 13, 2013 12:57 am

Wings win 3-2.
Pens2595
Junior 'A'
Junior 'A'
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 3:18 pm

Re: Other NHL games

Postby FreeCandy44 on Mon May 13, 2013 12:57 am

I love me some me.
FreeCandy44
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 20,822
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:55 pm
Location: The biggest Pearl Jam fan in Pittsburgh.

Re: Other NHL games

Postby columbia on Mon May 13, 2013 7:32 am

re: the stats argument above

A good analogy is the construction of bridges.
Sure, you can hire a someone with an intuitive understanding of mechanical engineering (and the history of construction techniques) to build your bridge and there's a reasonable chance that it won't fall down.
However, there's a reason that engineers take into account stress analysis, wind shear, the fluid dynamics of the underlying soil, etc. It's because they want/need to build it to be as strong and resilient as possible. And you won't get hired to build a bridge, if you're not using those techniques.

Now does that mean that advanced stats are the be all and end of talent analysis? Of course not. However, if those approaches can be used for a competitive advantage by scouting departments (and it appears that they can be), they certainly will be.
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 46,481
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am

Re: Other NHL games

Postby DontToewsMeBro on Mon May 13, 2013 7:49 am

That was one of the best posts I've seen on LGP. Great job!

A lot of people think branches of applied mathematics (economics and statistics especially) are hocus pocus because they have absolutely no idea of the amount of rigor and complexity that goes into building good models. The Big Data era is coming (if it isnt here already) and it will impact your life far, far beyond hockey.
DontToewsMeBro
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,256
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:31 pm

Re: Other NHL games

Postby penny lane on Mon May 13, 2013 8:13 am

crackers, I thought Draftnik returned.

Get your game 7 's here! Both should be fun... for me ! :) 8pm start ; long day caps/rangers.
penny lane
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 28,519
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:29 pm
Location: Ready

Re: Other NHL games

Postby llipgh2 on Mon May 13, 2013 9:21 am

Bruins plane just left Toronto @ 9am this morning.
llipgh2
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 10,579
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Gasp! The Clamboni!

Re: Other NHL games

Postby pfim on Mon May 13, 2013 10:03 am

meow wrote:
JeffDFD wrote:
Shakes wrote:C'mon CBC, I expect a Cuthbert shot if Phaneuf scores.

I wonder if CJ will move Jagr up to Seguin's spot to try to get something (anything) from that line.


I have not been following this whole thread...but Jagr has 2 points this postseason? Is he just playing bad or has no help or what? I saw he was robbed a couple times in the series, but 2 points is all? Old age or bad linemates or what? Is he seeing much PP time?

He and his linemates have zero chemistry. It's pretty painful to watch.


Andy Brickley made a good point that he's not using his linemates at all and is being double and triple teamed. It was a good point until I realized his linemates are Chris Kelly and Rich Peverley. If you were Jagr, would you be giving those guys the puck?

I think Julien is making a mistake when his first two lines aren't generating much offense. Need to sub in Jagr in one of those spots at times.
pfim
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 16,789
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:35 am
Location: Sitting in front of my computer

Re: Other NHL games

Postby Idoit40fans on Mon May 13, 2013 10:09 am

Why the hell is Jagr on a line with Kelly and Peverley? They really did just trade for him for the sake of making a trade.
Idoit40fans
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 52,376
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: No Reading, No Research, Just Strong Opinions

Re: Other NHL games

Postby meow on Mon May 13, 2013 10:13 am

Idoit40fans wrote:Why the hell is Jagr on a line with Kelly and Peverley? They really did just trade for him for the sake of making a trade.

I think so. Where was he going to fit in the top-6? Lucic-Krecji-Horton and Marchand-Bergeron-Seguin are pretty much cemented in.
meow
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 7,235
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Other NHL games

Postby pfim on Mon May 13, 2013 10:18 am

Idoit40fans wrote:Why the hell is Jagr on a line with Kelly and Peverley? They really did just trade for him for the sake of making a trade.


Pretty much. Probably panicked a bit when the lost out on Iginla, though I still think Julien could make better use of him.
pfim
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 16,789
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:35 am
Location: Sitting in front of my computer

Re: Other NHL games

Postby Dickie Dunn on Mon May 13, 2013 10:42 am

It was really weird to come in here and see the LGP Math thread interrupt playoff games.
Dickie Dunn
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,835
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:05 am

Re: Other NHL games

Postby mikey287 on Mon May 13, 2013 12:28 pm

slappybrown wrote:To continue the discussion from the other night:

So if shot quality exists in the long term, team-wide sense, we’d expect to see certain teams shoot at a relatively higher rate over the long term and multiple seasons and teams that lack the ability to generate high quality chances have lower shooting percentages. But that’s not the case:

http://canucksarmy.com/2011/11/9/can-te ... lity-shots

To really see if shot quality matters offensively, we’d want to look at the entire league, over a period of years. Thanks to Behind the Net, we can do that – we have four years of 5-on-5 shooting data, from 2007-08 to 2010-11. We’ll run mathematical correlations, to see the relationship from one year to the next – a score of 1 represents a perfect correlation, a score of zero shows no correlation whatsoever.

2007-08 to 2008-09 correlation: 0.179
2008-09 to 2009-10 correlation: -0.067
2009-10 to 2010-11 correlation: -0.121
Average year-to-year correlation: -0.003

The average correlation is actually slightly negative over these years, but it’s very, very close to exactly zero. In other words, there seems to be no connection between how good a team’s shooting percentage is from one year to the next. This is a significant argument that there is no major difference between individual NHL teams in their ability to score on any given shot – over the big picture, shot quality in 5-on-5 situations evens out.


But you know what does have some correlation year over year: shot generation.

While a team’s shot quality seems to bounce around erratically from year to year, the same is not true of the number of shots that they take. Here are the same correlations, but this time instead of looking at team shooting percentage, we will look at team shooting rates (shots/60) in 5-on-5 situations:
2007-08 to 2008-09 correlation: 0.578
2008-09 to 2009-10 correlation: 0.453
2009-10 to 2010-11 correlation: 0.462
Average year-to-year correlation: 0.498

That’s not a perfect correlation by any means, but there’s clearly a relationship between how teams perform from one year to the next – something we didn’t find when we looked at shot quality.


Why? If a team is capable of generating higher shot quality chances, why is there no connection between a team’s shooting percentage one year to the next?


Because the real driver is the ability to maintain puck possession and generate shots in general. More shots leads to more quality chances leads to more goals:

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Travis-Y ... ZBjHLUp-So

“The overarching point: a game can be stolen by a goaltender, and a game can be stolen by forwards shooting at a ridiculous percentage clip. But, over time, luck will wash it all out. And, shot quality -- one of the last bastions of old-time hockey -- simply doesn't play the role many wrongfully assumed, self-included, in producing consistent, winning hockey. “


mikey287 wrote:We really still think save percentage isn't a team stat at this point with modern defending...? Yeesh...

Brodeur sucks, Rask is the greatest goaltender in history and Ottawa has three of the eight best goalies in hockey...I'm sold.

It's such a beautiful game...


On the flip side, if “team defensive systems” are capable of influencing shot quality to the point that save percentage is irrelevant to the point that you don’t care about it as you told me, we’d expect that when a goalie plays Season 1 with Team X and Season 2 with Team Y, there should some pretty significant swings in save%, right? As you said, save% is a team-specific stat – which, by the way, makes it all the more hilarious that you would reject save% as it relates to Reimer of all people, who is playing behind one of the worst defensive corps in the NHL. You specifically pointed to Bryzgalov here, and the history of Boston goaltenders as supposed evidence that goalies switching teams or arriving on teams with defensive systems that suppress shot quality as “proof” that save% isn’t a very valuable metric for evaluating goalies, so I would assume you’d agree that looking at year-over-year goalie moves from team to team should show significant changes.

Guess what, they don’t at all:

http://vhockey.blogspot.com/2009/07/sho ... ntasy.html

The thinking was that if teams were the ones impacting the save percentage, it would reveal itself when the goalies switched squads. I'm giving the same idea a more rigorous test here.

And the universe [he means random; he built a model based on coin flips and ran it 100 times per goalie who qualified] requires that the EVsave% change as the goalie moves from team to team, if shot quality doesn't exist at all, well it will average .0122. With these 66 goalies it averages .0133. There is nowhere near enough veracity to even declare that a difference in shot quality exists at all, but again the distribution is a smidge wider with the real than it is with the random, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say that, on average, the difference in shot quality from any two teams selected at random ... the expected difference will be 2 goals on the season.



If shot quality exists such that it influences save%, why doesn’t this show up in the 66 goalies who qualified [min. 300 EV shots against per season]? The difference between a completely random expected change in save% from year to year and what actually happened is nearly identical. Please explain how that can be if save% is a “team-based” statistic? Citing a single instance – Bryzgalov – is meaningless (and I haven’t looked at how PHX v. PHI plays in terms of S/A, times shorthanded, etc., plus soft factors, like Bryz is a headcase who thrived in a low-pressure hockey environment but broke down in a place that eats goalies alive like PHI).

More specifically as it relates to save%:

The average change in a goalie's save percentage from year to year when he stays with the same team is just 0.0005 larger than simple random chance would predict, and when a goalie changes teams the sv% difference is just 0.0011 larger than random chance. The best shot-quality-influencing system of this era (Jacques Lemaire's) reduced Fenwick shooting percentages by about 0.0015. The result is that any team effect on a goalie's save percentage doesn't add up to more than a goal or two per season.

The point is not: "All teams face the same shots, so ignore shot quality completely."
The point is: "Differences in shot locations are small and require a very large data set to overcome noise, so you won't be wrong by much if you ignore them."


http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/7/3/shot-qua ... t-how-much

So yes, you very much should start paying attention to a goalie's save% in evaluating them. Good team defensive system's reduce shots against as a whole; limit special teams opportunities; and drive possession themselves by possessing the puck and taking more shots than the other team (and having a good goalie who bails them because he's talented and makes a lot of saves -- and as a result, horror of horrors, posts a high save%).

The sum total is that shot quality exists on a shot to shot basis, and certain players generate higher quality chances because they are talented enough to generate shots in the first instance. Individual players can drive shooting percentages, but its not big enough that its driving team outcomes and/or save%. Most peg shot quality as maybe 5-10 percent of outcomes in the long term.

You’ll no doubt dismiss this as “garbage in, garbage out” or some other such nonsense because it challenges your pre-conceived notions about the game. If you’d pay attention, you’d notice just how rigorous and valuable this information is.

mikey287 wrote:Stat community: "We don't want human subjectivity to get in the way of player evaluation...so, we'll use these statistics based on human subjectivity from humans that may or may not know even less about the game than we do to eliminate this subjectivity..."

I mean, how does shot quality not exist? Because it can't be quantified, therefore it's attacked? That seems too convenient.


Image

The real issue here is that quote above. You seem to think that people who “like” statistical analysis somehow believe that the “traditional” means of player evaluation are useless and should be discarded. You completely invented that part of your post; I never said that. Its a complete and utter strawman and you shouldn't have written it.

Shot quality can be quantified -- imperfectly sure, but we're at a point that we have enough data and enough independant charting of scoring chances and shot charts that this isn't the "crap" you're disingenuously making it out to be.

The people building these fantastically complex models and thinking creatively about how to utilize the data generated by a hockey game don’t think that human analysis should be removed either. I can look at a player’s Corsi or QualComp or Usage Chart as a way to tell me about that player and his value; it doesn’t tell me WHY he is good/bad according to analytics. Maybe it’s his skating ability; maybe it’s positioning and hockey sense; maybe its passing. I can look at player X and have a decent idea of his value, but I can't provide the same expertise about the nuts and bolts of why like you can. But to pretend that “stats” are this boogeyman; man, you are being left behind. It happened in baseball in the 2000’s and its happening in hockey now. Its the exact same thing I was reading on FJM then; pre-conceived notions challenged ---> traditional thinkers get very nervous, say things like DERP DO YOU EVEN WATCH THE GAMES YOU LIVE IN YOUR MOTHERS BASEMENT YOU WANT THEM PLAYED BY ROBOTS YOU DONT WANT THE HUMAN ELEMENT -----> eventually everyone comes to their sense and realizes that like every other highly competitive industry, information -- and the ability to process it effectively -- is power. John Davidson(!) hired a GM who said this:

'Stats are facts...In the long run they hardly ever lie. Thorough analytical work, like that done by Hockey Prospectus, is needed to make a proper evaluation of them."
- Jarmo Kekalainen


There's no "magic stat" that I can give you to tell you who is the "best" goalie or center or coach. What I can give you is a bunch of data generated by the actual players playing the actual games that reflects their performance, and that is processed to take into account many, many variables like competition, context, special teams, linemates, score effects, home arena bias, etc. Combined with experience and knowledge, that's a pretty good picture of a player's ability.

There’s a lot more to address your posts (Reimer in particular) and I will eventually, but this is a good starting point. If you disagree, try to do better than "because I say so." I am genuinely interested.


First link:

That's a rather rangy conclusion to jump to. It's not really agreeable given the high level of roster turnover, coaching adjustments (both for and against), unreliable shooting figures, etc.

The link itself says:
The question, then, isn’t whether shot quality exists – we know it does


Just because shooting percentage varies year to year doesn't mean that shot quality doesn't exist...at least I see no satisfactory reason why that would be the case at all. It would make sense if the same exact game was played except the goalies were different. But since different games are played the next year, I fail to see how it's really relevant. Seems like quite a reach at this point...

Shots taken in general aren't a terribly dynamic stat. Of course there will be a mid-level correlation in a parity-laden era. Why wouldn't there be? The vast majority of teams will probably be within 3 or 4 shots per game of each other over the course of a season. Since shots aren't created equally, some teams fail and some succeed despite relatively static numbers. This strikes me as more of a point for my side than anything...but I guess I'm misinterpreting it...?

Second link (hockeybuzz): Right, puck possession is important to scoring. You mention that leading to more "quality chances" ...so, shot quality does exist then...? I'm clearly confused...

Third link: So, if I'm reading that right. When a goalie switches teams, his save pct. could go from .920 to .933 and it would be chalked up to random chance? It wouldn't have anything to do with the game, that would be just random chance? Jumping from 18th in the NHL to 2nd in save pct. can be chalked up to random chance? That can't be what the article is saying (I pray) so please help me put it terms that this "old-time hockey" person could understand...

Good team defensive system's reduce shots against


That's the old school way of coaching. And while it's not extinct. This does not represent modern defense accurately.

I don't discard stats fully. There are valuable things that can be found and I have looked at these advanced stats sites with an open mind. Some things though just can't be accounted for. Coach's decision things (usage charts and the like) are probably a good measure of things. They jive pretty well with the eye test. But dynamic happenings in the game, like shot quality not existing or not existing enough to be relevant, is just not accurate no matter how many years of data you have. It's the quantity of the data that would make it reliable in this case, it's the quality. Just because you have more shots logged and more game logs and all that doesn't mean a thing. Because the game is too fluid. It's not foosball. It's not static like that.

A 20 foot wrist shot on a 1-on-2 is not the same as a 20 foot wrist shot on a 2-on-1. You've seen more than a few Penguins games I don't doubt, I'm not sure if you watch other teams, but if you've ever seen a team like the Rangers play or Boston or Phoenix, do you really believe that Marc-Andre Fleury has faced the same or very similar quality chances as Henrik Lundqvist and them...?

It's tough to even know where to begin with refuting most of this because most of it seems so, I don't know, "tidy" and just kind of swept away like it proved something...

"Well, shots don't change but shooting percentage does...so this doesn't exist...next point..." - it just doesn't seem to broach any meaningful discussion. It goes in thinking everything is equal and that's why it comes away with "see, it's equal...it doesn't matter..."

I read those links, and I just...I guess I don't understand, it has to be that...it has to be my inability to understand what they mean otherwise those conclusions are just...strange...it's not even a "because I said so" mindset, it's more of a "why would you believe that that proves that" mindset...

So let me try some simple pitch and catch so I'm sure that I'm grasping the situation...

- Shot quality doesn't really exist basically, right? It kinda does but not enough to matter, right?
- Thus, team defense has a minimal effect on goaltending stats...?
- Correlation numbers are ran from year to year to make points that disprove shot quality really exists, but Reimer's . 924 save pct. in 33 games this year under Randy Carlyle not only wipes out his .900 save pct. in 34 games last year under Ron Wilson but no one at all finds it strange...? Or...is it random chance? Or...see I just don't know...so you're right, let me be more receptive to this...what are you trying to say exactly?
- Goalies are as good as their save percentage represents?

Feel free to create a new thread and start fresh...reboot the conversation and maybe it get it out of everyone else's hair who wants to talk about the playoffs and not get these huge, quote-filled posts...
mikey287
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,325
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA - @MichaelFarkasHF

Re: Other NHL games

Postby Sam's Drunk Dog on Mon May 13, 2013 12:38 pm

Mikey and slappy - get a room or at least a new thread. :slug:
Sam's Drunk Dog
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 19,124
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Other NHL games

Postby SolidSnake on Mon May 13, 2013 12:45 pm

Krejci the best player in the world?

http://www.thebruinsblog.net/2013/05/09 ... the-world/
SolidSnake
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 19,127
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:41 pm
Location: Winners don't use drugs.- William S. Sessions.

Re: Other NHL games

Postby slappybrown on Mon May 13, 2013 12:46 pm

Shot quality exists. No one denies that. Those links all say so. Its just as big of an influence as you believe it is. Over the long term, and over an entire season, and over an entire roster it largely evens out.

I knew you were going to cite roster turnover, but with 4 years worth of data and 30 teams, that argument is simply not plausible. You yourself cited to Boston or Phoenix as examplars of stability in terms of how they operate and what they do in the game; we could probably come up with a bunch of teams that played relatively the same way year to year in that time period (eg, the Pens). So to say, well, data points over 120 distinct 82 games seasons show no correlation, but I am going to discard them because a team changed 3 or 4 players per year (and often those with lesser ice time) or changed coaches in one of those years -- it just doesn't stand up. Either there is some carryover on a large scale basis from year to year, or there isn't -- you can't be logically inconsistent and pick and choose when it suits you. Moreover, the fact that the correlations are practically zero -- man. There's just nothing there. Trying to explain it away with a bunch of generalities isn't persuasive IMO.

The very first thing I said to you re: Reimer is this:

Perhaps your view is that this season is too small a sample size? But that's unlikely because you then write...


I said that because I'd have no issues with that. I personally like the guy from what I have seen, and believe that this season and his rookie season (which you keep ignoring for some odd reason in terms of information -- maybe because it doesn't help your conclusion that he "blows") and this year are more reflective of his abilities than his second year, when he got concussed early in the year, was out for a couple months, and came back to play below average. There's nothing at all wrong with you concluding that based on your own scouting report plus the small sample size, that you believe he'll revert to "normally blowing" or whatever it is exactly that you view his natural state. But, your initial position was SAVE% is useless.

A 20 foot wrist shot on a 1-on-2 is not the same as a 20 foot wrist shot on a 2-on-1.


This is the problem. Of course shot quality exists on an individual level of shot x versus shot y taken in the same game. Again, the difference is that over the long term, the "quality" equalizes. That's why data from multiple seasons doesn't show any meaningful change in shooting percentage or in save% when goalies move from Team X to Team Y. You're focusing on small events to make larger points, when the mountain of data that exists shows the opposite.

I don't think there is much productive conversation to be had here frankly, and like you said, we don't need to jam this thread up any more with this stuff.
slappybrown
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,859
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 am
Location: Noted Board Henchman

Re: Other NHL games

Postby Pens Fan Since 1970 on Mon May 13, 2013 12:55 pm

Something I hardly ever say, but go Rangers and Maple Leafs.
Pens Fan Since 1970
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:00 am

Re: Other NHL games

Postby pfim on Mon May 13, 2013 1:07 pm

SolidSnake wrote:Krejci the best player in the world?

http://www.thebruinsblog.net/2013/05/09 ... the-world/


If that was meant as satire, it's not even funny.
pfim
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 16,789
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:35 am
Location: Sitting in front of my computer

Re: Other NHL games

Postby mikey287 on Mon May 13, 2013 1:10 pm

Slappy (and others), we'll continue this here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=61839

Let this thread resume what it's about...games.
mikey287
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,325
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA - @MichaelFarkasHF

PreviousNext

Return to NPR

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mr. Colby and 2 guests

e-mail