2017-18 stats and underlying metrics thread [Mod: updated season]

[Whileee]

I'm just about to head out, but my issue with intangibles in hockey is that hockey people do a bad job with dealing with them, when they don't need to be. Teams could do much better here but are highly resistant, more so than even to regular analytics.

Stefan Wolejszo at his blog "Stories Numbers Tell" does a great job in breaking down stuff like this. I had him speak at VanHAC.

Here is my own account of Stefan at VanHAC:

After a short break, watching the Canuck's pre-game skate, came Stefan Wolejszo and his talk on rank ordering some intangibles. Wolejszo is a social scientist working with the Government of Canada. Over the past few years he has spent a lot of his free time writing about intangibles in hockey, specifically how they work and how they can be measured. In his talk, Wolejszo dove into specific intangibles and ranked them based on five factors; these were conceptual clarity (whether the intangible was clearly defined), empirical research (whether there is evidence of the intangibles value outside of hockey), elite occupation study (whether or not there is research on elite populations, since NHL hockey is one), practicality (whether teams could in some manner collect meaningful data), and applicability (whether teams could use this data to improve their team). (Slides)​

Link to my breakdown of VanHAC <- this has a link to his slides too

Really like this stuff. Thanks for sharing.

There is science beyond the numbers, but it's not just guys with their impressions about what they see.

 

[garret9]

Really like this stuff. Thanks for sharing.

There is science beyond the numbers, but it's not just guys with their impressions about what they see.

Aye.

I'm not atheistic of intangibles.

I'm agnostic of their impact when evaluating due to my own inability to scale them and I'm highly, highly skeptical of those running teams ability to do so as well.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

Obviously you didn't say measurable, because my whole point. If it were measurable, you wouldn't be wildly guessing the impacts significance. Because you cannot measure it, you do not know the extent of impact. I can estimate the win value and the $ value and the win per $ value of Corsi, shooting pucks at the net, points production, drawing penalties, winning face offs, etc, etc.

That is powerful for decision making. It allows me to make informed decisions on how much a Player A is worth more than Player B specific to those points. Not just that Player A is better than Player B, but by how much and how much that is worth. You may know Cormier is better at certain off-ice intangibles, but you do not know by how much and how much it is worth.



I went back and my first mentioning of skill was my correcting your conflation of results in my argument for skill. Skill and intangibles are all inputs, yes. Results, though, are the output of those things interacting with the environment. This is an important semantic given your false assumption that I'm suggesting the human factor or intangibles do not exist.

I'm pointing out that some intangibles (grit, perseverance, tenacity, physicality, etc) are inherently accounted for in the results for a player. Not all are obviously, like the ones we are discussing with Cormier (good in the room, leadership, pushing the pace at practice), but some are. If intangibles had no impact, then skill would = results and I would have no problem with you conflating my earlier mentioning of results as player skill.



I'm sure it was for his leadership and other qualities. Those qualities have value and they are real. The issue I have is that how much value they have is complete and utter guess work.

As I mentioned earlier, we can make some solid estimates of the win and $ value of Player A's on-ice results vs Player B's on-ice results. But, if Player B is better in some intangibles, we have no idea how much better those intangibles would need to be to tip the scale in Player B's favour.

Note: Some intangibles are confounding variables to the results, so those intangibles (grit, perseverance, tenacity, physicality, etc) would be accounted for in part by the on-ice results of Player A being better than Player B.



Obviously they see value in it. The issue is they do not see how much value is in it. How many dollars it is worth.

On Twitter a few weeks back I once said:

Being agnostic on intangibles or simply recognizing the unknown is the unknown is not being atheistic on such potential variables.
There are many variables to the human factor. Many will counter act; some may be significant and some may be insignificant.
The best practice is
1) understand that guessing on how the many unknowns combine is a wild and speculative guess so take with lbs of salt
2) reduce the amount of unknown with empirical practices, see @StefanWolejszo's work for examples​

And once again, I never said that because something not measured means it does not exist. I have never once made that argument. If I did, there would be no reason for me to correct your conflation of my argument for results as skill.

My argument is and always will be that because you don't know how much it impacts results you do not know how much it is worth. That is merely a fact.

And i never disputed your argument, actually agreed with it throughout our interaction here. You cannot measure therefore you cannot give it an accurate value, but there is value.

I also never wildly estimated its value on the over all team, no more than you wildly underestimated its value.

But the value whether you agree with its amount, is a pro contract for a player most likely not a pro player. The organization felt his leadership offset his inability to influence hockey on the ice, and gave a pro job to him, albeit on the lowest end of the spectrum.

Players like Stuart and Thorbs, there last contracts surely had some value increases for what they bring away from the rink.

And while you think we blindly over assess the human elements like leadership, I have personal experiences of seeing teams change for the worst, with the omission of a player that brought leadership to the room. There are players that hold rooms together, and when they leave, segregation sets in, then disfunction. Many times they are not the best or even average player on the team, yet they have an impact that effects several other players positively. Better teams yet worst results.

[The] human element will always have a level of unpredictability towards traits that have influencing factors on the end result, and that is why we play the games.

 

[StefanW]

Aye.

I'm not atheistic of intangibles.

I'm agnostic of their impact when evaluating due to my own inability to scale them and I'm highly, highly skeptical of those running teams ability to do so as well.

I agree with this. There is probably a lot of potential value left on the table as those running teams apply what amounts to an intangibles eye test. Teams typical use experience and "I know it when I see it", which leads to things like Mtl bringing in Ott at the deadline because Kirk Muller thought he had great character and leadership.

Two very specific things are left on the table when team management opts to use experience, personal judgment, and word of mouth to evaluate intangibles. The first is this experience normally does not account for a lot of factors that we've learned through empirical research. For example, a player may be viewed as a good leader. Fine, but there are many different types of leadership and not all fit with every situation so the team may bring someone into the room that does not provide what they need. Ditto for resilience, where a GM may like a player who appears resilient. However, resilience is highly situational and players who are resilient in one set of circumstances may not be so in another. The list of similar potential errors goes on and on through all of the intangibles.

The second thing that is left on the table is teams using an intangibles eye test will never know exactly how much a given intangible is worth without measuring it. For example, say a player is really gritty but below average in skill. Is the trade-off worthwhile? How do we know? If we guess how sure are we that we are right?

Most teams, including the Jets, typically already use analytics in fairly limited ways. The idea of using a number-based approach to try to understand something they think they already know and have a handle on is even further removed. I'm pretty sure the idea that intangibles are important to hockey teams is sound and there is a lot of evidence in other fields that strongly suggest we should not ignore them. The trouble is that if your judgment amounts to "I heard Steve Ott is gritty and we could use some sandpaper in the playoffs" then you may as well be using a Ouija board to construct your lineup. We absolutely can, and should, do better than that by using an evidence-based approach.

 

[Whileee]

I agree with this. There is probably a lot of potential value left on the table as those running teams apply what amounts to an intangibles eye test. Teams typical use experience and "I know it when I see it", which leads to things like Mtl bringing in Ott at the deadline because Kirk Muller thought he had great character and leadership.

Two very specific things are left on the table when team management opts to use experience, personal judgment, and word of mouth to evaluate intangibles. The first is this experience normally does not account for a lot of factors that we've learned through empirical research. For example, a player may be viewed as a good leader. Fine, but there are many different types of leadership and not all fit with every situation so the team may bring someone into the room that does not provide what they need. Ditto for resilience, where a GM may like a player who appears resilient. However, resilience is highly situational and players who are resilient in one set of circumstances may not be so in another. The list of similar potential errors goes on and on through all of the intangibles.

The second thing that is left on the table is teams using an intangibles eye test will never know exactly how much a given intangible is worth without measuring it. For example, say a player is really gritty but below average in skill. Is the trade-off worthwhile? How do we know? If we guess how sure are we that we are right?

Most teams, including the Jets, typically already use analytics in fairly limited ways. The idea of using a number-based approach to try to understand something they think they already know and have a handle on is even further removed. I'm pretty sure the idea that intangibles are important to hockey teams is sound and there is a lot of evidence in other fields that strongly suggest we should not ignore them. The trouble is that if your judgment amounts to "I heard Steve Ott is gritty and we could use some sandpaper in the playoffs" then you may as well be using a Ouija board to construct your lineup. We absolutely can, and should, do better than that by using an evidence-based approach.

Agree.

Another thought... NHL teams are probably right a lot of times when they make decisions based on "intangibles", but in general analytical folks focus on the most egregious "misses", which is an approach that also lacks objectively and evidentiary value.

Statistical analysis still miss a lot of the complexity that relates to the performance of NHL teams. Some of that is due to lack or poor quality of data, some is due to naive or simplistic statistical methods, and some is due to factors that are difficult or impossible to analyze through purely quantitative methods.

 

[WPGChief]

It isn't so much of an underlying metric, but I go into what exactly kind of penalties the Jets are taking that lead them to be shorthanded in my latest piece on JetsNation. It's basically just counting, but with penalties/other info not readily available on other websites (at least of that I can find), which should give an interesting counterpoint to the Jets being physical and that is why they are always on the penalty kill:

https://jetsnation.ca/2017/07/13/undisciplined-what-penalties-are-the-jets-taking/

 

[Board Bard]

Another thought... NHL teams are probably right a lot of times when they make decisions based on "intangibles", but in general analytical folks focus on the most egregious "misses", which is an approach that also lacks objectively and evidentiary value.

Didn't Garret make a point once (or more than once) that when teams are right about an "intangible" choice, that player often has underlying numbers that also make him a good choice via analytics? IIRC he used Trouba as an example: a guy old-school coaches would like for his grit and all that other crap, but also having really good numbers that would appeal to analytical people. Personally I think he's right, and that if you separated "grit and intangible" players into those with poor anaylytics and those with good analytics, it would be pretty evident who the right choices would be, with the future play of those choices bearing that out.

 

[Whileee]

Didn't Garret make a point once (or more than once) that when teams are right about an "intangible" choice, that player often has underlying numbers that also make him a good choice via analytics? IIRC he used Trouba as an example: a guy old-school coaches would like for his grit and all that other crap, but also having really good numbers that would appeal to analytical people. Personally I think he's right, and that if you separated "grit and intangible" players into those with poor anaylytics and those with good analytics, it would be pretty evident who the right choices would be, with the future play of those choices bearing that out.

That's a bit of a different point. I think player performance can be assessed pretty well at an individual level. It's more about how to construct a team and put together a roster. A lot of good NHL GMs and coaches obviously look beyond individual player numbers. It's easy to find examples of when they are wrong, because bad players and bad performance sticks out on bad teams. My point is that we ignore cases where a team made a decision unsupported by the stats, but their team was very successful, regardless. Did they know something about aspects of how a team functions that goes beyond statistical analysis? Maybe, but who is analyzing this?

Yzerman acquired Girardi.

Rutherford traded for Reaves.

Are they dumb, or do they understand something that doesn't show up in statistics? Will any statistician systematically analyze outliers to try to understand the success or failure of teams beyond the numbers?

 

[WPGChief]

That's a bit of a different point. I think player performance can be assessed pretty well at an individual level. It's more about how to construct a team and put together a roster. A lot of good NHL GMs and coaches obviously look beyond individual player numbers. It's easy to find examples of when they are wrong, because bad players and bad performance sticks out on bad teams. My point is that we ignore cases where a team made a decision unsupported by the stats, but their team was very successful, regardless. Did they know something about aspects of how a team functions that goes beyond statistical analysis? Maybe, but who is analyzing this?

Yzerman acquired Girardi.

Rutherford traded for Reaves.

Are they dumb, or do they understand something that doesn't show up in statistics? Will any statistician systematically analyze outliers to try to understand the success or failure of teams beyond the numbers?

Answer to your underline: it's their "internal analytics"

Answer to your bold: might be my next article on JetsNation - looking how to build the Jets roster using Ryan Stimson's giant document he released last month.



The first couple of pages is nice as an "intro to analytics and why they're important" - then he delves into actually developing rosters and on-ice systems. I still haven't read all of it yet, but it is super intriguing.

 

[Puckatron 3000]

Wouldn't the Scheifele pick fall into the category of factoring in intangibles over going by pure analytics? As by the numbers, there were better players available. And if so, wouldn't that be a case where the intangibles choice worked out? Maybe that's just luck, or maybe they saw "intangible characteristics" in him that actually paid off.

 

[ps241]

Wouldn't the Scheifele pick fall into the category of factoring in intangibles over going by pure analytics? As by the numbers, there were better players available. And if so, wouldn't that be a case where the intangibles choice worked out? Maybe that's just luck, or maybe they saw "intangible characteristics" in him that actually paid off.

I think that might be a bit different though or at least its layered. At the end of the day at its foundation drafting is about projecting where 18 year old's tangibles (Analytics) will end up. They are not finished products. The interview process is learning about the intangibles which could either enhance or detract from the prospects tangibles to develop and arrive at the projected destination.

 

[Puckatron 3000]

I think that might be a bit different though or at least its layered. At the end of the day at its foundation drafting is about projecting where 18 year old's tangibles (Analytics) will end up. They are not finished products. The interview process is learning about the intangibles which could either enhance or detract from the prospects tangibles to develop and arrive at the projected destination.

For sure, scouting is a bit apples and oranges, since you're trying to project forward.

Still though, let's take what you're saying as true. That scouts should consider intangibles to some degree when evaluating young players. Because those intangibles have some difficult-to-measure, but important effect on that player's tangible performance in the future.

If so, I would think that the intangibles of teammates would also influence a young player's development and eventual performance, as he begins his NHL career. We learn habits from those around us. Being surrounded by teammates with strong leadership, work ethic, and positive attitudes would impact a player's own development in a positive manner, which would eventually yield tangible results.

I've heard some folks around here praise the Jets' drafting, but question their development strategy. Maybe this is what they mean by development. A lot of our prospects seem to be turning out pretty damn good, so maybe they're on to something.

 

[Whileee]

Answer to your underline: it's their "internal analytics"

Answer to your bold: might be my next article on JetsNation - looking how to build the Jets roster using Ryan Stimson's giant document he released last month.



The first couple of pages is nice as an "intro to analytics and why they're important" - then he delves into actually developing rosters and on-ice systems. I still haven't read all of it yet, but it is super intriguing.

He must be able to make a fortune in betting on teams...

 

[JetsFan815]

It isn't so much of an underlying metric, but I go into what exactly kind of penalties the Jets are taking that lead them to be shorthanded in my latest piece on JetsNation. It's basically just counting, but with penalties/other info not readily available on other websites (at least of that I can find), which should give an interesting counterpoint to the Jets being physical and that is why they are always on the penalty kill:

https://jetsnation.ca/2017/07/13/undisciplined-what-penalties-are-the-jets-taking/

Great article. Another interesting thing I noticed last season when I was looking into the numbers was that the Jets' 5v5 penalty differential wasn't terrible, they were like somewhere towards the bottom of top 1/3rd in the league or something (this was around winter not at the end of the season), however their penalty differential in non 5v5 situations is what buried them. That seems rather odd...

 

[mcpw]

There's a discussion about "high-event" vs "low-event" defensemen over in the Kulikov thread. I wanted to look at last season's performance w.r.t. quality of forwards on the ice, and I stumbled upon something interesting.

Let's split the 5v5 minutes. Quality minutes are when either Scheifele or Little is out there (good forward line). Non-quality minutes are when neither Scheifele nor Little are out there (bad forward line).

5v5 TOI and goals:

WPG 3878:04 156-164 (2.41-2.54 per 60)
That's the 11th-highest GF60 in the league (good), and the 2nd-highest GA60 in the league (awful).

WPG Quality 1983:36 107-93 (3.24-2.81 per 60)
WPG Non-quality 1894:28 49-71 (1.55-2.25 per 60)

Quality lines get better results, no surprise there. Quality lines see 6.05 goals scored (for plus against) per hour, while non-quality lines see 3.80 goals scored per hour. That's some very high-event vs very low-event hockey...

So, when neither Scheifele nor Little are out there, the team seems to try to be a lot more responsible defensively (with some success, the GA60 is limited; also matches the eye test). The problem is that 1.55 GF60 is hilariously awful. I've found a comparable: the Canucks had 1.48 GF60 and 2.21 GA60 when neither H.Sedin nor Horvat was on the ice. That's not a team we want to see as a comparable... So: When neither Scheifele nor Little are on the ice, the team doesn't score, and that's a big reason why missed the playoffs.

Let's check the effect of quality forwards vs non-quality forwards on defensemen (we're getting to somewhat small sample sizes here, but it's still interesting):

[table="head;]D|GF-GA Quality|GF60-GA60 Quality|GF-GA non-Quality|GF60-GA60 non-Quality
Byfuglien|50-37 (+13)|3.13-2.32|17-31 (-14)|1.52-2.78
Trouba|36-35 (+1)|3.15-3.06|13-17 (-4)|1.67-2.18
Enstrom|26-29 (-3)|3.04-3.38|12-22 (-10)|1.49-2.73
Morrissey|49-43 (+6)|3.56-3.13|13-21 (-8)|1.31-2.12
Chiarot|15-12 (+3)|3.33-2.66|13-20 (-7)|1.58-2.43
Postma|11-13 (-2)|2.92-3.45|16-11 (+5)|2.08-1.43
Stuart|6-6 (0)|2.48-2.48|8-7 (+1)|1.72-1.51
Melchiori|10-5 (+5)|3.10-1.55|1-5 (-4)|0.52-2.59
[/table]

- everybody's goal differential with quality forwards is better, except for two guys with small samples (Postma and Stuart)
- everybody's GA60 is lower playing with the "bottom6" lines, so the defensemen seem to buy into the philosophy... offense first with Little/Scheifele, defense first with the rest. Except for two guys: Small sample Melchiori, and, surprise, Big Bad Buff.
- Byfuglien has the best goal differential with quality forwards by far. When he's allowed to play offense with quality forwards on the ice, he dominates.
- Byfuglien has the worst goal differential with the bad lines. He seems to have some difficulties adjusting to a low-risk low-event game. Eyetest agrees.

Solution? Shouldn't be "play Buff only with Scheifele/Little". Should rather be "get more quality forwards". Maybe we got some, but they're young and inexperienced.

Analysis of previous seasons to check for long-term patterns is left as an exercise to the reader.

 

[surixon]

It isn't so much of an underlying metric, but I go into what exactly kind of penalties the Jets are taking that lead them to be shorthanded in my latest piece on JetsNation. It's basically just counting, but with penalties/other info not readily available on other websites (at least of that I can find), which should give an interesting counterpoint to the Jets being physical and that is why they are always on the penalty kill:

https://jetsnation.ca/2017/07/13/undisciplined-what-penalties-are-the-jets-taking/

Nice post. I'm curious as to which part of the ice the majority of penalties occured. For instance my theory is that Moe's man 2 man system last year caused a lot of chasing and pulling players out of position, especially on switches and as a result our players had to reach in and take stick infractions.

 

[ps241]

There's a discussion about "high-event" vs "low-event" defensemen over in the Kulikov thread. I wanted to look at last season's performance w.r.t. quality of forwards on the ice, and I stumbled upon something interesting.

Let's split the 5v5 minutes. Quality minutes are when either Scheifele or Little is out there (good forward line). Non-quality minutes are when neither Scheifele nor Little are out there (bad forward line).

5v5 TOI and goals:

WPG 3878:04 156-164 (2.41-2.54 per 60)
That's the 11th-highest GF60 in the league (good), and the 2nd-highest GA60 in the league (awful).

WPG Quality 1983:36 107-93 (3.24-2.81 per 60)
WPG Non-quality 1894:28 49-71 (1.55-2.25 per 60)

Quality lines get better results, no surprise there. Quality lines see 6.05 goals scored (for plus against) per hour, while non-quality lines see 3.80 goals scored per hour. That's some very high-event vs very low-event hockey...

So, when neither Scheifele nor Little are out there, the team seems to try to be a lot more responsible defensively (with some success, the GA60 is limited; also matches the eye test). The problem is that 1.55 GF60 is hilariously awful. I've found a comparable: the Canucks had 1.48 GF60 and 2.21 GA60 when neither H.Sedin nor Horvat was on the ice. That's not a team we want to see as a comparable... So: When neither Scheifele nor Little are on the ice, the team doesn't score, and that's a big reason why missed the playoffs.

Let's check the effect of quality forwards vs non-quality forwards on defensemen (we're getting to somewhat small sample sizes here, but it's still interesting):

[table="head;]D|GF-GA Quality|GF60-GA60 Quality|GF-GA non-Quality|GF60-GA60 non-Quality
Byfuglien|50-37 (+13)|3.13-2.32|17-31 (-14)|1.52-2.78
Trouba|36-35 (+1)|3.15-3.06|13-17 (-4)|1.67-2.18
Enstrom|26-29 (-3)|3.04-3.38|12-22 (-10)|1.49-2.73
Morrissey|49-43 (+6)|3.56-3.13|13-21 (-8)|1.31-2.12
Chiarot|15-12 (+3)|3.33-2.66|13-20 (-7)|1.58-2.43
Postma|11-13 (-2)|2.92-3.45|16-11 (+5)|2.08-1.43
Stuart|6-6 (0)|2.48-2.48|8-7 (+1)|1.72-1.51
Melchiori|10-5 (+5)|3.10-1.55|1-5 (-4)|0.52-2.59
[/table]

- everybody's goal differential with quality forwards is better, except for two guys with small samples (Postma and Stuart)
- everybody's GA60 is lower playing with the "bottom6" lines, so the defensemen seem to buy into the philosophy... offense first with Little/Scheifele, defense first with the rest. Except for two guys: Small sample Melchiori, and, surprise, Big Bad Buff.
- Byfuglien has the best goal differential with quality forwards by far. When he's allowed to play offense with quality forwards on the ice, he dominates.
- Byfuglien has the worst goal differential with the bad lines. He seems to have some difficulties adjusting to a low-risk low-event game. Eyetest agrees.

Solution? Shouldn't be "play Buff only with Scheifele/Little". Should rather be "get more quality forwards". Maybe we got some, but they're young and inexperienced.

Analysis of previous seasons to check for long-term patterns is left as an exercise to the reader.

Ok this is kind of important and it matches the eye test. Its not that I don't want Buff to take risks because that is what makes him really good. However its about picking his spots and It does drive me nuts when he takes chances and he is out their with the 4th line. That should be a coachable moment because he is going to be out there with the 3rd and 4th line so the coaches should be talking about not risking with those lines but being allowed to take a few more chances when the big boys are out. To me it seems like a more optimal mid ground. I know once in a while it pans out when he takes risks with the lesser lines but the odds don't work very well.

(ok ok I know Buff is Buff and it doesn't work that way but a guy can dream in the summer)

 

[Aavco Cup]

There's a discussion about "high-event" vs "low-event" defensemen over in the Kulikov thread. I wanted to look at last season's performance w.r.t. quality of forwards on the ice, and I stumbled upon something interesting.

Let's split the 5v5 minutes. Quality minutes are when either Scheifele or Little is out there (good forward line). Non-quality minutes are when neither Scheifele nor Little are out there (bad forward line).

5v5 TOI and goals:

WPG 3878:04 156-164 (2.41-2.54 per 60)
That's the 11th-highest GF60 in the league (good), and the 2nd-highest GA60 in the league (awful).

WPG Quality 1983:36 107-93 (3.24-2.81 per 60)
WPG Non-quality 1894:28 49-71 (1.55-2.25 per 60)

Quality lines get better results, no surprise there. Quality lines see 6.05 goals scored (for plus against) per hour, while non-quality lines see 3.80 goals scored per hour. That's some very high-event vs very low-event hockey...

So, when neither Scheifele nor Little are out there, the team seems to try to be a lot more responsible defensively (with some success, the GA60 is limited; also matches the eye test). The problem is that 1.55 GF60 is hilariously awful. I've found a comparable: the Canucks had 1.48 GF60 and 2.21 GA60 when neither H.Sedin nor Horvat was on the ice. That's not a team we want to see as a comparable... So: When neither Scheifele nor Little are on the ice, the team doesn't score, and that's a big reason why missed the playoffs.

Let's check the effect of quality forwards vs non-quality forwards on defensemen (we're getting to somewhat small sample sizes here, but it's still interesting):

[table="head;]D|GF-GA Quality|GF60-GA60 Quality|GF-GA non-Quality|GF60-GA60 non-Quality
Byfuglien|50-37 (+13)|3.13-2.32|17-31 (-14)|1.52-2.78
Trouba|36-35 (+1)|3.15-3.06|13-17 (-4)|1.67-2.18
Enstrom|26-29 (-3)|3.04-3.38|12-22 (-10)|1.49-2.73
Morrissey|49-43 (+6)|3.56-3.13|13-21 (-8)|1.31-2.12
Chiarot|15-12 (+3)|3.33-2.66|13-20 (-7)|1.58-2.43
Postma|11-13 (-2)|2.92-3.45|16-11 (+5)|2.08-1.43
Stuart|6-6 (0)|2.48-2.48|8-7 (+1)|1.72-1.51
Melchiori|10-5 (+5)|3.10-1.55|1-5 (-4)|0.52-2.59
[/table]

- everybody's goal differential with quality forwards is better, except for two guys with small samples (Postma and Stuart)
- everybody's GA60 is lower playing with the "bottom6" lines, so the defensemen seem to buy into the philosophy... offense first with Little/Scheifele, defense first with the rest. Except for two guys: Small sample Melchiori, and, surprise, Big Bad Buff.
- Byfuglien has the best goal differential with quality forwards by far. When he's allowed to play offense with quality forwards on the ice, he dominates.
- Byfuglien has the worst goal differential with the bad lines. He seems to have some difficulties adjusting to a low-risk low-event game. Eyetest agrees.

Solution? Shouldn't be "play Buff only with Scheifele/Little". Should rather be "get more quality forwards". Maybe we got some, but they're young and inexperienced.

Analysis of previous seasons to check for long-term patterns is left as an exercise to the reader.

One word........Thorburn


He can't drag anyone down the gutter with him any more

 

[surixon]

Ok this is kind of important and it matches the eye test. Its not that I don't want Buff to take risks because that is what makes him really good. However its about picking his spots and It does drive me nuts when he takes chances and he is out their with the 4th line. That should be a coachable moment because he is going to be out there with the 3rd and 4th line so the coaches should be talking about not risking with those lines but being allowed to take a few more chances when the big boys are out. To me it seems like a more optimal mid ground. I know once in a while it pans out when he takes risks with the lesser lines but the odds don't work very well.

(ok ok I know Buff is Buff and it doesn't work that way but a guy can dream in the summer)

Good analysis. On one hand it definitely clearly shows Maurice' s preference for how he runs lines. On the other hand it may shoe how injuries impacted the team last season.

If we are moderately healthy and Maurice has one of Perrault or Connor on the third line plus Dano and Petan taking regular shifts I the bottom 6 then I think we see some bump in out scoring rates.

 

[ps241]

Good analysis. On one hand it definitely clearly shows Maurice' s preference for how he runs lines. On the other hand it may shoe how injuries impacted the team last season.

If we are moderately healthy and Maurice has one of Perrault or Connor on the third line plus Dano and Petan taking regular shifts I the bottom 6 then I think we see some bump in out scoring rates.

It really is about building a 3rd scoring line this season isn't it. We have the horses so it will be interesting to see if Paul can adapt?

 

[mcpw]

One word........Thorburn


He can't drag anyone down the gutter with him any more

WPG without Little/Scheifele 1894:28 49-71 (1.55-2.25 per 60)
WPG without Little/Scheifele/Thorburn 1519:27 41-56 (1.62-2.21 per 60)

Thorburn was bad, but let's not pretend that non-Thorburn lines centered by Lowry/Copp/Perreault/Petan/Burmistrov could score.

 

[Aavco Cup]

WPG without Little/Scheifele 1894:28 49-71 (1.55-2.25 per 60)
WPG without Little/Scheifele/Thorburn 1519:27 41-56 (1.62-2.21 per 60)

Thorburn was bad, but let's not pretend that non-Thorburn lines centered by Lowry/Copp/Perreault/Petan/Burmistrov could score.

I wasn't pretending anything. Just pointing out the addition by subtraction that appears to have happened

 

[mcpw]

Lack of depth scoring in context. Teams with/without their 1C and 2C on the ice:

[table="head;]Team|1C 2C|GF% with|GF60 with|GF% without|GF60 without|comment
ANA|Getzlaf Kesler|54.0%|2.49|51.5%|1.90|solid
ARI|Hanzal Dvorak|47.7%|2.23|41.4%|1.82|
BOS|Bergeron Krejci|50.0%|2.45|47.7%|1.88|
BUF|O'Reilly Eichel|48.7%|2.22|40.5%|1.55|bad overall
CAR|JStaal Rask|50.3%|2.50|49.2%|1.75|
CGY|Monahan Backlund|52.7%|2.55|44.3%|1.71|
CHI|Toews Anisimov|55.2%|2.73|54.0%|2.14|solid GF% throughout
CBJ|Wennberg Dubinsky|55.6%|2.43|56.1%|2.61|that depth is something else
COL|MacKinnon Duchene|40.2%|2.17|32.5%|1.25|so bad
DAL|Tyler/Faksa?/Eakin??|.|.|.|.|glitch in the matrix season
DET|Zetterberg Nielsen|53.0%|2.64|38.4%|1.61|season killed by lack of depth?
EDM|McDavid Nugent-Hopkins|56.1%|2.80|50.9%|2.01|
FLA|Barkov Trocheck|52.7%|2.53|34.4%|1.40|season killed by lack of depth?
LAK|Kopitar Carter|50.3%|2.29|45.8%|1.44|team can't score
MIN|Koivu EStaal|57.3%|2.81|53.1%|2.63|good top6, awesome depth
MTL|Danault Plekanec|55.6%|2.26|52.9%|2.31|top6 doesn't score much, but Price=good GF%
NSH|Johansen Jarnkrok|53.7%|2.53|52.2%|2.30|slightly cheating, Ribeiro was 2C first half of season
NJD|Zajac Henrique|49.1%|2.27|35.2%|1.20|top6 meh, depth literally worse than Colorado
NYI|Tavares Nelson|50.6%|2.61|51.2%|2.63|balanced, but mediocre overall
NYR|Stepan Zibanejad|56.9%|2.67|48.3%|2.37|
OTT|Brassard Turris|52.3%|2.41|43.3%|1.60|Neil/Lazar/Kelly = season almost dead
PHI|Giroux Couturier|47.5%|2.21|42.0%|1.63|
PIT|Crosby Malkin|60.0%|3.45|49.0%|2.16|CROSBY+MALKIN!!!
SJS|Thornton Couture|56.6%|2.47|49.3%|2.09|
STL|Stastny Lehtera|53.4%|2.41|52.5%|2.29|Berglund/Steen spent time at 2C, inflates depth #s
TBL|TJ/Point/Namestn.??|.|.|.|.|glitch in the matrix season
TOR|Matthews Bozak|52.5%|2.86|48.9%|2.15|very offensive top6
VAN|Henrik Horvat|46.9%|2.15|40.0%|1.48|can't score, can't defend
WSH|Backstrom Kuznetsov|61.5%|3.09|61.3%|2.58|Presidents' Trophy winner, top5 in every category
WPG|Scheifele Little|53.5%|3.24|40.8%|1.55|yup
[/table]

Dallas and TBL had really weird seasons with big injuries, so I didn't include them. Of the other 28 teams:

GF% with top2 C:
WPG 12th best; best non-playoff team
Washington best (Holtby + very powerful offense)
Second best non-playoff team: Detroit @ 14th
Worst playoff team: Boston @ 22nd

GF60 with top2 C:
WPG 2nd best. They score a lot. Best non-playoff team again.
Pittsburgh best (CROSBY+MALKIN)
Second best non-playoff team: Detroit @ 9th
Worst playoff team: Montreal @ 23rd (Danault+Plekanec )

GF% without top2 C:
WPG 22nd (out of 28)
Washington best (Presidents' trophy)
Best non-playoff team: Islanders @ 9th
Worst playoff team: Ottawa @ 19th (Chris Kelly had 20.5 GF% in the regular season. I wonder why he only played two playoff games...)

GF60 without top2 C:
WPG 23rd (out of 28)
Islanders best, bit surprising there. Arizona at 16th (!) was the second best non-playoff team.
Ottawa @ 21st worst playoff team (Curtis Lazar scored one point in 33 games. I wonder why he was traded...)


So when our top two centers are on, we outscore Ovechkin/Kuznetsov/Backstrom as well as Marner/Matthews/Nylander, when somebody else plays center, we're about on par with the Rodrigues/Grant/Deslauriers/Girgensons/Larsson/Gionta combinations of the "post-"tank Sabres out there.

 

[Rheged]

Isn't that a function of playing Lowry as the 3C though?

If for instance they played Lowry as 4C and ran three scoring lines I suspect it would look a bit better. Jets basically functioned as a top-6/bottom-6 team this past season, with the forward depth they do have that probably doesn't have to happen.

 

[mcpw]

Isn't that a function of playing Lowry as the 3C though?

If for instance they played Lowry as 4C and ran three scoring lines I suspect it would look a bit better. Jets basically functioned as a top-6/bottom-6 team this past season, with the forward depth they do have that probably doesn't have to happen.

Well, yeah, it's probably a consequence of playing Lowry at 3C for the lack of a better option... or is it?

Matthias-Lowry-Armia 44.8GF%, 2.12 GF60 was among the best lines we've seen.

Petan 2015-17 38.5GF% 1.26 GF60
Petan w/o Thorburn, Peluso 2015-17 40.0GF% 1.45 GF60
Petan w/o Thorburn, Peluso, Burmistrov, Stafford 2015-17 45.5GF% 1.83 GF60

Copp 2015-17 60.6GF% 2.12 GF60
Copp w/o Thorburn, Peluso 2015-17 63.3GF% 2.35 GF60
Copp w/o Thorburn, Peluso, Burmistrov, Stafford 2015-17 70.0GF% 2.51 GF60

Maybe try Copp at 3C? It can't get worse than X-Lowry-X.
Petan might have been "thorburnt", but it's not like he's had good results.