All Purpose Analytics and Extended Stats Discussion

RandyHolt

Keep truckin'
Nov 3, 2006
34,639
6,800
Perhaps they are trying to make the other pairs figure it out. Get better. Learn to adapt for when an injury strikes later. I will be concerned if Barry only goes back to logical pairs down 3-1 to Pitt in round 1.

We are suddenly in a glide to the finish line, where finishing first, more the ever, is not the best path to the cup anyways. It's a fine time to experiment with less than optimal pairs.

The bigger elephant in the room is... why do I hear advanced stats are lacking recently, as we are blowing out teams almost every night. The last 10 games we have scored 49 goals.... ~5 per game. Is this a large enough sample size to analyze here? We held our opposition to 23 and went 8-2. I take those numbers to the bank every day and Sunday and laugh at Corsi as we steamroll all teams to an easy cup.

If Holts is bailing us out every night as we score 5, I am not sure that is a bad thing, since we have one of the better goalies in the league. Barry should be fearless in daring teams to pit their goalie against ours in a run and gun game, right?

I feel like this a great time to analyze advanced stats as they correlate to winning. Score adjusted, not adjusted, whatever stats are out there, maybe start by showing us stats that support us blowing out these teams. Do those stats exist, besides WL and goal diff?
 
Last edited:

Slateman

Registered User
Feb 2, 2016
537
2
Is there a stat for how many goals a team/player scores of deflections and or rebounds (ie, the garbage goals)?

I feel like this team is better this year at "cleaning up the trash" than previous years. Wanted to know if there is any way to prove it.
 

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
13,622
14,439
Is there a stat for how many goals a team/player scores of deflections and or rebounds (ie, the garbage goals)?

I feel like this team is better this year at "cleaning up the trash" than previous years. Wanted to know if there is any way to prove it.

Unfortunately the only thing I could find on Corsica is on-ice rebounds for vs. against for individual players and not at a team level. It doesn't break down the goals as rebounds vs. non-rebounds, just shot-attempts.
 

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
13,622
14,439
Perhaps they are trying to make the other pairs figure it out. Get better. Learn to adapt for when an injury strikes later. I will be concerned if Barry only goes back to logical pairs down 3-1 to Pitt in round 1.

We are suddenly in a glide to the finish line, where finishing first, more the ever, is not the best path to the cup anyways. It's a fine time to experiment with less the optimal pairs.

The bigger elephant in the room is... why do I hear advanced stats are lacking recently, as we are blowing out teams almost every night. The last 10 games we have scored 49 goals.... ~5 per game. Is this a large enough sample size to analyze here? We held our opposition to 23 and went 8-2. I take those numbers to the bank every day and Sunday and laugh at Corsi as we steamroll all teams to an easy cup.

If Holts is bailing us out every night as we score 5, I am not sure that is a bad thing, since we have one of the better goalies in the league. Barry should be fearless in daring teams to pit their goalie against ours in a run and gun game, right?

I feel like this a great time to analyze advanced stats as the correlate to winning. Score adjusted, not adjusted, whatever stats are out there, maybe start by showing us stats that support us blowing out these teams. Do those stats exist, besides WL and goal diff?

It's hard to agree with the bolded given the quality of the division. I'd much rather have to go through a team like the Flyers, Islanders, or Bruins than the Penguins in the first round. The Capitals should be looking toward building a playoff-ready lineup very soon. They tinkered to death last season to poor results. I'd rather they find a lineup that works and stick with it.

The general point regarding shot-attempt metrics is that they are better predictors of future goal-differential than current goal-differential. Yes, the Capitals are still blowing teams out, but they are getting incredibly lucky doing so (a PDO of 110 over the past 10 games). This is incredibly unsustainable, though you can expect the Capitals to be above 100 sustainably because of their above average goaltending and shooting talent. The Avalanche, Flames, Rangers, etc. have all had huge season-long PDO benders that led to playoff berths, only to be mediocre to terrible the following seasons. It's not a recipe for success historically. Until Carlson went down the Capitals were blowing teams out AND playing well. Now they are blowing teams out while getting outshot and outchanced. It's nice to rack up wins, but I'm more interested in habits that will lead to wins in April-June.

I'm not advocating against a run and gun game, just the opposite actually. But the Capitals need to have a greater share of the opportunities that the opposition, something that hasn't happened enough in the most recent outings.
 

RandyHolt

Keep truckin'
Nov 3, 2006
34,639
6,800
is there any other advanced stat besides PDO that supports us blowing out teams? We often hear that teams have to get hot at the right time to win a cup.

Maybe a high PDO is not sustainable because opponents adjust. Goalies gear up for the challenge. Or, they copy cat the system or scheme against it. No system is indefinitely successful.

It is interesting to read the Kings had a strong Corsi yet missed the playoffs.
 
Last edited:

Coldplay619

Registered User
Oct 17, 2010
2,807
842
So, the Ovi-Nicky-Oshie line is operating at 48.28% score and venue adjusted corsi for the season.

Jojo-Kuzy-Williams are at 53.38% for the season, Bura-Eller-Connolly are at 61.58% and Winnik-Beagle-Wilson are at 49.36%.

OOF

Ovi-Kuzy-Oshie are at 60.26% and Jojo-Backstrom-Williams are at 60.37%.

Hopefully Trotz doesn't have his blinders on if things go to ****.

8-92-77
90-19-14
65-20-10
26-83-43

9-2
44-88
27-74
 

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
13,622
14,439
So, the Ovi-Nicky-Oshie line is operating at 48.28% score and venue adjusted corsi for the season.

Jojo-Kuzy-Williams are at 53.38% for the season, Bura-Eller-Connolly are at 61.58% and Winnik-Beagle-Wilson are at 49.36%.

OOF

Ovi-Kuzy-Oshie are at 60.26% and Jojo-Backstrom-Williams are at 60.37%.

Hopefully Trotz doesn't have his blinders on if things go to ****.

8-92-77
90-19-14
65-20-10
26-83-43

9-2
44-88
27-74

I'd love to see this lineup at some point. Especially at home, I feel like you could match the Backstrom line against the opposition's best and then allow the Kuznetsov line to face easier competition and come out ahead even against a deep and talented team like Pittsburgh.

The 8-19-77 line hasn't been very effective at all dating back to last season. I feel like Kuznetsov is a better match for Ovechkin's and Oshie's transition style while Backstrom's superior strength on the puck but slower foot speed is better suited for Williams and Johansson. The shot-attempt and expected goals numbers certainly agree with this assessment.
 

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
13,622
14,439
The question of whether Backstrom and Ovechkin should be split up has come up again. Personally I think it's overdue given the two different styles they play. Looking at the WOWY (With Or Without You) chart since the beginning of the 2015-16 season for Ovechkin, it's clear to me that the two are much better apart from a statistical point of view as well:

MI9Fi5l.png


What you want to see is the blue bubble (score-adjusted CF% while together) above the other two bubbles (SACF% of Ovechkin without his teammate, and SACF% of the teammate without Ovechkin). This would imply that both Ovechkin and his teammate perform better together than either one does while apart.

This is case for Ovechkin and Kuznetsov, who are better together than they are apart from each other, but the exact opposite is true for Ovechkin and Backstrom. Both Ovechkin and Backstrom post a lower CF% together than they do while apart.

And in terms of specific line combinations here is how the current top 6 has been over the past two seasons:

Line|Score-adjusted CF%|Score-adjusted xGF%|GF%|PDO
Ovechkin-Backstrom-Oshie|50.62%|51.65%|65.62%|105.01
Johansson-Kuznetsov-Williams|49.93%|53.86%|74.19%|107.10

A underwhelming, possession-neutral top-6 that is scoring at unsustainably high rates due to an absurd PDO that isn't going to last.

And my proposed top 6 where you simply flip Backstrom and Kuznetsov:

Line|Score-adjusted CF%|Score-adjusted xGF%|GF%|PDO
Ovechkin-Kuznetsov-Oshie|57.18%|64.02%|71.43%|103.97
Johansson-Backstrom-Williams|60.41%|57.10%|69.23%|101.88

An dominant top-6 in terms of possession that is scores a ton, but at PDO levels that are withing the realm of repeatable. The fact that the 90-19-14 line has scored 70% of the goals with only a 101.88 PDO is astounding.

Simply put, there's no reason not to go back to this top 6. Both Backstrom and Ovechkin are better apart than they are together, and there is already a configuration that works better than the current one. Combine that with the way the third line of Connolly-Eller-Burakovsky has been playing and you have yourselves a possession-driving top-9 that should be able to match any team's depth.
 

BobRouse

Registered User
Mar 18, 2009
10,144
373
Question:

Has there been any research done on the correlation between puck possession and PP/PK ratio?

In 09 when we lost to Pitt and had a 35-19 disparity in PP/PK it was told to me that "well ofcourse! We lost the possession battle big time so that's why Pitt got so many PPs and we didn't"

Then in 12 we lost to the Blueshirts and we had a 26-14 disparity DESPITE winning the corsi over the 7 games.

This entire year we constantly seem to be on the short end of PP/PK. We hardly draw ANY calls and our PPs are few and far between on most nights despite being a top 5 possession team for most of the year.

Anyone shed any light on this?
 

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
13,622
14,439
Question:

Has there been any research done on the correlation between puck possession and PP/PK ratio?

In 09 when we lost to Pitt and had a 35-19 disparity in PP/PK it was told to me that "well ofcourse! We lost the possession battle big time so that's why Pitt got so many PPs and we didn't"

Then in 12 we lost to the Blueshirts and we had a 26-14 disparity DESPITE winning the corsi over the 7 games.

This entire year we constantly seem to be on the short end of PP/PK. We hardly draw ANY calls and our PPs are few and far between on most nights despite being a top 5 possession team for most of the year.

Anyone shed any light on this?

https://hockey-graphs.com/2014/10/3...puck-possession-affect-penalty-differentials/

Seems like there is a weak correlation between penalty differential and CF%. There is probably a lot of individual talent in drawing and not taking penalties that is separate from puck-possession. I'd imagine that speed and ******* would be some of those factors but I haven't really verified if that really holds any water.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobRouse

Registered User
Mar 18, 2009
10,144
373
https://hockey-graphs.com/2014/10/3...puck-possession-affect-penalty-differentials/

Seems like there is a weak correlation between penalty differential and CF%. There is probably a lot of individual talent in drawing and not taking penalties that is separate from puck-possession. I'd imagine that speed and ******* would be some of those factors but I haven't really verified if that really holds any water.

Ok then I feel vindicated about that.

Where do we rank this year on PP/PK differential? I am having a heck of a time finding those stats.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobRouse

Registered User
Mar 18, 2009
10,144
373
They are a -24 in penalty differential, ahead of only Montreal and Calgary.

http://corsica.hockey is where I get most of this info from.

Thanks!

I'm actually surprised there are two teams in the league with a worse differential!!

It's not even the playoffs yet when the Caps shafting really takes effect
 

RandyHolt

Keep truckin'
Nov 3, 2006
34,639
6,800
Interesting question Rouse. You'd think the best teams draw penalties galore but parity is important.

Any player that gives max effort seems to run risk of getting penalties called. Oshie has a high battle quotient so being about the only one giving his all every night, easily stands out, and thus racks up tons of minors.

Twabby, if you can, what do the advanced stats show from the Philly series - did we dominate them, or did we get lucky, or was the series a coin flip. Our PP dominated like never before in that series, and am not sure how that gets reflected accurately in the ES based stats.
 
Last edited:

BobRouse

Registered User
Mar 18, 2009
10,144
373
PP/PK ratio seems completely non-metrics based.

RE: Flyers series. I seem to recall we had the shot attempt edge in every single game outside of game 2 where Philly kinda took it to us but yet I think even in that game the high danger chances were close. Could be wrong.

5on5 the eye test told me we were the superior team.
 

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
13,622
14,439
Interesting question Rouse. You'd think the best teams draw penalties galore but parity is important.

Any player that gives max effort seems to run risk of getting penalties called. Oshie has a high battle quotient so being about the only one giving his all every night, easily stands out, and thus racks up tons of minors.

Twabby, if you can, what do the advanced stats show from the Philly series - did we dominate them, or did we get lucky, or was the series a coin flip. Our PP dominated like never before in that series, and am not sure how that gets reflected accurately in the ES based stats.

The game-by-game 5v5 battle was closer than the special teams battle:

Game #|SA CF%|SA xGF%
1|55.50%|58.42%
2|40.06%|45.74%
3|43.76%|40.47%
4|57.48%|64.65%
5|74.86%|78.02%
6|55.61%|59.57%

It seems like a 4-2 series win was a fair result based on even-strength play alone. Games 2 and 3 the Flyers had the better of the even-strength play (though Game 3 was an endless parade of Capitals PPs seemingly). But the other games Washington was better, especially in Game 5.

Of course the Capitals had the distinct edge in goaltending for the first half of the series along with better special teams play the entire series so it probably could have been ended earlier with a little more luck. However, a more disciplined Flyers team could have pushed the series to 7 easily.

It wasn't a coin flip, but it wasn't utter domination either. I'd say they got neither unlucky nor lucky.
 

BobRouse

Registered User
Mar 18, 2009
10,144
373
The game-by-game 5v5 battle was closer than the special teams battle:

Game #|SA CF%|SA xGF%
1|55.50%|58.42%
2|40.06%|45.74%
3|43.76%|40.47%
4|57.48%|64.65%
5|74.86%|78.02%
6|55.61%|59.57%

It seems like a 4-2 series win was a fair result based on even-strength play alone. Games 2 and 3 the Flyers had the better of the even-strength play (though Game 3 was an endless parade of Capitals PPs seemingly). But the other games Washington was better, especially in Game 5.

Of course the Capitals had the distinct edge in goaltending for the first half of the series along with better special teams play the entire series so it probably could have been ended earlier with a little more luck. However, a more disciplined Flyers team could have pushed the series to 7 easily.

It wasn't a coin flip, but it wasn't utter domination either. I'd say they got neither unlucky nor lucky.

What were the scoring chances and high danger chances? Really didn't seem the Flyers could generate much.
 

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
13,622
14,439
What were the scoring chances and high danger chances? Really didn't seem the Flyers could generate much.

From Natural Stat Trick: http://www.naturalstattrick.com/games.php?season=20152016&stype=3&sit=sva&team=WSH&team2=All&rate=n

Game|SCF|SCA|SCF%|HDCF|HDCA|HDCF%
1|18.58|11.28|62.24|5.79|3.2|64.41
2|15.03|26.73|35.99|8.91|11.16|44.38
3|11.66|10.9|51.67|4.23|7.99|34.6
4|30.56|15.2|66.79|13.97|5.02|73.57
5|27.66|9.83|73.78|11.61|5.53|67.75
6|11.1|13.42|45.27|6.66|4.47|59.82

Again, the Capitals won the battle 4-2 when it came to even strength scoring chances and high-danger chances. The Flyers couldn't generate much but neither could the Capitals for much of the series (at even strength at least).
 

BobRouse

Registered User
Mar 18, 2009
10,144
373
From Natural Stat Trick: http://www.naturalstattrick.com/games.php?season=20152016&stype=3&sit=sva&team=WSH&team2=All&rate=n

Game|SCF|SCA|SCF%|HDCF|HDCA|HDCF%
1|18.58|11.28|62.24|5.79|3.2|64.41
2|15.03|26.73|35.99|8.91|11.16|44.38
3|11.66|10.9|51.67|4.23|7.99|34.6
4|30.56|15.2|66.79|13.97|5.02|73.57
5|27.66|9.83|73.78|11.61|5.53|67.75
6|11.1|13.42|45.27|6.66|4.47|59.82

Again, the Capitals won the battle 4-2 when it came to even strength scoring chances and high-danger chances. The Flyers couldn't generate much but neither could the Capitals for much of the series (at even strength at least).

Seems like we had a bigger comparative edge scoring chance wise than corsi wise. Is that fair?

Either way we definitely had the edge ES (both in possession and scoring chances) and BY FAR had the special team advantage right?

To me the only thing that made the series close was Neuvirth and his 99% sv pctg in the last few games
 

RandyHolt

Keep truckin'
Nov 3, 2006
34,639
6,800
Good analysis, thanks Twab. It's about how I remember it, we couldn't generate much at ES vs Philly.

Here are RHs advanced st... err series changers.

Willy taking that late minor up 1 late, only to goad Simmonds into a fight and negate the PP, turned out to be a huge event. Instead of a game potentially headed to OT, we escape with a 1-0 series lead. Mason being as leaky as can be, was a huge factor in the series. As was their lack of confidence in Neuvy, in deciding when to yank Mason, who JoeB called out as having an injury. For the first time that I can ever remember, our PP dominated in that series. A special shout out to the Flyers coach, who foolishly went with a passive PK to the tune of 8PPGs in 3 games, before finally becoming aggressive, and slamming the door shut. What an imbecile.

I wish someone tracked the big events of a series that don't fit on a stat table. Memory, is all we got.
 

Hivemind

We're Touched
Oct 8, 2010
37,008
13,424
Philadelphia
We didn't generate a ton at ES against Philly during the first few games, but they also had massive PP leads for the beginning of the series. Games 4-6 they pretty much dominated the puck, but Philly did a good job at keeping the middle of the ice clear. After falling down 3-0 in the series, the Flyers reverted to a prevent defense style, basically.
 

BobRouse

Registered User
Mar 18, 2009
10,144
373
Good analysis, thanks Twab. It's about how I remember it, we couldn't generate much at ES vs Philly.

Here are RHs advanced st... err series changers.

Willy taking that late minor up 1 late, only to goad Simmonds into a fight and negate the PP, turned out to be a huge event. Instead of a game potentially headed to OT, we escape with a 1-0 series lead. Mason being as leaky as can be, was a huge factor in the series. As was their lack of confidence in Neuvy, in deciding when to yank Mason, who JoeB called out as having an injury. For the first time that I can ever remember, our PP dominated in that series. A special shout out to the Flyers coach, who foolishly went with a passive PK to the tune of 8PPGs in 3 games, before finally becoming aggressive, and slamming the door shut. What an imbecile.

I wish someone tracked the big events of a series that don't fit on a stat table. Memory, is all we got.

I vaguely recall Schenn doing a bunch of cheap shenanigans early in the series.

The Chimera goal on Mason was embarrassing for everyone involved.

Neuvirth pulling off a near Halak
 

eperry

Registered User
Jun 27, 2016
64
9
Unfortunately the only thing I could find on Corsica is on-ice rebounds for vs. against for individual players and not at a team level. It doesn't break down the goals as rebounds vs. non-rebounds, just shot-attempts.

Team rebound and rush shots are under the "Counts" report on the Team Stats page. Individual skaters' rebound and rush shots under the "Individual" report on the Skater Stats page.
 

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
13,622
14,439
Team rebound and rush shots are under the "Counts" report on the Team Stats page. Individual skaters' rebound and rush shots under the "Individual" report on the Skater Stats page.

Thank you, and keep up the good work.

#JWB
 

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
13,622
14,439
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed the Capitals have scored the first goal a ton this season and have generally looked great to start games compared to last season where they continually started out slowly and gave up the first goal almost every night.

So I looked at the Capitals stats specifically in tie-game scenarios. It's not perfect because there are other times when the game is tied, but games are always tied to start. Here are their stats specifically when the game is tied at 5v5 over the past two seasons:

Season|CF%|FF%|xGF%|GF%
2015-16|50.62% (13th)|50.18% (13th)|49.48% (14th)|50.94% (14th)
2016-17|54.68% (1st)|53.74% (2nd)|55.57% (1st)|63.24% (3rd)

This is extremely encouraging. When teams are on equal footing in terms of desperation and wins being on the line, the Capitals are probably the best in the league in dictating the play this season. I'm not sure exactly how much this matters in terms of predicting future success compared to just taking score-adjusted numbers (which considers how a team/player does in all game states compared to league average in those same game states), but it certainly can't be a bad thing to be dominant in tie games.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->