garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
Special teams and goaltending?
Those are the two largest.
There's also just changes that happen over the season with teams.
Special teams and goaltending?
hey!What if you hate cats?
I dont know. Maybe. But I got tired of all the previous years where we would out Corsi and out shoot openents and lose so many games. Last year we couldn't even get games to overtime for a few more loser points. Then we would talk about our awesome 5v5 Corsi and how great of a team we are. But then we'd finish typically bottom 5ish in the league. News flash - if you finish that low you suck. I always said that the success of a team is measured in the standings. You are as good as your record. I can tell that we are a better team this year. Want to know how I know? It has nothing to do with Corsi and a lot to do with our points in the standings.
I'm well aware. That doesn't lessen anything I've said by any degree.
I think "some of the rest is luck" is a bit of an understatement when about half of what's missing is luck.
Corsi kills Sh% though in any split-half reliability (~ 0.1 vs 0.8 r^2) or predictive testing...
Which is kinda the whole point:
Shot volume isn't the only thing that wins you games, but it's what you have the most control over.
Reliability of a measure is not the same as its strength in predicting outcomes. So, the fact that sh% is not as reliable (i.e. repeatable) as Corsi is a different concept than the fact that Corsi is not that predictive of outcomes.
I guess the main take-home message is that Corsi is more reliable and explains more of the future results than many metrics, but it still doesn't explain much of the variance in future results.
What it tells me is that much more work needs to be done to try to understand deviance from Corsi / results associations, and just saying that it's mostly "luck" doesn't seem that satisfying to me.
I know it's simply an anecdote, but I was thinking a bit about the Jets last night and how they are achieving results. Overall, the Jets' PP seemed to struggle in all the usual areas, but a few brilliant plays by highly skilled players resulted in one chance that was worth a large number of lower quality chances (Buff keeps it in, Laine to Wheeler, Wheeler finds Scheifele in an ideal spot, and he doesn't miss from there). However much pressure and shot attempts that the Yotes had, they never generated that sort of play sequence to generate a chance. Similarly, on Connor's goal, it was a singular sequence of brilliant play by Scheifele (in an otherwise meh game by him) that set up a bang-bang goal that Connor is always going to score. Maybe shooting % is not that repeatable, but talent is talent and I'm not sure that these sorts of specific differences between teams is well-documented or studied. Goals are rare events, and hard to study.
Still, I'd feel much more comfortable if the Jets were controlling more of the shot attempts, and I have particular concerns with the poor puck movement by their D in their zone. But if you look at the distribution of shot metrics at the individual level, the Jets' main problem this season is that their 5v5 workhorses (Scheifele at 46.2% and Wheeler at 44.3%) have had bottom end metrics. Has usage changed so much? Has usage? Or is their something deficient in their quality of play? If they were both at 50% or higher, they would likely pull the entire Jets' performance much higher. There's something weird going on with them, and if and when it straightens out the Jets overall team performance would rise.
If you took just a couple stats, like- per game shots on goal, per game -shots allowed, and -"scoring percentage on shots taken," goaltending save % and Goals against--you'd have a pretty good idea on predicting if that club is successful.
Example-if you look at the top 5 goalies in the NHL- SP% etc- usually 2-4 out of those 5 clubs are in 1-st or second place in their division-"simple stuff"
As far as I'm concerned, you can put away your slide rules, geometry sets, and enjoy the game, and look at the basics. It's not rocket science here, and these are not machines your graphing--their humans, and their performances are always changing, with their circumstances. ( life or health or whatever)
hey!
would also like to mention that the Jets were the number one team for time spent with a lead in 14-15 and also were 4th in cf%
Sorry, I reacted because I think a lot of people don't distinguish between prediction and reliability. I know they are linked and I know you understand this, but you went from the issue of prediction to citing reliability. My apologies if you thought it was a straw man argument. It wasn't my intention.I'm not even going to read the whole thing yet before responding because the first paragraph annoys me that you are straw man-ing me (or just misread):
Corsi kills Sh% though in any split-half reliability (~ 0.1 vs 0.8 r^2) OR predictive testing...
No where did I say reliability is same as predicting outcomes. In fact, it is obviously distinct. So why are you responding to me as if I had?
Now, sh% poor reliability matters in this case, because it's poor reliability is why it's such a terrible predictor.
Goals has two inputs:
* Shot quantity
* Shot conversion
Shot quantity is fairly stable.
Luck is a small component of it, and it can have small sample issues (generally you want about 20-25 games for higher confidence).
Depending on which test, methodology, situation (EV, overall, etc.), etc. for research you are looking at, shot quantity is between 1/3-2/3 of what matters after accounting for "randomness." (low estimate being from 5v5 predictive testing; the high estimate from research on what drives wins... truth is probably near the middle)
That's a big deal.
Shot conversion is HIGHLY unstable.
There are four components to shot conversion: luck, shot quality, finishing talent, and goaltender talent.
I've seen most estimates of shot quality being about 10% of non-randomness. Goaltending about equal. Finishing talent is a bit more controversial, although I'd estimate slightly above shot quality.
Penalty differential is another independent factor, but I've never seen a number placed on it... yet. And then you have special teams, as well.
These arguments that are coming up are no different than what we saw with Toronto or Colorado. The good news is that, as you pointed out, the Jets have players that have drove shot differentials before, but are struggling right now (Wheeler, Scheifele) and injured players who drive them and will return (Perreault). You have to ask though if Jets are slightly shooting themselves in the foot *more than necessary* due to fixable systematic issues.
I never thought that team had the raw talent and quickness to really compete with the best. Now, they need to find a way to get a much more talented line-up to play a consistent and effective system.I miss the 14-15 team . I was the best team TNSE ever built and apparently after 4 playoff games decided that that group wasn't worth keeping together. Sad.
Sorry, I reacted because I think a lot of people don't distinguish between prediction and reliability. I know they are linked and I know you understand this, but you went from the issue of prediction to citing reliability. My apologies if you thought it was a straw man argument. It wasn't my intention.
I do think the Jets have a system problem, but I'm not sure the nature and how severe. The fact that normal drivers of positive shot metrics are now dragging team metrics now is a curious phenomenon, and I don't know how sustainable that will be. My own feeling is that the Jets D are too focused on moving the puck with their legs, and not enough with smart passing. I also think that they are clamping down D to protect the slot to a fault, after a season where they were way too loose. In the offensive zone they are very reluctant to take low percentage shots, perhaps because they are emphasizing zone time. All of these might contribute to their problems.
Quick question... Any theories as to why Scheifele and Wheeler are getting buried in shot metrics? I doubt they've regressed and yet they are performing well below a number of other Jets' forwards. Some of it must be usage, but is usage so much different from previous seasons?
I think that Maurice and his top players need to get to a better balance. I think the message that has been hammered home from the beginning of the season is to play a "tighter" defensive game. You can see this in the defensive zone with a compact structure leaving a lot of space to the outside. Also, player positioning in the defensive zone tends to be conservative, with the Jets being more tentative in pursuing the puck and letting opponents win the puck more frequently. I also think that the Jets have tended to be more conservative in moving the puck in their own zone. They aren't as crisp or creative with passes and tend to try to protect the puck more and look for an opportunity to "clear" rather than initiate a break-out. In the offensive zone, I think they are really trying to avoid pinches and giving up odd-man breaks (which is good), but this relieves some of the pressure from their fore-check. As I've noted before, I also think that they are focusing a lot on puck possession in the offensive zone. This seems to be particularly something for Scheifele and Wheeler, who are really looking for good opportunities.I do think it is the system they are deploying. I think PMo is fine attempting to trade off a higher number of lower quality shot attempts while trying to protect the danger area more than in the past. I like winning but I think the team is being poorly coached and riding a hot streak by the goalies. Hopefully the goaltending has a really good season. This group of skaters can play better.
Is the assertion here that Scheifele has discovered a more effective and efficient style if play than pretty much everyone else in the entire league? Is the assertion that Scheifele has found a sustainable way to outplay shot metrics - something that even Sidney Crosby has not been able to accomplish.Anyone that watched the Yotes game will realize how often the Jets try to make passes or other plays instead of shooting. Scheifele's line does this a lot. They also get pinned in their own zone due to soft D sometimes, so....
The interesting thing to me is that most of the players that they've added (save for Laine and Tanev) were already in the system.I never thought that team had the raw talent and quickness to really compete with the best. Now, they need to find a way to get a much more talented line-up to play a consistent and effective system.
Empirical observation - Scheifele's "style" has changed, in that his shot attempts have reduced quite dramatically (almost 50% since 2 years ago). I say that this is a "style" issue because I don't think his talent has declined. If anything, he's a more effective player in all of the areas that should drive shot metrics (puck retrieval, puck possession, etc.). Also, he's playing with one of the best drivers of shots in the NHL (Wheeler), and I don't think Wheeler's skill has declined.Is the assertion here that Scheifele has discovered a more effective and efficient style if play than pretty much everyone else in the entire league? Is the assertion that Scheifele has found a sustainable way to outplay shot metrics - something that even Sidney Crosby has not been able to accomplish.
Is the assertion here that Scheifele has discovered a more effective and efficient style if play than pretty much everyone else in the entire league? Is the assertion that Scheifele has found a sustainable way to outplay shot metrics - something that even Sidney Crosby has not been able to accomplish.
I agree that I don't think they deliberately tanked, but Chevy and Maurice were both pretty open after the season that they thought that the team needed to add more skill and quickness to take the next step. They were sending a clear signal that they weren't going to maintain the status quo. At the time I shared the skepticism about the likelihood that they could take the next step without reshaping the roster with more skill and quickness. Happily they already had some top talent developing in their system or new to the roster (Scheifele, Trouba, Morrissey, Ehlers, Hellebuyck), and they were very fortunate to get Connor in 2015 and the #2 pick in the lottery the next year. Another factor might have been their realization that they could likely only keep one of Ladd or Buff, so they'd be looking to add more prospect depth to supplement the core.The interesting thing to me is that most of the players that they've added (save for Laine and Tanev) were already in the system.
That said, I never saw that tank as intentional. They eventually made an effort to support the tank, but I think they entered that season fully expecting to step forward. Same as ever, they were sabotaged by their unwarranted unwaivering faith in a bad goalie.
I think it's this
No doubt......on so many levels.
...oooh, that's a bit harsh (and unexpected from you, AC).
Please share what you think explains the dramatic reduction in shot attempts by Scheifele. This season. Did he somehow turn into Burmistrov this season?
The argument isn't so much about whether his style will yield sustainable positive results, but more about what's driving it and to what extent it is system driven.
They are spending an enormous amount of time in their own end this year. Tough to generate shots that far from the net. I think it's that simple.
That image was intended in a general sense for people who are trying to rationalize the early results. I do think they are unsustainable if it continues down this path. I do think they can fix things though. I have more faith in that than the sustainability of us "Avalanching" the league for 82 games.