Dustin Byfuglien - Part III

[ps241]

Oh oh. That Dellow Buff article is pretty terrible. Dellow seems to like to start with a premise then support it with anecdotal stats. His premise is plausible I suppose, but Dellow is not someone I would look to for any current statistical insight.

Yea I think Tyler adds the disclaimer that he may be guilty as charged. That being said some of the information he provided took real work, is thought provoking, and he makes some interesting points. I am not in the gas Buff camp, (cover your eyes Jet) heck I even have his name on my heritage classic jersey (ok safe to open your eyes again Jet) but I embrace a continued debate on the topic. Nobody brings out the bipolar in me like Buff does.

 

[pucka lucka]

Yea I think Tyler adds the disclaimer that he may be guilty as charged. That being said some of the information he provided took real work, is thought provoking, and he makes some interesting points. I am not in the gas Buff camp, (cover your eyes Jet) heck I even have his name on my heritage classic jersey (ok safe to open your eyes again Jet) but I embrace a continued debate on the topic. Nobody brings out the bipolar in me like Buff does.

I was more commenting on his approach in general. It's not a scientific one. It's not one anyone doing any real stats work would take. I see that you are aware of that though

Dellow was great at sparking conversation and asking questions about conventional analysis of the game. I just don't see his conclusions as anything anyone should use as proof of anything.

 

[ps241]

Generally agree - he's way better than our beat writers. However, this article seems a bit rushed. He whiffed on one of his central theories which was that forwards should see a higher increase in shooting percentage with Buff than defenseman because they are getting a lot more rush chances. That's incorrect - defencemen enjoy a higher shooting percentage bump (23% vs 17%). So can we conclude then, that Buff actually creates less rush chances? That would be a weird thing to conclude, wouldn't it? Unless the whole premise of using shooting percentage bumps by position to make conclusions was flawed in the first place...

The examples used in the article were brutal too - I could find you several much worse examples and most of the ones they use weren't even Buff's fault. (Morissey backhand pass, Malkin cherry picking at our blue line while puck is contested in Pens end, slapper off the knees = breakaway)?

And for years, everyone has been saying that save percentages are a goalie stat, and it has been debated ad nauseum and the science is pretty much settled that individual players don't really have that much effect, if any. But wait a sec, maybe Buff is the only exception in the league??? Hmmm...his numbers do look pretty bad. On second thought, being a Jets fan who happens to know that Buff plays a massive amount of minutes in front of train wreck goalies, I wondered if he was the only Jet where this seems to be an issue...and wouldn't you know it - Blake Wheeler's on ice shooting percentage is an abysmal .903. Same goes for Little, Scheifele, Enstrom, Ladd, etc. On the other hand, Drew Stafford and Mark Stuart stood out and were able to will our goalies to save 94% of shots when they were on the ice.

That was approximately 3 minutes of research. Dellow is usually good, but in this case he seemed to start with a conclusion and work backwards to try to prove it. And I don't think he did.

Good post and interesting points.

 

[ps241]

I was more commenting on his approach in general. It's not a scientific one. It's not one anyone doing any real stats work would take. I see that you are aware of that though

Dellow was great at sparking conversation and asking questions about conventional analysis of the game. I just don't see his conclusions as anything anyone should use as proof of anything.

I would say my eye test is telling me he and Hendricks caught a pretty big fish but it could be a camera angle thing.

 

[Fishy]

I would say my eye test is telling me he and Hendricks caught a pretty big fish but it could be a camera angle thing.

That was a pretty big fish.

 

[Whileee]

Are some defensemen more prone to giving up higher danger scoring chances? Almost certainly, the answer would be "yes". Would higher danger scoring chances be normally correlated with lower save %. Again, the logical answer is "yes". So, you would have to question the face validity of the observation that individual defenders can have no influence on the save percentage. More likely, there is a lot of noise in the data, and the analytical approaches aren't accounting for enough of the confounding variables. The main argument against a defenseman affecting save percentage is that on-ice save percentage isn't "repeatable" year-to-year. This makes a number of assumptions, including the constancy of other variables (like teammate, coaching, etc.). It could perhaps be argued persuasively that on balance, Buff is a positive, but I'm highly skeptical of the conclusion that the quality of his defensive play does not affect scoring changes against and therefore save percentage, adjusting for other relevant factors. Based on various comments made by Maurice, I would bet that the Jets track scoring chances, shot locations, etc. and have found that Buff gives up more than they would like defensively. They are likely constantly trying to find ways to manage that downside to his game.

 

[pucka lucka]

Are some defensemen more prone to giving up higher danger scoring chances? Almost certainly, the answer would be "yes". Would higher danger scoring chances be normally correlated with lower save %. Again, the logical answer is "yes". So, you would have to question the face validity of the observation that individual defenders can have no influence on the save percentage. More likely, there is a lot of noise in the data, and the analytical approaches aren't accounting for enough of the confounding variables. The main argument against a defenseman affecting save percentage is that on-ice save percentage isn't "repeatable" year-to-year. This makes a number of assumptions, including the constancy of other variables (like teammate, coaching, etc.). It could perhaps be argued persuasively that on balance, Buff is a positive, but I'm highly skeptical of the conclusion that the quality of his defensive play does not affect scoring changes against and therefore save percentage, adjusting for other relevant factors. Based on various comments made by Maurice, I would bet that the Jets track scoring chances, shot locations, etc. and have found that Buff gives up more than they would like defensively. They are likely constantly trying to find ways to manage that downside to his game.

Do the work to demonstrate your conjecture then? You are the one making all of the assumptions. Your post is 100% conjecture, assumptions and empty thought experiments. Science doesn't concern itself with what seems correct, or what seems likely. Your starting point is extremely biased.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

Are some defensemen more prone to giving up higher danger scoring chances? Almost certainly, the answer would be "yes". Would higher danger scoring chances be normally correlated with lower save %. Again, the logical answer is "yes". So, you would have to question the face validity of the observation that individual defenders can have no influence on the save percentage. More likely, there is a lot of noise in the data, and the analytical approaches aren't accounting for enough of the confounding variables. The main argument against a defenseman affecting save percentage is that on-ice save percentage isn't "repeatable" year-to-year. This makes a number of assumptions, including the constancy of other variables (like teammate, coaching, etc.). It could perhaps be argued persuasively that on balance, Buff is a positive, but I'm highly skeptical of the conclusion that the quality of his defensive play does not affect scoring changes against and therefore save percentage, adjusting for other relevant factors. Based on various comments made by Maurice, I would bet that the Jets track scoring chances, shot locations, etc. and have found that Buff gives up more than they would like defensively. They are likely constantly trying to find ways to manage that downside to his game.

The only comments I recall from Maurice recently is his boasting that the Jets were 3rd in the NHL in offensive zone time, which was debunked as a meaningful stat sometime in or around 2009. It certainly explains why he has Lowry out there for 20 minutes/game praying that the line doesn't get scored on so they can be even for the night (because they can't score). I don't know where you get the confidence to conclude that when the Jets adopt stats, they are doing it better than everyone else. Seems like a stretch for a team with Tanev, Chiarot, Hendricks and a lot of money committed to Mason and Kulikov.

 

[Whileee]

Yea I think Tyler adds the disclaimer that he may be guilty as charged. That being said some of the information he provided took real work, is thought provoking, and he makes some interesting points. I am not in the gas Buff camp, (cover your eyes Jet) heck I even have his name on my heritage classic jersey (ok safe to open your eyes again Jet) but I embrace a continued debate on the topic. Nobody brings out the bipolar in me like Buff does.

I also have mixed feelings about Buff. He can drive me crazy with his too casual approach and lack of attention to detail defensively. Conversely, he can be a dominating positive force on the ice.

My general view is that Buff is positive for most of the season, with ups and downs. However, if the Jets really want to make noise in the playoffs, Buff can be a real difference-maker if he's dialed in. He's one of the few players in the NHL who can really make a mark on a series. I think the Jets now have a few players like that, so Buff is less important, but still could be a key ingredient in a long playoff run.

 

[SensibleGuy]

It started with Westwood or at least he was the first guy I heard speculating.

It didn't "start" with Westwood, lol. He might have been one of the first media people to raise the possibility, but that's only because he's on the morning show. The first thing that crossed my mind when I found out Buff was out and Poolman was in was that Buff was a healthy scratch. The "LBI" story that came out post game did nothing to change that feeling. There had been lots of discussion leading up to the game that Buff hadn't been playing very well and that it might be time for Maurice to send a meaningful message that even the vets were going to be held accountable. Then word started to come out that Poolman "could potentially see action"...

There's no proof either way. All we have to go on is what Mo put out there. So, it's a LBI. But that doesn't mean we can't read some tea leaves. But to just immediately accept the LBI story is a bit naive really.

Actually, now that I think about it that pic of Buff fishing raises a small concern. It seems like a pretty bad idea for him to put that out there (or allow it to be put out there.) It brings back not so fond memories of E Kane telling the world he was "good to go" after having been healthy-scratched by Noel.

 

[pucka lucka]

It makes zero sense. He missed 2 practices. You think the org is going to take their big money d-man and bench him after 2 games, then orchestrate a cover up?

 

[Mathmew Purrrr Oh]

personal on ice sv% isn't repeatable and has been proven to be unrepeatable countless times, but if you keep banging that drum enough (contrary to all evidence) you just might earn yourself a gig with the Calgary Flames.

 

[SensibleGuy]

It makes zero sense. He missed 2 practices. You think the org is going to take their big money d-man and bench him after 2 games, then orchestrate a cover up?

Desperate measures. It ain't like they are moving him to forward! lol...I think the situation was pretty damned serious. Things did not look good.

 

[pucka lucka]

Desperate measures. It ain't like they are moving him to forward! lol...I think the situation was pretty damned serious. Things did not look good.

So they took out Buff and not Myers or Kulikov who are significantly weaker players. Yeah, no, not buying it at all.

 

[Board Bard]

So they took out Buff and not Myers or Kulikov who are significantly weaker players. Yeah, no, not buying it at all.

Not saying there's anything to the healthy scratch thing, but if there is, one reason they might do it to Buff and not the guys you mention is that Buff is playing further below his potential than those other guys, and Maurice is fed up with it. Of course, if Maurice wants to nail someone for that reason, he can find a good candidate in the mirror (although to be fair to Maurice, his own potential isn't high so he'd have no reason to be dismayed with his own mediocrity).

 

[Whileee]

Do the work to demonstrate your conjecture then? You are the one making all of the assumptions. Your post is 100% conjecture, assumptions and empty thought experiments. Science doesn't concern itself with what seems correct, or what seems likely. Your starting point is extremely biased.

My main conjecture is that NHL defensemen vary in terms of their performance in limiting high danger scoring chances. Do you disagree with that? What evidence would you require to convince you?

Others who have spent considerable time analyzing this issue have come to the conclusion that players vary in terms of their impact on goals against. You can look up "DXPM", if you like. Here's a brief explanation... " The model looks at a player’s impact on expected goals against, a shot metric containing both shot quantity and quality aspects..."

There is plenty of evidence suggesting that higher danger scoring chances are associated with lower save percentage. You can look up the evidence for that yourself, if you are skeptical.

I stand by my critique of the methodology used for assessing the extent to which players affect save percentage.

I'll admit that it's conjecture with respect to how the Jets assess Buff, but I have heard Maurice directly talk about the Jets tracking scoring chances. I think every NHL team does that, and a quick Google search will turn up several articles wherein NHL coaches talk about it.

 

[SensibleGuy]

So they took out Buff and not Myers or Kulikov who are significantly weaker players. Yeah, no, not buying it at all.

Have you missed the rather significant narrative that has developed around Buff over the past few seasons? It's all about how he is a bit of a "rogue agent" who tends to do his own thing out there and how Maurice hasn't really taken any sort of action to reign him in? There was a fair bit of discussion last season about how unfair it seemd that young guys were getting their ice time cut for making mistakes while Buff continued to roam around getting 29 minutes a game. Sitting him has nothing to do with Myers or Kulikov. It's about sending a pretty significant and specific message. The implication would be that there might be an issue with Buff's "commitment to the plan" as laid out by Maurice...

 

[Whileee]

My main conjecture is that NHL defensemen vary in terms of their performance in limiting high danger scoring chances. Do you disagree with that? What evidence would you require to convince you?

Others who have spent considerable time analyzing this issue have come to the conclusion that players vary in terms of their impact on goals against. You can look up "DXPM", if you like. Here's a brief explanation... " The model looks at a player’s impact on expected goals against, a shot metric containing both shot quantity and quality aspects..."

There is plenty of evidence suggesting that higher danger scoring chances are associated with lower save percentage. You can look up the evidence for that yourself, if you are skeptical.

I stand by my critique of the methodology used for assessing the extent to which individual players affect save percentage. Just because statisticians haven't found the data or the models to sift through the randomness doesn't mean that non-random associations don't exist. I think the more daring hypothesis is that "individual defensemen don't have any impact on shot quality and save percentage".

I'll admit that it's conjecture with respect to how the Jets assess Buff, but I have heard Maurice directly talk about the Jets tracking scoring chances. I think every NHL team does that, and a quick Google search will turn up several articles wherein NHL coaches talk about it.

 

[pucka lucka]

Have you missed the rather significant narrative that has developed around Buff over the past few seasons? It's all about how he is a bit of a "rogue agent" who tends to do his own thing out there and how Maurice hasn't really taken any sort of action to reign him in? There was a fair bit of discussion last season about how unfair it seemd that young guys were getting their ice time cut for making mistakes while Buff continued to roam around getting 29 minutes a game. Sitting him has nothing to do with Myers or Kulikov. It's about sending a pretty significant and specific message. The implication would be that there might be an issue with Buff's "commitment to the plan" as laid out by Maurice...

Yeah, I understand the premise. Why exactly would they do it now? What specifically has Buff done that he would be the one they'd healthy scratch? Name one thing that points to this being true?

Is he the new Evander Kane?

 

[Whileee]

Yeah, I understand the premise. Why exactly would they do it now? What specifically has Buff done that he would be the one they'd healthy scratch? Name one thing that points to this being true?

Is he the new Evander Kane?

I think reports that Buff is being "healthy scratched" are completely bogus. He had a few casual moments in the first couple of games, but I didn't think he was much worse than most of the D.

What I meant was that over the years I think that the Jets have found something lacking in Buff's defensive play and they have tried to deal with it in various ways. Remember, both Noel and Maurice actually had Buff playing on the wing. That was misguided, in my view, but must indicate that they have serious concerns about how much he gives up defensively, because they can't really complain about his offensive production from D. I think that they move LD around a fair bit in an attempt to find a suitable partner for Buff. Of course, this is all unscientific conjecture on my part...

 

[SensibleGuy]

Yeah, I understand the premise. Why exactly would they do it now? What specifically has Buff done that he would be the one they'd healthy scratch? Name one thing that points to this being true?

Is he the new Evander Kane?

There isn't any one thing that proves it to be true. I already said that. It's conjecture...but I'm a bit of a "smoke there's fire" kind of guy. After the first two games, there was quite a bit of discussion about how poorly Buff had played so far and let's face it, panic was setting in both here and inside the organization. I just think maybe the decision was made to send a strong message.

 

[Whileee]

So they took out Buff and not Myers or Kulikov who are significantly weaker players. Yeah, no, not buying it at all.

I agree. I think Buff's injured, so they took him out of the line-up.

Sheesh, the fans and media are really twitchy this season.

#panictogether

 

[pucka lucka]

My main conjecture is that NHL defensemen vary in terms of their performance in limiting high danger scoring chances. Do you disagree with that? What evidence would you require to convince you?

Others who have spent considerable time analyzing this issue have come to the conclusion that players vary in terms of their impact on goals against. You can look up "DXPM", if you like. Here's a brief explanation... " The model looks at a player’s impact on expected goals against, a shot metric containing both shot quantity and quality aspects..."

There is plenty of evidence suggesting that higher danger scoring chances are associated with lower save percentage. You can look up the evidence for that yourself, if you are skeptical.

I stand by my critique of the methodology used for assessing the extent to which players affect save percentage.

I'll admit that it's conjecture with respect to how the Jets assess Buff, but I have heard Maurice directly talk about the Jets tracking scoring chances. I think every NHL team does that, and a quick Google search will turn up several articles wherein NHL coaches talk about it.

Your critique? Have you published something? I am quite sure nothing you posted here is a response to my post. If you want to critique professionals public work, show your work. Posting a random table with your opinions is meaningless. Show your work.

"I am pretty sure the earth is flat." (shows picture of earth looking pretty flat)

 

[pucka lucka]

There isn't any one thing that proves it to be true. I already said that. It's conjecture...but I'm a bit of a "smoke there's fire" kind of guy. After the first two games, there was quite a bit of discussion about how poorly Buff had played so far and let's face it, panic was setting in both here and inside the organization. I just think maybe the decision was made to send a strong message.

Where is the smoke though? We have been the ones freaking out, not the Jets (see Chevy and PoMo extensions).

 

[SensibleGuy]

Where is the smoke though? We have been the ones freaking out, not the Jets (see Chevy and PoMo extensions).

lol, after the first two games if you don't think Maurice was feeling some heat I don't know what to say.

It looks like Buff isn't on the ice again today. I don't know. Makes sense if it's a LBI. Otoh, if it's a LBI that will keep him out several games, should he really be out fishing (and especially posting pics of it?) I mean even in the comments of that pic post people are making cracks about the lower body injury...