Yeah, I understand variance will never be gone, but if an 82 game sample size isn't enough for the convergence to the average, then the whole idea of correlation is a nonfactor in hockey, with teams changing on a yearly basis. True, variance will likely have less of an e effect over 82 games, but if teams like STL and NJD last year were out of the playoffs despite statistics suggesting they should be in, then correlation shouldn't be regarded as a predictor.
No but that would be an interesting dynamic to this ranking. Find what the combined Fenwick Tied rating is for your opposition. It would be very helpful after 10 20 or 30 game intervals.Do you have an opponent-adjusted Fenwick Tied? Seems like teams wouldn't tend to be tied for equal amounts of time against teams of all skill levels.
With the 0.928 even-strength SV% and 8% even-strength SH% the Rangers managed last season, they would currently be being outscored 2.24-1.90 per sixty minutes of even-strength hockey instead of outscoring teams 2.5-2.0 as they are right now.
I suggest you read the blog article I posted back on the second page. I know 20 games probably is too early to tell if the Rangers will change but it's still interesting to read.This is going to be my last post to you because you continue to cherry pick what you like.
Yet again, you pick our shot percentage from last year and our shots/game from this year. At least be friggen consistent. Why not take our shot percentage from this year and our shots/game from last year? We'd be a team full of Crosbys.
If that's the case, he can feel free to show the stats on it. It's not like it's a new concern, but none of the random blogs that the "hockey Sabremetrics" types like to use as "proof" ever seem to post any of the important parts of the statistics.
The larger point that's being missed is that he's gone off the deep end in regards to conclusions based upon a single, low correlation stat which hasn't even been established to fall within an extremely generous α value.
This is going to be my last post to you because you continue to cherry pick what you like.
Yet again, you pick our shot percentage from last year and our shots/game from this year. At least be friggen consistent. Why not take our shot percentage from this year and our shots/game from last year? We'd be a team full of Crosbys.
No one's claiming possession metrics can perfectly predict the future or are even 100% accurate measures of a team's talent. Just that it's been shown that shooting percentage (which turns a shot into a goal) is not something that remains consistent from season to season among teams, indicating that it isn't an actual talent or even something teams are capable of significantly influencing. Shot differential is the complete opposite. So why judge a team based on goal-based metrics (including standings points) over a small sample size when they've been proven to be driven primarily by luck?
I'm not cherry-picking. A 20-game sample size is far too small to conclude that the Rangers' shooting or save percentage in that span is a factor of their true talent. So is an 82-game sample size but it at least provides a better approximation of what New York will likely end up with at the end of the year than their SV% and SH% now.
I suggest you read the blog article I posted back on the second page. I know 20 games probably is too early to tell if the Rangers will change but it's still interesting to read.
Except (as was repeatedly pointed out the last time this whole discussion hashed up) shooting % has a significant correlation (almost perfectly correcting for Corsi's inaccuracies) with winning %.
Regardless, you're making a pretty painful false dichotomy. I never brought up shooting %. If you're really stretching things, you could argue that I was relying upon shooting % against, but you haven't done anything to debunk that stat. The point is, you picked one stat that you determined was the be all end all of stats. One team under Payne for a single season was "good" at that stat, so obviously he's the best coach in the history of the NHL right?
Oh but I thought previous year SH% wasn't predictive of current year SH%.
This is why claims about the Rangers shot percentage really tick me off. This year has been so frustrating in that we're missing the net way more than we did last year. They're not necessarily high scoring chance shots, but they're shots nonetheless. It's these things (in a 17 game sample size) that make us seem we're shooting more accurately, but less. We're not. A few of those shots hit a goalie's pads and our shot percentage is where it should be and the same with shots/game.
I agree, which is why I say playoffs are luck. You are relying on an unpredictable stat (sh% and sv%) to determine the series.When you get to the playoffs, you face off in a best of seven series. There's going to be games during the regular season where teams play better than they are and worse than they are. How often exactly do you see teams scoring at their average, shooting at their averages, making saves at their averages? Winning in sports means a few things clicking at the right time, the wind blowing your way.
Fenwick% includes missed shots.
Yes, but you keep saying we're bottom of the league in terms of shots/game. That doesn't include missed shots.
Whatever, I'm done here.
Yes, but you keep saying we're bottom of the league in terms of shots/game. That doesn't include missed shots.
Whatever, I'm done here.
Of course SH% has a high correlation with winning. You win games by scoring goals. But as has been pointed out in the blog post I linked you to as well as in many other places, SH% isn't something teams can significantly control whereas shot differential absolutely is. There has been a year-to-year correlation of basically 0 for team shooting percentage over the last four years, but a year-to-year correlation of 0.498 for shot differential. Which one do you think is truly indicative of a team's ability?
Cool hyperbole bro. Never said Payne was the greatest coach in history but it's obvious that he was sacrificed as a result of a below-average ES SV% which, as I've linked you to articles that show, wasn't possibly in his control. You didn't bring up shooting percentage, you brought up standings points. Standings points are achieved through goal differential. Goal differential is a factor of shot differential and shooting percentage.
You still haven't addressed anything.
You've provided absolutely no evidence that Payne's dismissal was in any way related to, well, anything. You've now finally made a completely unsupported claim that it was a result of a poor ES SV% (which we've already established is often significantly linked to coaching), but prior to this last post your argument rested solely upon the claim that Payne's team (for an insignificant sample of 82 games) had a good Fenwick. That's not an argument, and it's an insult to everyone on these boards that you think you can try get away with that.
82 games isn't sufficient sample size to correlate Fenwick to goal scoring, well duh. It is impossible to predict scoring rates seeing that sh% is completely unpredictable. Once your sample size is 1000 games or so sh% is taken out of the equation Fenwick correlates positively with goal scoring.You still haven't addressed anything.
You've provided absolutely no evidence that Payne's dismissal was in any way related to, well, anything. You've now finally made a completely unsupported claim that it was a result of a poor ES SV% (which we've already established is often significantly linked to coaching), but prior to this last post your argument rested solely upon the claim that Payne's team (for an insignificant sample of 82 games) had a good Fenwick. That's not an argument, and it's an insult to everyone on these boards that you think you can try get away with that.
1.So I present you with a numerical, reality-based look at the fact that the Rangers do not get more "high quality" chances than the other team and you refute it...based on zero evidence.
2.Yes, they're winning the games. Because their shooting percentage is currently at a ridiculous rate that no team has sustained over the course of a season the last four years
3.and Lundqvist is stopping pucks at a rate that no non-Thomas goalie has come close to in that span.
.
Those underlying numbers are terrific and they were phenomenal last season at even strength as well (10th in the league in score-tied Fenwick). A lot of that can presumably be attributed to Payne since they were a fairly mediocre possession team in 09-10. I understand they've had their troubles with special teams but the biggest reason the Blues failed to qualify for the postseason last year, and were out of the playoff picture when Payne was fired this year, was bad luck. They received awful goaltending last season and were a 993 PDO team. Variance working against them to that degree doesn't tend to persist over a larger sample size and we're seeing that now with the Blues winning games on a regular basis. Payne was essentially sacrificed due to a low even-strength SV% that he had no control over despite the fact that team in reality was playing extremely well.
It's not translating to success for the Blues at all.
Let me break down all the things wrong in your argument.
1. You were talking about scoring chances, not high quality scoring chances. Huge difference. The other teams get more scoring chances, but we move the puck efficiently, to get mostly high quality scoring chances.
2. As I said in my previous statement. We're taking less useless shots, and preparing high quality chances. In that case, it's not so outlandish.
3. Yet he's only 7th, with almost the same percentage as Thomas and Rinne, while having 3 starters ahead of him. What makes you think that only Tim Thomas can get such numbers?