Oilers analytic/advanced stat thread

[Aceboogie]

I thought id create a thread to discuss advanced stats of the Oilers as team and individual players. If you are not a believer in analytics that is all good but please refrain from throwing the thread off topic with any jabs or grand standing against analytics. I think this will be a great way to keep that discussion here, rather than pollute other threads with it. If people want to read it they can.

Also if you have any questions on analytics feel free to ask and discuss.

Click to read more...

 

[Aceboogie]

Ill start it off with some discussion on players:

Ryan Nugent Hopkins

RNh ranks 11th in the NHL for ES shots. More than McDavid, more than Ovy, more than Seguin.

His shooting % is at his career worst, as is his PDO. Consider this, Grabner has a 24% shooting % and RNH 3.57% (lowest in the NHL for forwards over 50 shots). Grabner has 12 ES goals to RNHs 2. RNH gets away more dangerous shots too. Mostly due to puck luck Grabner is being hyped as this years suprise player.

In fact, there is a model which predicts expected goals for based on number of shots and quality of shots * a normal shooting %. RNHs expected goals for at 5x5 is 5 goals (5.42). You can calculate the difference between actual goals for and expected goals for and RNH has the second largest gap between the 2 for active forwards.

Right now, RNH is statsically one of unluckiest forwards in the NHL. His shooting % is prior years has been 8.11, 13.87 (could have 10 goals with that shooting %), 9.65,3.45,14%(!)

 

[Aceboogie]

Matt Benning

But Benning right now is one of the best possession D in the NHL. Here is where he ranks amongst regular D in different areas:

CF%: 2nd in NHL
FF%: 6th in NHL
SF%: 14th in NHL
GF%: 9th in NHL
SCF%: 1st in NHL
HDCF%: 5th in NHL
Playing really easy minutes by analytics are Muzzin-esque

 

[Aceboogie]

The team

The Oilers ranked 6th in the league for score adjusted possession (proven to be best predictor for future success)

They rank around 9-13 in most other areas

McDavid

Ranks #1 in league for ES points, leading by a whooping 5 points

 

[LaGu]

RNH/EBS/MAROON are 3rd in the league as a line (>50 mins together) in 5v5 score-adjusted CF%.

That's good right?

I didn't bother finding out what score-adjusted means though...

 

[Paralyzer008]

Kris Russell:

1st in Oilers 5v5 for time of possession per game at 1:27 (per Mike Kelly)

At 45.54% Corsi, he's -7.1% below the average of the rest of the team and is clearly in last place among Oiler D. In fact, the next worst is Adam Larsson, who is above 50% and only about -1.8% below the average.

So, the puck is on Kris Russell's stick a lot but the Oilers are getting outshot at a heavy rate on average when he's on the ice.

Russell's Corsi split last year? 44.8% Corsi, -4.75% below average from the rest of the team.

Last year, Russell's PDO was at 100.5, 47.7% GF, goalies had an average of .903% save percentage when Russell was on ice.
This year, Russell's PDO is at 104.1, 62.5% GF, goalies have an average of .949% save percentage when Russell is on the ice.

 

[Cawz]

McDavid

Ranks #1 in league for ES points, leading by a whooping 5 points

Whoop whoop!!

 

[LaGu]

Ill start it off with some discussion on players:

Ryan Nugent Hopkins

RNh ranks 11th in the NHL for ES shots. More than McDavid, more than Ovy, more than Seguin.

His shooting % is at his career worst, as is his PDO. Consider this, Grabner has a 24% shooting % and RNH 3.57% (lowest in the NHL for forwards over 50 shots). Grabner has 12 ES goals to RNHs 2. RNH gets away more dangerous shots too. Mostly due to puck luck Grabner is being hyped as this years suprise player.

In fact, there is a model which predicts expected goals for based on number of shots and quality of shots * a normal shooting %. RNHs expected goals for at 5x5 is 5 goals (5.42). You can calculate the difference between actual goals for and expected goals for and RNH has the second largest gap between the 2 for active forwards.

Right now, RNH is statsically one of unluckiest forwards in the NHL. His shooting % is prior years has been 8.11, 13.87 (could have 10 goals with that shooting %), 9.65,3.45,14%(!)

HockeyAnalysis has McD and RNH on 57 each!

Anyway, less than Arivdsson, less than Kadri .... He can do better.

I would say that it is probably too soon for real conclusions though. The sample size for adv.stats. seems small and there are several outliers in the lists.

 

[Aceboogie]

Kris Russell:

1st in Oilers 5v5 for time of possession per game at 1:27 (per Mike Kelly)

I think some people were questioning this a bit as Russell tends to take the puck behind the net and wait for changes. That can be upwards of 20 secs each time. Although noting has been proven either way

At 45.54% Corsi, he's -7.1% below the average of the rest of the team and is clearly in last place among Oiler D. In fact, the next worst is Adam Larsson, who is above 50% and only about -1.8% below the average.

So, the puck is on Kris Russell's stick a lot but the Oilers are getting outshot at a heavy rate on average when he's on the ice.

Russell's Corsi split last year? 44.8% Corsi, -4.75% below average from the rest of the team.

Last year, Russell's PDO was at 100.5, 47.7% GF, goalies had an average of .903% save percentage when Russell was on ice.
This year, Russell's PDO is at 104.1, 62.5% GF, goalies have an average of .949% save percentage when Russell is on the ice.

Not to turn this into strickly a Russell thread but I think alot can be said about Russell. Right now he is second in the league for on ice save%- the leaders in this last couple years have all been pretty bad D who had lucky years. Russell was almost dead last in this area last year to boot. So for him, the puck isnt going in at all (he has like a 0.940 sv% on ice) even tho a bunch of high quality shots get through

Larsson and Klefbom on the other hand have a putrid 0.900 on ice sv%. Klefbom last year had a 0.95 on ice sv%, Larsson was 0.94 sv%. Both have really low PDOs as well.

 

[Aceboogie]

HockeyAnalysis has McD and RNH on 57 each.

Anyway, less than Arivdsson, less than Kadri .... He can do better.

I would say that it is probably too soon for real conclusions though. The sample size for adv.stats. seems small and there are several outliers in the lists.

I made that post before last game. 57 shots is still outstanding. Ranks 12th in the league for all players. He ranks top 20 in league for reg players for shots/60 at 9.89. For reference Halls best ever shot rate here was 10.89 shots/60

 

[Aceboogie]

RNH/EBS/MAROON are 3rd in the league as a line (>50 mins together) in 5v5 score-adjusted CF%.

That's good right?

I didn't bother finding out what score-adjusted means though...

whats the shots were when the score was within 1 goal (+1, tied, -1). When a team is winning by 2 or more the coach tends to deploy a defensive system in which they give up more shots trying to protect lead as they disengage on the forecheck. Teams down by 2 also start sacrificing D for shots. Basically they play different then they would under close circumstances which is more indicative of actual quality of play

 

[LaGu]

Not to turn this into strickly a Russell thread but I think alot can be said about Russell. Right now he is second in the league for on ice save%- the leaders in this last couple years have all been pretty bad D who had lucky years. Russell was almost dead last in this area last year to boot. So for him, the puck isnt going in at all (he has like a 0.940 sv% on ice) even tho a bunch of high quality shots get through

Larsson and Klefbom on the other hand have a putrid 0.900 on ice sv%. Klefbom last year had a 0.95 on ice sv%, Larsson was 0.94 sv%. Both have really low PDOs as well.

To be fair, or maybe honest is a better word, the low sv% of klef/lars could to an extent be explained by some of their individual mistakes in taking out the man / pass ... I know I have been on about this before but Larsson has many more individual errors than he did in previous seasons. That will start changing though and then those numbers will probably turn around a bit.

 

[LaGu]

whats the shots were when the score was within 1 goal (+1, tied, -1). When a team is winning by 2 or more the coach tends to deploy a defensive system in which they give up more shots trying to protect lead as they disengage on the forecheck. Teams down by 2 also start sacrificing D for shots. Basically they play different then they would under close circumstances which is more indicative of actual quality of play

Cheers!

Then it is good, better than expected.

I still have a slight problem with RNH due to the eye test, but that is not for this thead

 

[Aceboogie]

To be fair, or maybe honest is a better word, the low sv% of klef/lars could to an extent be explained by some of their individual mistakes in taking out the man / pass ... I know I have been on about this before but Larsson has many more individual errors than he did in previous seasons. That will start changing though and then those numbers will probably turn around a bit.

I am personally not a believer in that. On ice save % (like on ice shooting %) varies too much for players from year to year to reasonably say their individual play had an major impact. Norris caliber D have had really bad on ice sv% and bottom pairing/AHL caliber D have had very high on ice sv%

I believe that on ice shooting % and on ice sv % is mostly blind luck as weird as it is to say. I think we as fans feel more comfortable if we can explain the occurances. But Ive gotten to a point where I am ok saying its just luck thats hard to explain. Hockey is full of bounces and sometimes players have all the bounces go for them

Theres been some really good stuff on On Ice percantages that have taken a way more indepth look at this than I ever could: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/your-guide-to-nhl-on-ice-percentages/

the common-sense approach might assume there has to be a large skill component involved. A bad defensive player gives up breakaways and odd-man rushes and leaves men open in the defensive zone. Meanwhile, the Zdeno Charas of the world force everything to the outside and make opponents settle for low-percentage chances.

But unlike on-ice shooting, there doesn’t seem to be much consistency across players when we look at on-ice save percentage. While the on-ice shooting leaderboard features plenty of offensive stars, the top players in on-ice save percentage are a mishmash of grinders, first-liners, two-way guys, and enforcers. When Teemu Selanne is close to Brian McGrattan, something weird is going on.

In fact, when you stretch the view out over several years, it starts to look almost random, especially among forwards. (Defensemen are a little more predictable, but not by much.) There seems to be an awful lot of luck involved here.

And that’s a pretty important piece of information to know, because though on-ice save percentage doesn’t directly affect a player’s goals and assists, it can certainly affect his plus/minus. (I’ll pause here to remind you that plus/minus is an awful stat that should almost always be avoided entirely, partly for this exact reason.)

And perhaps more importantly, it can affect how the player is perceived by the “just watch the games” crowd. A player who benefits from a great on-ice save percentage never seems to get scored on, while a player with a low percentage always seems to be skating to the bench with his head down while a goal horn blasts.

 

[Aceboogie]

Cheers!

Then it is good, better than expected.

I still have a slight problem with RNH due to the eye test, but that is not for this thead

No problem. I still have a personal theory that people are really influenced by on ice shooting % (and personal shooting %) and on ice sv %. Just from reading stuff on HF and post game analysis.

A lot of times I find that if a player scores a goal they get glowing reviews regardless of actual play, or people just remember the good plays. And if a player DOESNT score, they almost always get negative to average reviews regardless of all the chances they created . So 2 players can have similar games but 1 guy gets a lucky bounce off a shin pad from a shot they randomly thru on net and they get praise. While another guy creates a chance himself that goes of post and out and hell get mixed reviews even though he had a good game. Had things been reversed the reviews would be as well. Same goes for defenseman and save %- 2 d can make a mistake in their end but if the puck takes an unlucky bounce and ends up in the net, 1 of the D is crucified and fans forget about the give away that didnt result in a game, even if likelihood of a goal was the same in both turnovers

Just a theory of mine but I do think it explains a lot of player evlautions. If they guy is scoring they get praise almost universally and if they arent scoring they get opposite treatement. I get that goals win games but a lot of the goals have luck influences. I think its just human nature and I too fall for it.

 

[MessierII]

No problem. I still have a personal theory that people are really influenced by on ice shooting % (and personal shooting %) and on ice sv %. Just from reading stuff on HF and post game analysis.

A lot of times I find that if a player scores a goal they get glowing reviews regardless of actual play, or people just remember the good plays. And if a player DOESNT score, they almost always get negative to average reviews regardless of all the chances they created . So 2 players can have similar games but 1 guy gets a lucky bounce off a shin pad from a shot they randomly thru on net and they get praise. While another guy creates a chance himself that goes of post and out and hell get mixed reviews even though he had a good game. Had things been reversed the reviews would be as well. Same goes for defenseman and save %- 2 d can make a mistake in their end but if the puck takes an unlucky bounce and ends up in the net, 1 of the D is crucified and fans forget about the give away that didnt result in a game, even if likelihood of a goal was the same in both turnovers

Just a theory of mine but I do think it explains a lot of player evlautions. If they guy is scoring they get praise almost universally and if they arent scoring they get opposite treatement. I get that goals win games but a lot of the goals have luck influences. I think its just human nature and I too fall for it.

You make your own luck at least to an extent. I wish analytics was around to tell me Ryan Smyth was the luckiest player ever every single year throughout his career.

 

[Aceboogie]

You make your own luck at least to an extent. I wish analytics was around to tell me Ryan Smyth was the luckiest player ever every single year throughout his career.

I don't know how to take this. Smyth worked his butt off yes but he had very sustainable stats in the years they are available (from 2007 on). Smyth was also not devoid of skill, he was drafted top 10.

Hornquivst is almost same player and has some sustainable stats as well.

But almost everyone in the NHL tries as hard. Save for some lazy guys

 

[Spawn]

No problem. I still have a personal theory that people are really influenced by on ice shooting % (and personal shooting %) and on ice sv %. Just from reading stuff on HF and post game analysis.

A lot of times I find that if a player scores a goal they get glowing reviews regardless of actual play, or people just remember the good plays. And if a player DOESNT score, they almost always get negative to average reviews regardless of all the chances they created . So 2 players can have similar games but 1 guy gets a lucky bounce off a shin pad from a shot they randomly thru on net and they get praise. While another guy creates a chance himself that goes of post and out and hell get mixed reviews even though he had a good game. Had things been reversed the reviews would be as well. Same goes for defenseman and save %- 2 d can make a mistake in their end but if the puck takes an unlucky bounce and ends up in the net, 1 of the D is crucified and fans forget about the give away that didnt result in a game, even if likelihood of a goal was the same in both turnovers

Just a theory of mine but I do think it explains a lot of player evlautions. If they guy is scoring they get praise almost universally and if they arent scoring they get opposite treatement. I get that goals win games but a lot of the goals have luck influences. I think its just human nature and I too fall for it.

A player paid to produce is producing and gets praised. A player paid to produce isn't producing and gets criticized. What a shocker. That's not "human nature." That's how the hockey world works.

We've now found the newest excuse for Nuge. He's just unlucky.

 

[MessierII]

I don't know how to take this. Smyth worked his butt off yes but he had very sustainable stats in the years they are available (from 2007 on). Smyth was also not devoid of skill, he was drafted top 10.

Hornquivst is almost same player and has some sustainable stats as well.

But almost everyone in the NHL tries as hard. Save for some lazy guys

Lets do an experiment

I’m using the 2012-13 season, all players who played at least 30 games, and these are all in 5 on 5 situations. For the record, 509 players meet these criteria.

Below is a chart that highlights where they stand in regards to some of these advanced stats:

Player A Player B
Quality of Competition 0.004 (211th) 0.043 (103rd)
Relative Corsi Quality of Competition 0.221 (285th) 0.665 (154th)
Relative Corsi Quality of Teammates 5.812 (14th) 6.116 (11th)
Relative Corsi 20.3 (12th) 20.6 (9th)
On-ice Corsi 16.10 (20th) 25.4 (5th)
On-ice team Goals Against per 60 minutes 2.25 (275th) 1.48 (480th)
On-ice team save percentage .924 (190th) .943 (46th)

Who's the better player?

 

[Aceboogie]

A player paid to produce is producing and gets praised. A player paid to produce isn't producing and gets criticized. What a shocker. That's not "human nature." That's how the hockey world works.

We've now found the newest excuse for Nuge. He's just unlucky.

Yes, as can be proven by stats. There is a number of unlucky guys this year. Barkov being the other

Last year Kadri was just as unlucky as RNH (using similar stats). Broke out in Jan and scored 17 goals. Now more hyped then ever

If you feel using stats is making excuses for RNH then feel free to avoid this thread. This thread is about using objective data to discuss players

 

[Aceboogie]

Lets do an experiment

I’m using the 2012-13 season, all players who played at least 30 games, and these are all in 5 on 5 situations. For the record, 509 players meet these criteria.

Below is a chart that highlights where they stand in regards to some of these advanced stats:

Player A Player B
Quality of Competition 0.004 (211th) 0.043 (103rd)
Relative Corsi Quality of Competition 0.221 (285th) 0.665 (154th)
Relative Corsi Quality of Teammates 5.812 (14th) 6.116 (11th)
Relative Corsi 20.3 (12th) 20.6 (9th)
On-ice Corsi 16.10 (20th) 25.4 (5th)
On-ice team Goals Against per 60 minutes 2.25 (275th) 1.48 (480th)
On-ice team save percentage .924 (190th) .943 (46th)

Who's the better player?

I'm not sure what are you trying to prove. Ofcourse there is outliers. No argument here. Analytics isn't the only player evaluation tool. If you dont like analytics thats no issue. You just dont have to click into this thread

But to answer your question id probably need to see corsi relative to the team, which is a big indicator. But to save you time: Player B ranked #1 on his team and Player A ranked #1 on his team in CF%, FF%. So yes Seguin and Crosby are still good even if are using blind raw corsi totals to make a point

 

[Spawn]

Yes, as can be proven by stats. There is a number of unlucky guys this year. Barkov being the other

Last year Kadri was just as unlucky as RNH (using similar stats). Broke out in Jan and scored 17 goals. Now more hyped then ever

If you feel using stats is making excuses for RNH then feel free to avoid this thread. This thread is about using objective data to discuss players

You're using objective data (not even good data necessarily) to draw subjective conclusions about how well a player is/isn't playing.

 

[LaGu]

About sv% / sh%, 2007-2016 relative to their teams:
Hedman in the bottom five.
Karlsson dead last.
OEL in the bottom two.
Doughty in the middle.
Subban in the middle.
Weber/Josi in the top.
Pietro in the top.

Bad team = top D has bad sv%. Or at least relatively. That much is maybe obvious.

I have not been looking into these bits of analytics before so I am just playing around. But some results are interesting.


Edit: oh... Keith bottom three on Chicago, Seabrook bottom four... There goes that theory

 

[McDraekke]

You're using objective data (not even good data necessarily) to draw subjective conclusions about how well a player is/isn't playing.

Seriously, just don't post in the thread if you're going to be so negative about it. This is a thread for people who want to discuss the analytics and advanced stats of players, not for people to **** on the OP for creating it.

 

[Spawn]

Seriously, just don't post in the thread if you're going to be so negative about it. This is a thread for people who want to discuss the analytics and advanced stats of players, not for people to **** on the OP for creating it.

I think the OPs use of analytics is faulty and biased.

I'm allowed to say that. You don't like it, feel free to put me on ignore. Neither you nor the OP get to dictate who can/cannot respond to this thread.