Power play metrics

[overpass]

Why look at goals when shots for is better at prdicting future rates. The best stat one can look at is sh/60. The best PP teams are often near the top. The same goes for on the PK.

This site has a long long way to go before it is comparable to any of the true Saber sites. Some of these topics are nhl.com stat worthy.

Shots for are a better predictor than goals for over a small sample where there may be too much randomness in the goals stat. At some larger sample size goals for become a better predictor because it captures the shooting skill of the team.

It depends on what you want to look at. If you want to evaluate your team's power play after 5 games by using only stats and without watching the games, shots for are certainly the best tool.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Shots for are a better predictor than goals for over a small sample where there may be too much randomness in the goals stat. At some larger sample size goals for become a better predictor because it captures the shooting skill of the team.

It depends on what you want to look at. If you want to evaluate your team's power play after 5 games by using only stats and without watching the games, shots for are certainly the best tool.

While PP there is slightly more shooting skill than 5 on 5, there is still a massive amount of luck. In the long run there there really is no skill to sh% in any situation.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

I guess the last two weeks have been a failure, then - let's shut down the site.

No, the members are where it is failing. Incorrect topics are being discussed and agreed upon.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

No, the members are where it is failing. Incorrect topics are being discussed and agreed upon.

The site *is* the members. I'd respectfully suggest that you follow stickied rule #2:

"Be patient, and trust others' motives. What's basic to you may not be basic to me, and we're all in this together. Be helpful. Take opportunities to learn, and take opportunities to teach."

Thanks.

 

[overpass]

While PP there is slightly more shooting skill than 5 on 5, there is still a massive amount of luck. In the long run there there really is no skill to sh% in any situation.

Tell that to Mario Lemieux. Or Steven Stamkos. There is some amount of skill in any competitive human endeavor.

If your idea of advanced contributions is to say "in the long run there is really no skill to sh%", I can only assume you're reading the wrong people or you are misunderstanding what you read. You obviously haven't looked at the numbers yourself.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Tell that to Mario Lemieux. Or Steven Stamkos. There is some amount of skill in any competitive human endeavor.

If your idea of advanced contributions is to say "in the long run there is really no skill to sh%", I can only assume you're reading the wrong people or you are misunderstanding what you read. You obviously haven't looked at the numbers yourself.

I totally agree.

This is what one might call the "PDO effect". Stats are dangerous if you blindly accept them and have no idea how to evaluate them.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Tell that to Mario Lemieux. Or Steven Stamkos. There is some amount of skill in any competitive human endeavor.

If your idea of advanced contributions is to say "in the long run there is really no skill to sh%", I can only assume you're reading the wrong people or you are misunderstanding what you read. You obviously haven't looked at the numbers yourself.

Tampa Bay had an on ice sh% of 12.8...only good for 11th in the NHL. The top ten teams are :

1.) Nashville
2.) Edmonton
3.) New York Islanders
4.) Toronto
5.) Atlanta
6.) Philly
7.) Boston
8.) Calgary
9.) Ottawa
10.) Florida

Your theory of superhuman skill is thrown out the window.

 

[overpass]

Why aren't you advocating for your favourite team to sign Scott Gomez? He'll score 20+ goals with an average forward's shooting percentage!

 

[overpass]

BTW, Gabriel Desjardins doesn't actually believe that shooting percentage talent doesn't exist. See, for example, this post.

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2012...hing-talent-between-1st-and-4th-line-forwards

It's just that he chooses to focus on the randomness of shooting percentage in the short run, and some people take that to mean that no skill exists for shooting percentage.

 

[FissionFire]

I've always thought that the best way to measure PP strength was in a PP minutes per goal metric. This better measures efficiency and evens out the PP disparity problem the current numbers can hide. A team who gets 5 PPs a game but needs an average of 11:32 of PP time for a goal doesn't really have a "better" PP than a team who averages 3 PPs a game but only needs 7:48 of PP per goal.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Why aren't you advocating for your favourite team to sign Scott Gomez? He'll score 20+ goals with an average forward's shooting percentage!

Gomez has below replacement level shooting. At the individual level there is skill but as a unit on the ice it is minimal. His on ice sh% in the previous 3 seasons was 7.46% which is just below average for an NHL player. I would sign Gomez, however, he still drives play and had a ridiculously unlucky season with Montreal.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

BTW, Gabriel Desjardins doesn't actually believe that shooting percentage talent doesn't exist. See, for example, this post.

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2012...hing-talent-between-1st-and-4th-line-forwards

It's just that he chooses to focus on the randomness of shooting percentage in the short run, and some people take that to mean that no skill exists for shooting percentage.

I believe there is skill in shooting %, just very minimal and mostly at the individual level. Sure there are outliers like Hemsky who seems to have a high onice sh% over his career but there are outliers with any stat.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I've always thought that the best way to measure PP strength was in a PP minutes per goal metric. This better measures efficiency and evens out the PP disparity problem the current numbers can hide. A team who gets 5 PPs a game but needs an average of 11:32 of PP time for a goal doesn't really have a "better" PP than a team who averages 3 PPs a game but only needs 7:48 of PP per goal.

I think either PPG/PPO (PP goals/power plays) or PPG/min. would be the best. I see what you're saying, except that some teams may put their lesser PP unit out first, and some may put their best unit out there for close to the whole 2 minutes. Such scenarios would distort PPG/min. Even if they didn't do either of those, the goal is to score one goal on the PP, not do so the fastest.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

SH/60 minutes
1.) San Jose
2.) Pittsburgh
3.) Vancouver
4.) Columbus
5.) Anaheim
6.) Colorado
7.) Buffalo
8.) Philadelphia
9.) St Louis
10.) Carolina

SH%
1.) Nashville
2.) Edmonton
3.) New York Islanders
4.) Toronto
5.) Winnipeg
6.) Philadelphia
7.) Boston
8.) Calgary
9.) Ottawa
10.) Florida

Even with Lidstrom retiring I can tell you which list I believe will have the better PP's moving forward.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

SH/60 minutes
1.) San Jose
2.) Pittsburgh
3.) Vancouver
4.) Columbus
5.) Anaheim
6.) Colorado
7.) Buffalo
8.) Philadelphia
9.) St Louis
10.) Carolina

SH%
1.) Nashville
2.) Edmonton
3.) New York Islanders
4.) Toronto
5.) Winnipeg
6.) Philadelphia
7.) Boston
8.) Calgary
9.) Ottawa
10.) Florida

Even with Lidstrom retiring I can tell you which list I believe will have the better PP's moving forward.

I don't think anyone would disagree that SH/60 is a better predictor than SH. But why use either when you can use goals? Or better yet, GF/GA?

 

[Czech Your Math]

SH/60 minutes
1.) San Jose
2.) Pittsburgh
3.) Vancouver
4.) Columbus
5.) Anaheim
6.) Colorado
7.) Buffalo
8.) Philadelphia
9.) St Louis
10.) Carolina

SH%
1.) Nashville
2.) Edmonton
3.) New York Islanders
4.) Toronto
5.) Winnipeg
6.) Philadelphia
7.) Boston
8.) Calgary
9.) Ottawa
10.) Florida

Even with Lidstrom retiring I can tell you which list I believe will have the better PP's moving forward.

Detroit is on neither list.

I'd go with this list:

Nash
SJ
Edm
Van
Pitt
Philly

 

[overpass]

SH/60 minutes
1.) San Jose
2.) Pittsburgh
3.) Vancouver
4.) Columbus
5.) Anaheim
6.) Colorado
7.) Buffalo
8.) Philadelphia
9.) St Louis
10.) Carolina

SH%
1.) Nashville
2.) Edmonton
3.) New York Islanders
4.) Toronto
5.) Winnipeg
6.) Philadelphia
7.) Boston
8.) Calgary
9.) Ottawa
10.) Florida

Even with Lidstrom retiring I can tell you which list I believe will have the better PP's moving forward.

Nobody is proposing using SH% alone to rank power play success. Why not include G/60 minutes in your list?

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Nobody is proposing using SH% alone to rank power play success. Why not include G/60 minutes in your list?

I don't have that stat in front of me, 20 games into the season you put G/60 up against sh/60 and I'm pretty sure what list I believe will have the better PP. This is all about projecting future results.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Detroit is on neither list.

I'd go with this list:

Nash
SJ
Edm
Van
Pitt
Philly

That's opinion and has very little to do with stats. The only thing Edmonton has going for them is progression because nothing about their PP was good last year other then unsustainable sh%'s.

During the 2010-11 season Chicago had a 16.6 sh%. Good for 2nd in that category. Chicago had the 4th best PP in the NHL.

During the 2011-12 season Chicago had a 10.6 sh%. Good for 27th in that category. Chicago had the 26th best PP in the NHL.

What does this tell me? With the same players on the PP minus Seabrook Chicago's sh% moved from 2nd to 27th from year to year.

 

[overpass]

This is all about projecting future results.

Surely projecting future results 20 games into the season is not the only goal of measuring power play success. What if we want a metric that is accurate over a longer time period?

 

[Czech Your Math]

That's opinion and has very little to do with stats. The only thing Edmonton has going for them is progression because nothing about their PP was good last year other then unsustainable sh%'s.

Has nothing to do with stats? They scored goals the highest % of times per PP opportunity.

Here's list of goals per min. 5v4:

NASH
SJ
EDM
VAN
NYI
PITT
PHI
COL
CGY
FLA

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Surely projecting future results 20 games into the season is not the only goal of measuring power play success. What if we want a metric that is accurate over a longer time period?

I'm not sure what you mean? From season to season? Different PP combinations, often different coaches and progression make that a little more difficult to gauge with math.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Has nothing to do with stats? They scored goals the highest % of times per PP opportunity.

Here's list of goals per min. 5v4:

NASH
SJ
EDM
VAN
NYI
PITT
PHI
COL
CGY
FLA

So that nearly 17% sh% had nothing to do with that? I think you seem to be ignoring sustainability. There are two parts to that ranking, shots/60 and sh%. Which of those factors do you believe is a better gauge for future events?

 

[Czech Your Math]

So that nearly 17% sh% had nothing to do with that? I think you seem to be ignoring sustainability. There are two parts to that ranking, shots/60 and sh%. Which of those factors do you believe is a better gauge for future events?

I haven't studied it, but looking at last year, SH% appears to be a better indicator of success than SH/60 on the PP.

Which of the two is more sustainable? I honestly don't know, but I doubt you do either.

 

[Talks to Goalposts]

While PP there is slightly more shooting skill than 5 on 5, there is still a massive amount of luck. In the long run there there really is no skill to sh% in any situation.

I wouldn't say no skill, but relatively little and hard measure due to randomness. For example Andrei Markov's PP on ice shooting percentage over the last 5 years is 16.17% when the next highest for a big minute PP defensemen is 14.83%, the next best major teammate is at 13.83% and typical is around 12.5%. I'm pretty confidant that's reflective of a personal skill.

That said, 16% is probably the modern limit for sustainablity of on-ice PP shooting%. If a team is above that on the year like Edmonton was, there's a good chance they're going to fall.