the value of even strength goals

[lifeisruff]

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I've heard the local sports talk guys talk about this subject. (one of which is a total blowhard, whose knowledge is only surpassed by his ego)

Anyway, the impression I've gotten is that among the advanced stats crowd, even strength goals are more valuable then power play goals, and that 5 on 5 goals against are more important then power play goals against. Also see this topic (http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=82474541#post82474541)

My question, is why? Especially with power play goals, won't someone who is lethal on the power play be of value in that it will effect how the other team plays. If the other team isn't good on the power play then you can be more aggressive because getting caught is less likely to hurt you? Isn't it often said that your goaltender is your best penalty killer.

I know even 5 on 5 goals and power play goals tend to look differently, but I don't know if they should be valued differently.

Click to read more...

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Anyway, the impression I've gotten is that among the advanced stats crowd, even strength goals are more valuable then power play goals, and that 5 on 5 goals against are more important then power play goals against. Also see this topic (http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=82474541#post82474541)

I'll give you my answer, noting that not only do I not speak for the "advanced stats crowd", I don't believe that the "advanced stats crowd" exists as a monolithic entity.

Power-play goals are worth just as much as even-strength goals.

However, all goals need to be taken in light of how much opportunity (ice time) a player gets, and the relative difficulty of the situations involved. It's easier to score on the power play - if you're chosen by the coach to play on the power play, and if your team gets power plays.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Even Strength Goals

Even strength goals(for and against) represent a team's/player's ability to play the game at even strength.

A game of hockey does not come with a guarantee of PP or PK opportunities so the ability to play at even strength is fundamental to the game.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There is certainly a trend by some in the advanced stats community to consider even strength goals more important than power play goals.

The general explanations:

1) playing better at even strength also makes you more likely to go on the power play
2) players who can score at even strength don't depend on the other team screwing up and taking a penalty like those who score on the power play

I'll posit a 3rd: a bit of intellectual laziness mixed with a touch of contrarianism by those making the distinction. Laziness because once you recognize that PP goals should be distinguished from ES goals in an analysis (which they should), it's easier to just ignore the PP goals than to actually do the work. Contrarianism because it allows the person making the point to feel like they know something that people who just look at "hockey card stats" doesn't. Edit: I'm specifically talking about "blowhards" who say things like "ES goals are more important," not "advanced stat" people who focus on even strength. Though there is a human tendency to view what you focus on as more important as it actually is.

For the record, I think there is some merit in making the distinction in extreme cases for the simple reason that a PP specialist won't get as many chances to do his thing in the playoffs.

 

[CarpeNoctem]

Even strength goals(for and against) represent a team's/player's ability to play the game at even strength.

A game of hockey does not come with a guarantee of PP or PK opportunities so the ability to play at even strength is fundamental to the game.

+1. If you really only score on the PP, what are you worth if your team has 1-2 minutes on the PP in a game?

 

[Micklebot]

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I've heard the local sports talk guys talk about this subject. (one of which is a total blowhard, whose knowledge is only surpassed by his ego)

Anyway, the impression I've gotten is that among the advanced stats crowd, even strength goals are more valuable then power play goals, and that 5 on 5 goals against are more important then power play goals against. Also see this topic (http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=82474541#post82474541)

My question, is why? Especially with power play goals, won't someone who is lethal on the power play be of value in that it will effect how the other team plays. If the other team isn't good on the power play then you can be more aggressive because getting caught is less likely to hurt you? Isn't it often said that your goaltender is your best penalty killer.

I know even 5 on 5 goals and power play goals tend to look differently, but I don't know if they should be valued differently.

If I had to choose between 2 players that had identical stats down to the allocation of TOI, but one scored more at ES and the other scored more on the PP, I think I'd lean towards the ES player. The logic being that you always get ES time in a game, but PP time is out of your control. I also feel (though I haven't bothered to check) that PP opportunities diminish in the playoffs thus making the ES player more valuable.

But on the individual game level, a goal is a goal, doesn't matter what situation you get it in.

As for what the adv stats guys favour, I'm not convinced they do as a group. There is certainly a tendency to focus on ES but I think that comes from the fact that there is a larger sample, and thus data tends to be more reliable for predictive purposes. Also, since it makes sense to break down the data into distinct situations (PP, PK, ES, 5v5, ect) why not focus on the largest of them, as it likely has the greatest impact on the outcome.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Add

There is certainly a trend by some in the advanced stats community to consider even strength goals more important than power play goals.

The general explanations:

1) playing better at even strength also makes you more likely to go on the power play
2) players who can score at even strength don't depend on the other team screwing up and taking a penalty like those who score on the power play

I'll posit a 3rd: intellectual laziness mixed with a touch of contrarianism by those making the distinction. Laziness because once you recognize that PP goals should be distinguished from ES goals in an analysis (which they should), it's easier to just ignore the PP goals than to actually do the work. Contrarianism because it allows the person making the point to feel like they know something that people who just look at "hockey card stats" doesn't.

For the record, I think there is some merit in making the distinction in extreme cases for the simple reason that a PP specialist won't get as many chances to do his thing in the playoffs.

Add less likely to have to kill penalties to the bolded.

 

[MadLuke]

Power-play goals are worth just as much as even-strength goals.

Yes an goal prevented are worth just as much as goal too, the value is not what is disputed I imagine. because 1 goal = 1 goal is trivial

It is how much the player scoring them added value (player that prevented a goal that everybody would have prevented, like a goaltender taking a shot in the chest) did not have much value, even thought is prevented goal as the same value as any scored one.

First for some of scored power play goal, a goal would have occurred anyway during the rest of the power play more so than even strength goal, so by default the power play goal stats of a player is not that good, but that factor is maybe so small that you just use it in scenario, two 100 points player, one with more power play points than the others.

Second player value is just relative of what they do that a replacement player would not have been able to do, in that metric, Diaz points on montreal power play because he gave the puck to Markov are obviously not the same value as the penalty killing Greztky goal. But they are not much automatic here, almost none of Subban power play goal would have been scored by an easy to acquire replacement.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Yes an goal prevented are worth just as much as goal too, the value is not what is disputed I imagine. because 1 goal = 1 goal is trivial

You *did* notice that I kept writing after that, right?

 

[MadLuke]

You *did* notice that I kept writing after that, right?

Yes I did read it, I wanted to add that every goal prevented have also the same value that scored one to add to your argument (if people would still think as stupid the notion that ppg could be less valuable for judging player quality than pk/es one).

 

[Fred Taylor]

There is certainly a trend by some in the advanced stats community to consider even strength goals more important than power play goals.

The general explanations:

1) playing better at even strength also makes you more likely to go on the power play
2) players who can score at even strength don't depend on the other team screwing up and taking a penalty like those who score on the power play

I'll posit a 3rd: a bit of intellectual laziness mixed with a touch of contrarianism by those making the distinction. Laziness because once you recognize that PP goals should be distinguished from ES goals in an analysis (which they should), it's easier to just ignore the PP goals than to actually do the work. Contrarianism because it allows the person making the point to feel like they know something that people who just look at "hockey card stats" doesn't. Edit: I'm specifically talking about "blowhards" who say things like "ES goals are more important," not "advanced stat" people who focus on even strength. Though there is a human tendency to view what you focus on as more important as it actually is.

For the record, I think there is some merit in making the distinction in extreme cases for the simple reason that a PP specialist won't get as many chances to do his thing in the playoffs.

But apparently that doesn't seem to be the case from reading the powerplay opportunites in the playoffs thread.

 

[Steerpike]

I was watching an Avs-Jets game in which the Thujjets were were taking a ton of penalties but the Avs were getting decimated by their penalty kill and went 0 for 6 on the power play. Later in the game it seemed like the Jets could take penalties and elbow MacKinnon in the head without really worrying about the Av's ice cold PP.

Could situations like this be a case for PP goals being just as valuable as even strength goals? Another team fearing your PP seems like it should translate to them taking less liberties with your players and holding/hooking/slashing/interfering less, which should lead to more ES success.

Thoughts?

 

[Richi]

To start with a simple determination of how valuable PP-goals are

1 PP goal = 1 ES goal. (Simply put this means that in a game in which one team scores 4 PP goals and the other team 3 ES goals, the team with the 4PP goals wins.)

The value of a good PP for a team:
While it is clear that an effective PP scores a lot of goals during these advantageous situations, it also has an effect on the 5 on 5. The fear of taking a penalty against a team with a good PP has an effect on how most guys play defensively. If the coach warns you about the other teams PP, you're anxious not to take a penalty and so you might (and many players do) don't play as tough in your own end.
However, if the PP of the other team sucks, you might take a chance and make some intimidating plays. So this would be the situation the poster above me talked about.

The value of a PP-specialist:
As an example, we'll take a look at the best PP-scorer in the league (notice that I didn't write player, I don't want to start another Ovy thread!). We notice that he often does exacltly the same thing. Waiting in the high slot on the left side, waiting for the one-timer-possibility. He has a good shot and therefore he most often scores when the pass gets through. This one-trick-pony kind of style has more advantages for the team than most people think.
Someone has to cover him all the time. If he fails, Ovy most likely will score. His position is perfect, because the player that covers him also has part responsibility for the player in front of the net. If this player overcomits to Ovy (like for example Phaneuf did in the last Leafs-Capitals game), the guy in front of the net has a very good chance to score. And if Ovy decides to pass, it comes as a surprise to the opponent.
So a possible conlcusion is that a good PP-specialist can position himself, score, pass and, most importantly, permanently draw the attention of one or more opponents all the time, thus giving the others more room to work with. If you have more than one of these PP-specialists and a decent playmaker, the probability of scoring during these 2 min increases dramatically

 

[soireeculturelle]

seems like there are 2 discussions going on here.

1) are ESG more valuable than PPG at a TEAM level - maybe a little bit, since you cant always bank on PPs and games arent called the same way in the playoffs. but the difference isnt massive. a goal is a goal, more or less.

2) are ES points/goals more valuable than PP points or goals at a PLAYER level - that makes a big difference. a guy who produces at 2.00+ points/60 at 5vs5 would pull in closer to 5.00 or 6.00 at 5vs4. it's best to make the distinction between ES and PP production when determining how good someone is at putting up points.

 

[Steerpike]

seems like there are 2 discussions going on here.

2) are ES points/goals more valuable than PP points or goals at a PLAYER level - that makes a big difference. a guy who produces at 2.00+ points/60 at 5vs5 would pull in closer to 5.00 or 6.00 at 5vs4. it's best to make the distinction between ES and PP production when determining how good someone is at putting up points.

I think this is assuming too much. Going back to the Avs... Landeskog has been a bit of a stinker on the power play. While he is at 2.45 p/60 5v5 he's 3.05 5v4.

If the Avs had a team full of physical power forwards like Landeskog they would probably dominate even strength ice, but the power play emphasizes a somewhat different skill set. It's not like Landeskog is better than another player just because more of his points come 5v5. And the goals all help the team win games by the same amount in the end.

 

[soireeculturelle]

I think this is assuming too much. Going back to the Avs... Landeskog has been a bit of a stinker on the power play. While he is at 2.45 p/60 5v5 he's 3.05 5v4.

If the Avs had a team full of physical power forwards like Landeskog they would probably dominate even strength ice, but the power play emphasizes a somewhat different skill set. It's not like Landeskog is better than another player just because more of his points come 5v5. And the goals all help the team win games by the same amount in the end.

landeskog could be playing below his true potential on the PP. after all, the sample size in 5vs4 is a lot smaller than at 5vs5.

in any case, if you have two forwards who are both 50 point players, except player A has 45 ES points with little PP time, and player B has only 30 ES points with a good amount of PP time, then it would be a mistake to assume both players are equally valuable and would fit the same on a roster.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ppg

PPG for app 21.5% of the total goals. A player scoring a high number of his goals on the PP, well above 21.5% is a potential liability at even strength.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

PPG for app 21.5% of the total goals. A player scoring a high number of his goals on the PP, well above 21.5% is a potential liability at even strength.

Or it could just mean that they're proficient with the man advantage.

To present an extreme example, suppose that we had a defensive and power play specialist, who scored 20 goals, all on the power play. However, the opponent never scored an even-strength goal while he was on the ice.

I wouldn't call him an even strength liability.

On the other hand, there are plenty of actual players who never score on the power play but are even strength liabilities.

 

[Canadiens1958]

One Dimensional

Or it could just mean that they're proficient with the man advantage.

To present an extreme example, suppose that we had a defensive and power play specialist, who scored 20 goals, all on the power play. However, the opponent never scored an even-strength goal while he was on the ice.

I wouldn't call him an even strength liability.

On the other hand, there are plenty of actual players who never score on the power play but are even strength liabilities.

As the talent pool grows there are more opportunities for one dimensional players.

Specifically those that can play effectively within one type of PP - 1-3-1 as opposed to a traditional PP, likewise defensively those that can play at ES supported by certain types of defensemen, etc.

Just a question of recognizing, defining possible benchmarks and criteria.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Could situations like this be a case for PP goals being just as valuable as even strength goals? Another team fearing your PP seems like it should translate to them taking less liberties with your players and holding/hooking/slashing/interfering less, which should lead to more ES success.

We've discussed this quite a bit on the Canes board, since the Canes have consistently been near the top of the league in PP opportunities with a miserable power play unit (this has been going on for 5+ years now). The consensus seems to be that teams don't really "take liberties" to the point of putting themselves on the PK if they could have avoided it.

It would be interesting to do some deeper analysis on this, but I suspect that PP opportunities are driven mostly by factors like the amount of offense a team is generating, the amount of time spent in the neutral zone, and possibly the relative amount of time spent playing at ES as opposed to the PK or PP.