#1 Defensemen and their Impact (based on Goals)

[HarrisonFord]

Just out of curiosity, who did you use for Buffalo's #1G in the comparison? Lehner is obviously the guy, but injuries have limited the number of games he's played in. Johnson and Ullmark split starts fairly evenly while he was out (w/ Johnson playing a bit more).

It was Johnson - but it shouldn't matter should it? If we were looking at comparing the actual GF and GA numbers, then goaltending quality would be more important and would influence between players. But this sort of negates that in the sense that if you're comparing Ristolainen + Johnson to Johnson without Ristolainen, then you're just measuring the impact of the player, rather than the quality of the goaltender since the goaltender quality is the same for the whole team during that time

 

[Nurmagomedov]

Shows what the team can do without him on the ice. If team can prevent goals well on the ice without you and then when you come on the GA go way up, its likely because you arent good defensively and affecting that

Similar with GF. If your team cant score with you on the ice, and then you go on the ice and double GF, you are good offfensively

I get that but i don't get how the (GAWO60 - GFWO60) calculation achieves that. Shouldn't you in that case compare the with numbers to the without numbers?
Like in my example, the first part of the NET60 (-1,06) seems to be comparing GFWith to GFWithout, which makes sense with regards to what you're saying, but the next part (+.51) is comparing GFWithout to GAWithout, which is what i don't get. Shouldn't that be GAWithout and GAWith?

GFW60 GFWO60 GAW60 GAWO60 NET60
0.99 2.05 1.33 2.56 -1.06- (-0.51)

I'm probably missing something really dumb.

 

[Aceboogie]

I get that but i don't get how the (GAWO60 - GFWO60) calculation achieves that. Shouldn't you in that case compare the with numbers to the without numbers?
Like in my example, the first part of the NET60 (-1,06) seems to be comparing GFWith to GFWithout, which makes sense with regards to what you're saying, but the next part (+.51) is comparing GFWithout to GAWithout, which is what i don't get. Shouldn't that be GAWithout and GAWith?

GFW60 GFWO60 GAW60 GAWO60 NET60
0.99 2.05 1.33 2.56 -1.06- (-0.51)

I'm probably missing something really dumb.

My interpretation of NET is that is compares offensive impact with Defensive impact

-106 represents that the team scores more without him on the ice, then with. -0.51 represents less goals are scored with him, than without him. The net number compares offensive impact with Defensive. If your net impact is positive, then your team either scores more goals with you on the ice and lets less goals in, or lets less goals in than the team is able to score

Since hockey is about scoring more than you are scored in, this attempts to recreate that.

I think in theory its a fine test. There will be complications but the basis is strong

 

[LyricalLyricist]

Would you not agree that #1D face the top competition from the opposing teams?

The problem is that you're comparing vs rest of team.

A team with a solid 2nd tier will make the GWO60 and GAGW60 look better than it should.

Example, this year the habs started the season with Desharnais under reduced minutes in exploitation role. He made points at a better GF60 pace than most people in the league at that point.

Using that, it would look like Pacioretty or Plekanec were inferior players(from impact) when that just isn't true.

The matchups and depth of the team count. If a 2nd or 3rd line dominates vs other 2nd/3rd lines it can put the whole without portion out of whack.

 

[Lebowski]

Only thing missing would be a way to factor in quality of competition in some way, but it's always interesting to see stats like those.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Four (former?) "Norris trophy" candidate defencemen in there.

Interesting.

Here's a really easy explanation for Pietro. The scoring of their defensive units got worse as Backes/Steen aged and Oshie got traded, as their depth lines - who play vs marginally worse players with awesome defensemen in Shatty/Parayko got exponentially better.

 

[bossram]

Well that depends on if you're talking about a player in the general sense (i.e. how good PK Subban is) and what his impact has been on the team this year

But as another poster mentioned as well, we don't really know what impact they had by using only goal differentials. The sample is way too small and heavily dependent on on-ice SV%/SH%.

I used Letang as my example earlier. He is doing everything right by every other metric. By goal "impact" he's a negative impact player. That't not because of him. It's because of an horrific on-ice SH%.

 

[Kraniumm]

Great stuff. Nice to see one's "eye test" confirmed like this.

 

[Bouboumaster]

PK Subban is a beast.

A beast, on a ******, ****** team.

 

[Nurmagomedov]

My interpretation of NET is that is compares offensive impact with Defensive impact

-106 represents that the team scores more without him on the ice, then with. -0.51 represents less goals are scored with him, than without him. The net number compares offensive impact with Defensive. If your net impact is positive, then your team either scores more goals with you on the ice and lets less goals in, or lets less goals in than the team is able to score

Since hockey is about scoring more than you are scored in, this attempts to recreate that.

I think in theory its a fine test. There will be complications but the basis is strong

I don't see how the bolded is achieved comparing GA Without (2.56) to GF Without (2.05)

 

[cosmicnavigator]

I don't see how the bolded is achieved comparing GA Without (2.56) to GF Without (2.05)

Yep Lindholms numers are wrong should be total +0,16. His defensive impact is much higher then everybody else 1,23.

 

[HarrisonFord]

I don't see how the bolded is achieved comparing GA Without (2.56) to GF Without (2.05)

Yep Lindholms numers are wrong should be total +0,16. His defensive impact is much higher then everybody else 1,23.

You're right, Lindholms were wrong. Updated

 

[Hagged]

Right, but that's why I'm not comparing #1D to #4D. So just like for Ristolainen, these other #1D are playing against top 6 lines. But Ristolainen is still new in the league, so you'd expect that to improve as he gets older

"starting in d-zone" was the key, you only took "against top 6 lines" from my post. There is a significant difference for the team with Ristolainen (starting in the d-zone against top six lines) than without Ristolainen (as sheltered as possible on a ****** team). This is what makes the "defensive impact" stat go upside down. And there are several D-men on these lists who get more offensive zone starts.

 

[HarrisonFord]

"starting in d-zone" was the key, you only took "against top 6 lines" from my post. There is a significant difference for the team with Ristolainen (starting in the d-zone against top six lines) than without Ristolainen (as sheltered as possible on a ****** team). This is what makes the "defensive impact" stat go upside down. And there are several D-men on these lists who get more offensive zone starts.

He gets 9.375% more defensive zone starts (at most) than Alzner, Rielly, Chara, Suter, and Weber. And he's had less defensive zone starts than Greene, Pietrangelo, and Edler. So I don't think your point is as valid as you think. The difference between those guys and Ristolainen is greater than 9.375%

 

[Henkka]

Four (former?) "Norris trophy" candidate defencemen in there.

Interesting.

You should not use this data with defencemen.