2017-18 stats and underlying metrics thread [Mod: updated season]

[Gm0ney]

Monahan missed a few open nets in OT in the Calgary/Minnesota game. Off to the shootout.

 

[garret9]

Key word is was though isn't it?

I don't think it would be very prudent to never double check information that was previously thought to be irrelevant or replaceable.

The belief that Corsi was as good or better than zone time may not forever be true.

All things always are until they are not... so?

In hockey it has been retested multiple times. I know Hockey Canada has looked into it. My company has looked into it. Toronto Maple Leafs have looked into it. Matt Pfeffer has looked into it. All at multiple levels at multiple times.

Conceptually it doesn’t really make sense why it wouldn’t anyways.

It’s almost like a basic decision tree.

Step one: gain possession
Step two: gain offensive zone if not currently in there
Step three: generate the best shot opportunity possible

Step three has step one inherently in it and then more. Hockey is not like soccer where possession and Corsi are more equitable (but xG still rules over).

 

[Whileee]

All things always are until they are not... so?

In hockey it has been retested multiple times. I know Hockey Canada has looked into it. My company has looked into it. Toronto Maple Leafs have looked into it. Matt Pfeffer has looked into it. All at multiple levels at multiple times.

Conceptually it doesn’t really make sense why it wouldn’t anyways.

It’s almost like a basic decision tree.

Step one: gain possession
Step two: gain offensive zone if not currently in there
Step three: generate the best shot opportunity possible

Step three has step one inherently in it and then more. Hockey is not like soccer where possession and Corsi are more equitable (but xG still rules over).

Sure, that stuff is straight forward. The more interesting stuff is understanding better how individuals contribute to on ice metrics, and how combinations work together.

How is the Copp-Lowry-Tanev line so freaking good, and who would have predicted it based on individual metrics?

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

This is complete and utter nonsense. Tracking possession is simply not the point of Corsi or xG at all. You might want to learn something before going off.

Maybe you should try to understand what I posted before you go off.

Where did I say possessional stats will replace Corsi?? I said the technology will make stats like corsi obsolete. It will break down the game to a micro level so we can interpret exactly who is driving the plays, who is taking the shots, and who is actually benefiting the game most.

It will be able to track shot speed, trajectory, change in directions, locations of shot taken ect.... It will be able to give us a understanding of the difficulty of a shot, instead of an interpretation on the difficulty of the shot.

In 5 years from now, the way we will be able to grab accurate and relative data from a game will make today's stats look like snake oil.

 

[Aavco Cup]

Once we get tracking data I will certainly be interested in actual possession data. Why not? It will help with the big picture. I'm more excited about the possibility of obtaining actual passing data though, which will tell a much more interesting story IMO. Passes attemted and passes completed etc... that will add another very interesting layer to the picture both for teams and individual players. Zone entry stats are another area I'd be interested in.

 

[pucka lucka]

Maybe you should try to understand what I posted before you go off.

Where did I say possessional stats will replace Corsi?? I said the technology will make stats like corsi obsolete. It will break down the game to a micro level so we can interpret exactly who is driving the plays, who is taking the shots, and who is actually benefiting the game most.

It will be able to track shot speed, trajectory, change in directions, locations of shot taken ect.... It will be able to give us a understanding of the difficulty of a shot, instead of an interpretation on the difficulty of the shot.

In 5 years from now, the way we will be able to grab accurate and relative data from a game will make today's stats look like snake oil.

Umm I've quoted your words below. You don't know what you are talking about. Tracking actual possession won't make anything obsolete, because they are not even measuring the same thing.

What are you talking about? I am talking true possession time, with location, area of the ice, actual player tracking, not subjective human documented analysis. We will know who possessing the puck and where on the ice, not who happens to be on the ice at that time.

This technology will make Corsi , Xg and many other current analytics obsolete.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

Umm I've quoted your words below. You don't know what you are talking about. Tracking actual possession won't make anything obsolete, because they are not even measuring the same thing.

Ya, the quote being: "This technology will make Corsi , Xg and many other current analytics obsolete."

It will improve possesion analytics, but in terms of Corsi, this technology will allow for the measuring the shots by speed, location, change in direction, I bet they will even be able to determine puck visibility by goaltenders. All of which will break down a shot that will allow for us to rank each shots' difficulty. We will then be able to measure a goaltenders ability to stop difficult shots, rather than treating each shot the same in terms of difficulty.

Goalie stats will change, Corsi will improve drastically and I bet we end up naming it something different all together, and park Corsi in lieu.

 

[Gm0ney]

Until there's a big enough sample to run proper analyses and figure out what correlates with what and how strongly, I wouldn't expect the world of fancystats to be upended overnight by new tracking data. I imagine there will be some false starts and red herrings that will take a few years to hash out.

Some shot data is already being recorded - location/distance and type, for example. That's incorporated into most xG models. There are actually some interesting "expected SV%" stats kicking around out there right now. E.g.:

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

Until there's a big enough sample to run proper analyses and figure out what correlates with what and how strongly, I wouldn't expect the world of fancystats to be upended overnight by new tracking data. I imagine there will be some false starts and red herrings that will take a few years to hash out.

Some shot data is already being recorded - location/distance and type, for example. That's incorporated into most xG models. There are actually some interesting "expected SV%" stats kicking around out there right now. E.g.:

Yes very true, time will be needed to collect, analyze and correlate to success. But having an automated system that is universal across the league will allow for a source of truth that does not fluctuate up and down due to human natured bias.

 

[Aavco Cup]

We haven't been too bad in this stat this season. Of course it could just be related to haw many games Chiarot has spent in the PB

 

[Aavco Cup]

 

[RageQuit77]

That's truly dobey thing! One of kind I don't even try to comprehend.

 

[RageQuit77]

Dear stats guys with better and deeper knowledge. As I'm pretty much old school "basic stats guy" I would be happy if you could explain few appreviations to me, because I'm not entirely sure. I'm planning to improve existing MS-Paint Patrik Laine graphs of mine (archaic, toily and time consuming hobby, using meditative and artistic method for visualization of numerical stats) to included more data, and just recently started to roam in site Natural Stats Trick for that purpose.

Here on this table:
Patrik Laine - Game Log - Individual - Natural Stat Trick

Am I correct when assuming that following abbreviations are for?

iCF = individual Corsi For
iSCF = individual Scoring Changes For
iHDCF = individual High Danger Corsi For

As I know that things and meanings can vary from site to site, please could your guys confirm am I right, and if wrong, correct me adequately, explaining also rationales behind each stat in this particular source? What I really would want to know first is where to find individual game-by-game TSA (total shot attempts) stats for Laine, and is that iSCF anyway equivalent to TSA?

To Finns: Jos jollakulla on parempaa tietoa, olisin kiitollinen jos asiaa valaistaisiin minulle suomeksi privaatti-keskustelussa.

Thank you on advance!

 

[WPGChief]

Here on this table:
Patrik Laine - Game Log - Individual - Natural Stat Trick

Am I correct when assuming that following abbreviations are for?

iCF = individual Corsi For
iSCF = individual Scoring Changes For
iHDCF = individual High Danger Corsi For

As I know that things and meanings can vary from site to site, please could your guys confirm am I right, and if wrong, correct me adequately, explaining also rationales behind each stat in this particular source? What I really would want to know first is where to find individual game-by-game TSA (total shot attempts) stats for Laine, and is that iSCF anyway equivalent to TSA?

Anytime you see an "i" before a statistic, assume that the player themselves generated it. i.e. Laine's CF was 23 (any shot for whenever he was on the ice); Laine's iCF was 7 (any shot for that HE generated on the ice).

Scoring Chances as per Natural Stat Trick is taken directly from what the NHL defines as "scoring chances", I believe - which can be completely arbitrary. "High danger" I believe was lifted from back when WAR-On-Ice defined it (NEW: Defining Scoring Chances | WAR On Ice: The Blog), which generally still holds true, but there has been more data / analysis for better "binning".

For a general glossary, I believe most of Corsica's acronyms and such transfer over decently to NST (Glossary | Corsica). I would also recommend using Corsica over Natural Stat Trick, if you are patient with Corsica's load times and need for constant refreshes.

 

[RageQuit77]

Anytime you see an "i" before a statistic, assume that the player themselves generated it. i.e. Laine's CF was 23 (any shot for whenever he was on the ice); Laine's iCF was 7 (any shot for that HE generated on the ice).

Scoring Chances as per Natural Stat Trick is taken directly from what the NHL defines as "scoring chances", I believe - which can be completely arbitrary. "High danger" I believe was lifted from back when WAR-On-Ice defined it (NEW: Defining Scoring Chances | WAR On Ice: The Blog), which generally still holds true, but there has been more data / analysis for better "binning".

For a general glossary, I believe most of Corsica's acronyms and such transfer over decently to NST (Glossary | Corsica). I would also recommend using Corsica over Natural Stat Trick, if you are patient with Corsica's load times and need for constant refreshes.

Thank you very much for your advices.

So, iCF is same as or it is at least very close to same as TSA. I get that "scoring changes" is very subjective thing to be counted exactly (which is why the source of a stat needs to be mentioned in good graph representation).

To be possibly added to the graph:

- Cumulative SOG/iCF curve for tracking 'overall shooting accuracy' i.e. cumulative SOG/TSA ratio game after game.
- Cumulative Goals/iCF curve for tracking 'overall goal scoring accuracy/efficiency' i.e. G/TSA ---> S% from all shots made (not only from SOG)
- Possibly also cumulative split curves for EV and PP scoring and percentages
- as well as appropriate columns for each above stuff on per game basis

What I find hardest with all those dozens of stats is that there are too many of them!!! I merely look at a graph then browse through endless tables of numerical data. That is exactly why I like to draw these things out in some way. Easier to handle multitude of interrelating stats if you can see them in one glance, if possible in same scale on the same graph page.

Thanks again! o7

PS. btw, what data you need and how to count that xGF (expected Goals For)? It would be interesting to draw a graph curve that follows the development of that stat over Laine's career, game after game.

 

[Aavco Cup]

PS. btw, what data you need and how to count that xGF (expected Goals For)?

Here's a couple articles. Just google "expected goals hockey" if you want to read more stuff

Shot Quality And Expected Goals: Part I | Corsica

Expected Goals are a better predictor of future scoring than Corsi, Goals

 

[Evil Little]

What's up with Manny's adjustment? @Whileee and @Gm0ney have both pointed out the metric's quirks this season but this game was tied for over 64 of its 65 minutes:

 

[JetsFan815]

What's up with Manny's adjustment? @Whileee and @Gm0ney have both pointed out the metric's quirks this season but this game was tied for over 64 of its 65 minutes:

This is a year old so possibly out of date but Corsica's adjustment formula takes into account zone starts. It appears to apply a negative adjustment against shots taken within 20 seconds of an offensive zone faceoff

 

[DK59]

+/- is a real stat? I think it's unfortunate that the NHL still reports this flawed statistic, personally.

Analysis: Plus/Minus Sucks

I like Myers. I think he is what he is - a gifted offensive defenseman that can comfortably play a 2nd pairing role, and who has less than stellar defensive positioning from time to time. Doesn't make him any less useful for the Jets.

I do understand the arguments against +- being a performance measure and the way it handles short handed goals doesn't help. However for Myers the stat is actually quite illuminating over the time he has been with the Jets. Taking numbers from Corsica (which should be 5on5) over the 4 years he is a plus 8 and that includes some really bad Buffalo numbers from the year of the trade. If you roughly adjust for this and back them out he is actually +20 with the Jets over his tenure here. What I did find even more curious was that over the same period that his goal differential was +8 his X Goals on the Corsica site are -17. And each year it shows the same kind of pattern. This year as an example he is outperforming X goals by 5 and last year by 4 and the year before that 5. This just supports your comments that in spite of his apparent warts he has proven to be a useful player with the Jets and can perform more than adequately in a second pairing role.

 

[Jet]

I do understand the arguments against +- being a performance measure and the way it handles short handed goals doesn't help. However for Myers the stat is actually quite illuminating over the time he has been with the Jets. Taking numbers from Corsica (which should be 5on5) over the 4 years he is a plus 8 and that includes some really bad Buffalo numbers from the year of the trade. If you roughly adjust for this and back them out he is actually +20 with the Jets over his tenure here. What I did find even more curious was that over the same period that his goal differential was +8 his X Goals on the Corsica site are -17. And each year it shows the same kind of pattern. This year as an example he is outperforming X goals by 5 and last year by 4 and the year before that 5. This just supports your comments that in spite of his apparent warts he has proven to be a useful player with the Jets and can perform more than adequately in a second pairing role.

I love how people want to destroy +/- as having any usefulness at all. That is simply hogwash but the fancy stats movement didn't invent it so it sucks.

Plus minus is flawed. Corsi is flawed, fenwick is flawed WAR is flawed, eye test is flawed.

If hockey was an easy sport to measure, someone would have invented effective measurement of it.

Hockey is a wonderful beast, magical and hard to measure. The key I think is to use all the different methods possible to get an overall view and FORM your own opinon.

I use myself as a measure in my 'hockey career'
I have always been a defensive defenseman. I pride myself in shutting down the other team's best players.
I feel like I am decent at transitioning the puck out of my zone and very good at recovering it.
I always measure my plus minus, because it matters to me. I want to be on the ice for more goals for than against (honestly, I just don't want to be on the ice for goals against). I believe in preventing first, and then creating.

If a player demonstrated a plus rating year over year, on different teams, in different scenarios or with different partners, it's safe to assume that he is driving wins for that team. I know plus minus depends on circumstance and who you play with, and SOME people either benefit or suffer from that, but at the end of the day the stat still has value and THAT is why the NHL still uses it.

JMHO

 

[Robinson2187]

And they will, as long as "being team top 3 in +/-" is a CBA Exhibit 5 Schedule A Performance Bonus category for forwards and defenders that unlocks (up to) $212.5k in tangible money.

Is this truly a thing?

 

[Lempo]

Wait, is it seriously?! That’s awful.

CBA Exhibit 5: 1(a)(vi) and 1(b)(vi):

1. Individual "A" Bonuses Paid by Clubs

The maximum amount payable for any single category of Individual "A" Bonuses identified below is $212,500 per season. (For example, an Entry Level SPC may not contain bonuses of $212,500 for 20 goals and an additional $212,500 for 30 goals, provided, however, it may contain a bonus of $100,000 for 20 goals and $112,500 for 30 goals). An Entry Level SPC may contain any number of Individual "A" Bonuses; however, a Player may not receive more than $850,000 in total aggregate Individual "A" Bonuses per season. Individual "A" Bonuses are payable by the Clubs (as opposed to the League).

(a) Forwards:

(vi) Plus-Minus Rating: Among top three (3) forwards on the Club (minimum 42 Regular Season Games played by Player and comparison group).

(b) Defensemen:

(vi) Plus-Minus Rating: Among top three (3) defensemen on the Club (minimum 42 Regular Season Games played by Player and comparison group).

edit: sorry @Robinson2187 , didn't see your post when initially answering. Yes, it very much is a genuine thing.

 

[Duke749]

CBA Exhibit 5: 1(a)(vi) and 1(b)(vi):



(a) Forwards:



(b) Defensemen:

Wow....

 

[YWGinYYZ]

I love how people want to destroy +/- as having any usefulness at all. That is simply hogwash but the fancy stats movement didn't invent it so it sucks.

Plus minus is flawed.

I don't really consider myself a fancy stats guy, other than the fact that I find it interesting to compare what I saw in the game, with underlying numbers after the game. I played hockey at a reasonably high level when young, then industrial hockey for years (as you did / do), and this is how I usually gauge what I see out on the ice.

Ignore the "fancy stats" people - here's what some players and coaches have to say about how it's tallied in the NHL - do you trust them?

Hockey’s much-criticized plus/minus rating still used by players, coaches

They state that it's still used, but disagree with some of the usage, the strange "penalties" assessed for PK vs PP, etc. Some of them acknowledge the relatively random nature of +/-, etc.

As a player, I think I'd hate that it was still used - it's so random. Take a read of that article (and the others I posted) - some good points are made. There are far better methods of evaluating players, from eye test to xG, etc. S'all I'm saying.

 

[Jet]

I don't really consider myself a fancy stats guy, other than the fact that I find it interesting to compare what I saw in the game, with underlying numbers after the game. I played hockey at a reasonably high level when young, then industrial hockey for years (as you did / do), and this is how I usually gauge what I see out on the ice.

Ignore the "fancy stats" people - here's what some players and coaches have to say about how it's tallied in the NHL - do you trust them?

Hockey’s much-criticized plus/minus rating still used by players, coaches

They state that it's still used, but disagree with some of the usage, the strange "penalties" assessed for PK vs PP, etc. Some of them acknowledge the relatively random nature of +/-, etc.

As a player, I think I'd hate that it was still used - it's so random. Take a read of that article (and the others I posted) - some good points are made. There are far better methods of evaluating players, from eye test to xG, etc. S'all I'm saying.

I get that and as I stated, I acknowledge that it is flawed. However when a player continually gets minuses when he is on the ice, there starts to be some validity to it. Perhaps he wasn't central to a goal being scored against, but if he is one of those forwards that dogs it without the puck, and him being in better position up the ice, in the neutral zone, would have prevented a cleaner entry and thus a goal, he is partially responsible for that goal.

Sure, there will be instances when someone will be dinged or credited for goals when they happen, but that is the nature of hockey. Look at poor goalies. When they get scored on, is it their fault? These are the arguments we've been having since the beginning of the sport.

I think if we removed special teams and EN from the equation, people might like the stat more. I still believe it's a useful stat with a big enough sample size (like many of the stats people love nowadays).