Problem is that I think the line wouldn't be as successful in shot share with Dano, and they would take a step back defensively. Their great shot metrics are mostly because they prevent shot attempts against, and that's largely because Tanev is disruptive and they retrieve and cycle the puck in the offensive zone at an elite level. Dano is a "quick strike" player. The puck is never on his stick for much time because he lacks speed to find and keep space and doesn't have great puck protection capabilities. He is a better match with players like Connor or Little who can play a lot of give and go. Styles make lines...
2018-19 stats and underlying metrics thread
- Thread starter garret9
- Start date
what's Dano's song sound like? Who let the dogs out? Spice Girl's if you want to be my lover? Shaggy's it wasn't me?
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't...
Maybe it be worth it, maybe it wouldn't...
But my joke is just a joke
That said, I think Tanev drains offense about equally as he drains the opponents offense, and if I'm correct by that, Dano helps in offense more than hurts the defense in that switchup.
Maybe, maybe not... I like a bottom 5 line that starts in their own zone, plays against top opposition, and outshoots and outscores opposition.Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't...
Maybe it be worth it, maybe it wouldn't...
But my joke is just a joke
That said, I think Tanev drains offense about equally as he drains the opponents offense, and if I'm correct by that, Dano helps in offense more than hurts the defense in that switchup.
I did appreciate the humour, by the way.
Except I'm fine with having a line that is just about defense. We have 3 amazing offensive lines its okay to have one that doesn't help offensively. Even though the numbers show that CLT does in fact chip in offensively.Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't...
Maybe it be worth it, maybe it wouldn't...
But my joke is just a joke
That said, I think Tanev drains offense about equally as he drains the opponents offense, and if I'm correct by that, Dano helps in offense more than hurts the defense in that switchup.
Yup. +7 goal differential at 5v5 in 35 games. Hard to ask for more from any line, let alone a bottom 6 line with hard usage.
kylbaz
Winnipeg <3
Can someone link me to 5vs5 goalie stats? With so many penalties and poor powerplay as of late I'm curious to see Helle's 'normal' stats compared to other goalies.
For goalies with 5 games or more played; Helle is 25th in the NHL in 5v5 Sv% and 14th in the NHL in PP sv%.
Maukkis
EZ4ENCE
- Mar 16, 2016
- 10,568
- 7,257
Those who seem to have targetted Hellebuyck as the easy scapegoat for the early season struggles, here's something for y'all.
2017-18, 5v5 numbers
SV%: 93.07
xSV%: 92.92
GSAA: 2.16
2018-19
SV%: 91.06
xSV%: 91.93
GSAA: -2.15
You might point out that Helle's numbers have gone down a lot, but so has the quality of the team's defense. If you account for special teams, Hellebuyck has overperformed his xSV this year.
What have we learned from this?
1) Hellebuyck needs to be better.
2) Anybody who belonged to the 'won't miss Enstrom' -crowd was terribly wrong.
3) We have a team-wide problem with regards to icing a competent defensive structure to help Hellebuyck.
And before anybody goes there, Brossoit and his three games are largely irrelevant. Sample sizes are fun and all that, I know.
2017-18, 5v5 numbers
SV%: 93.07
xSV%: 92.92
GSAA: 2.16
2018-19
SV%: 91.06
xSV%: 91.93
GSAA: -2.15
You might point out that Helle's numbers have gone down a lot, but so has the quality of the team's defense. If you account for special teams, Hellebuyck has overperformed his xSV this year.
What have we learned from this?
1) Hellebuyck needs to be better.
2) Anybody who belonged to the 'won't miss Enstrom' -crowd was terribly wrong.
3) We have a team-wide problem with regards to icing a competent defensive structure to help Hellebuyck.
And before anybody goes there, Brossoit and his three games are largely irrelevant. Sample sizes are fun and all that, I know.
kylbaz
Winnipeg <3
JetsFan815
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2012
- 19,212
- 24,262
Do you mind sharing stats the show that the same held true for Pavelec? Of all the hills you could chose to die on, you choose the Pavs hill?
kylbaz
Winnipeg <3
JetsFan815
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2012
- 19,212
- 24,262
A great post defended Helle's SV% by proclaiming how the the D in front of him hasn't been good and backed that point up by citing his xSV%.
To which you replied and I quote:
So let's use that excuse for Pavs as well... if you can prove that there wasn't a significant difference between his SV% and xSV% like @Maukkis did for Helle. I will wait for you to produce these numbers as I am sure you can considering your confidence.
kylbaz
Winnipeg <3
Hold on while I cherry pick my useless advanced stats to prove my point.
Are you going to say our D isn't significantly better now than it was a few years ago? I dare you.
Mud Turtle
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2013
- 8,139
- 18,531
Measured how? Going from memory and your eye test? I mean, you boldly declare that objective statistics are useless, so I'm not sure what anyone could do to convince you. But here goes:
In 2015-16, Pavs put up a .904 and went 13-13-4 in 33 games. Hellebuyck played behind the exact same defense and put up a .918 and a record of 13-11-1 in 26 games. That defense, btw, had a lot of familiar faces: Buff, Trouba, Myers, and Chiarot - so 4 of the current starting 6. Also, (and this might be a bit on the fancystat side for you) the Jets that year had a CA/60 rate of 53.77 and a HDCA/60 rate of 9.63 - both were 8th best in the league.
But listen, if you've gotten this far thinking that Pavelec was actually a decent goalie who was undermined by poor defense, then you're clearly living in some kind of bizarro alternate reality and your only connection to our world is via this message board...
kylbaz
Winnipeg <3
No, I just laugh at you guys that bend stats and make excuses to see fit. The D behind Pavs was terrible but it was always Pavs fault. Now Helle doesn't play as good but it's not his fault the D hasn't been as good, which is way more talented than what Pavs ever had. Helle hasa .909 save % and when Pavs was in that range he got pooped on. But Helle in that range? Oh let's make excuses.
If you'd take some time to look at the stats being quoted, you'd know why the argument is being made.
This is, after all, the stats thread.
Maukkis
EZ4ENCE
- Mar 16, 2016
- 10,568
- 7,257
The stats I posted clearly show that Hellebuyck's SV% has dropped more than his expected SV%. But, in the interest of honesty and clarity, I didn't omit that information and said that Helle too needs to improve instead.
The sample size we have w/r/t Connor's performance suggests that he should be better than a .910 goalie. Couldn't have said the same about Pavelec.
In all honesty, without directing this at anybody - I am worried about the fact that so many are doubting Helle and praising Brossoit based on how this season has begun. Learn your sample sizes, folks.
According to Corsica Hockey's "expected save percentage" metric, the only two Jets goalies with a better 5v5 save percentage than expected are Connor Hellebuyck, and (surprise, surprise), Steve Mason. Interesting to note, the xSV% is clearly highest for Hellebuyck and lowest for Pavs (and Steve Mason), so the notion that the improved D has contributed to Hellebuyck's success is in line with these data. It seems that Mason might have been hampered by particularly difficult chances in his work early last season.
Hellebuyck, Hutch and Pavs all had better save % than expected on the PK, which might be related to Maurice's system of allowing wide shots and protecting the centre of the ice and preventing cross-ice passes.
Here are the 5v5 data (2011-19):
Hellebuyck, Hutch and Pavs all had better save % than expected on the PK, which might be related to Maurice's system of allowing wide shots and protecting the centre of the ice and preventing cross-ice passes.
Here are the 5v5 data (2011-19):
Just look at their track record if you want an explanation as to why people might be willing to cut Hellebuyck more slack when he hits a rough patch. His entire career has been excellent overall with a few stretches of not-so-great play. Pavelec's entire career was not-so-great play interrupted infrequently and briefly by the odd stretch of good play.
Lots of teams shooting up a storm this season, but they aren't necessarily translating into goals.
For discussion, below are the scatterplots of CF% vs. xGF% and GF% for NHL teams so far this season.
Who thinks this is just a statistical anomaly that will correct itself* as the sample size grows, and who thinks that it might signal a real change in styles where many teams (especially without as much talent) are just taking a lot of shots and running up their CF%?
(*note: over the previous 5 seasons the r-square for the correlation between CF% and GF% and xGF% were 0.46 and 0.72, respectively).
For discussion, below are the scatterplots of CF% vs. xGF% and GF% for NHL teams so far this season.
Who thinks this is just a statistical anomaly that will correct itself* as the sample size grows, and who thinks that it might signal a real change in styles where many teams (especially without as much talent) are just taking a lot of shots and running up their CF%?
(*note: over the previous 5 seasons the r-square for the correlation between CF% and GF% and xGF% were 0.46 and 0.72, respectively).
mcpw
WPG
- Jan 13, 2015
- 10,024
- 2,072
I think it's neither a statistical anomaly nor a change in style. It's a statistical effect. Not enough goals yet. Most teams have been on the ice for 60-70 5v5 goals for and against. Look at a binomial distribution with n=60...
(to do the math: assume a team that plays like 50% GF, i. e. goals for/against are a perfect coinflip... flip 60 times. There's a ~70% chance that the team ends up with less than 46.5% or more than 53.5% of the goals.)
Here's the CF-GF data for last season, except it's only from the start of the season until Nov 11th, 2017. R^2=0.02. Looks similar?
Last edited:
Could be right. I'll be interested to see how this develops. Seems that a lot of crappy teams are running up big shot totals while some good teams are valuing possession more. The game last night was a good example. The Jets tortured the Devils in the 3rd while NJ racked up a Corsi advantage.I think it's neither a statistical anomaly nor a change in style. It's a statistical effect. Not enough goals yet. Most teams have been on the ice for 60-70 5v5 goals for and against. Look at a binomial distribution with n=60...
(to do the math: assume a team that plays like 50% GF, i. e. goals for/against are a perfect coinflip... flip 60 times. There's a ~70% chance that the team ends up with less than 46.5% or more than 53.5% of the goals.)
Here's the CF-GF data for last season, except it's only from the start of the season until Nov 11th, 2017. R^2=0.02. Looks similar?
