Analytics & fancy stats thread

[Dertell]

On a similar notes, while people often talk about teams or players "padding their corsi", I find it far more likely scoring chances are what some teams/players truly inflate. It just make so much more sense.

The data we can find online certainly backs up this assumption. Everyone outside fancy stats community unconditionally love abstract scoring chances and will happily tell you about the limitations of corsi. This is even more true with "hockey people". People wants what they care about, not what they don't. I know no reason why this would be any different.

 

[Calculon]

Kind of iffy on this but I think this clearly shows the Flames should trade Brodie.

 

[Lunatik]

Just when I thought things couldn't get any worse, then I read this garbage.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

Anyone care to explain what that means? Obviously WAR is 'wins above replacement' but what's DTMAH's?

 

[BurnEmUp]

Kind of iffy on this but I think this clearly shows the Flames should trade Brodie.

Maybe I'm reading the graph wrong, but if I'm not I assume your comment is sarcastic?

 

[Dack]

Kind of iffy on this but I think this clearly shows the Flames should trade Brodie.

I get what you're saying but I really don't like Gar/War. That same graph implies Wideman and Jokipakka are better than Hamilton.

 

[Dertell]

Kind of iffy on this but I think this clearly shows the Flames should trade Brodie.

the big issue I can see (and sort of tested) with this model is how it boosts and hurts low and high volume shooters respectively when I don't think it should.

The rest seems fine?

 

[Dack]

the big issue I can see (and sort of tested) with this model is how it boosts and hurts low and high volume shooters respectively when I don't think it should.

The rest seems fine?

Agreed I think If you can put Hamilton so far into the red because when he isn't with Gio is shots against and goals against go up likely in part due to playing with non NHLers. Why don't players that hurt shot and scoring rates feel the effect to the same extent on their Offensive GAR?

I saw a thread of tweets about some guy referencing the Sedins and a huge difference in GAR in 2008/2009 and basically it gave Daniel all the defensive credit because Henrik had a very high CA/60 and probably GA/60 in an 80 minute sample size (which obviously isn't a big enough sample size for anything.

The other problem is what you brought up how exactly are players rewarded for slowing the game down with less shot attempts while a guy like Hamilton is punished because he plays a higher event game. It seems to me that if your CF/60 goes into the dumpster and your team is expected to score at a much lower rate, you should have a negative offensive GAR similar to how Hamilton is impacted here.

 

[Anglesmith]

That's not really a good way of looking at things. Just picking out extreme examples and stating that sample size doesn't really account for them?

The majority of shots that get through from the corners are low danger. The majority of shots that get through from the slot are good scoring chances. Would that be a fair statement to make?

Using your argument, why even use Save Percentage at all?

Isn't that exactly the reason we got here in the first place? The whole reason anyone, including yourself, would use those statistics is to try not to use plain SV% specifically because of the oversimplifications it contains. The whole reason high-danger and low-danger is even a thing is because of a general unsatisfaction with save percentage due to various biases.

Once again, I'm not saying the goal of these statistics is foolish, I'm just saying there's no reason for me to think this method of breaking it down is any better than SV% itself, and no, I'm not saying in that that SV% should be your only source for goalie evaluation.

 

[BurnEmUp]

Going to put my post from the other thread in here since it's more on topic.

Any stat that has anything to do with sv% is imperfect.

Why use any of them?

..and if a shot from "High Danger Area" isn't usually more "Dangerous" than a shot from a "Medium Danger Area" how come every goalie's save percentage rises as you go from "High Danger" to "Medium Danger" to "Low Danger" when you use a large sample size?

Is that just a coincidence? I don't think so.

Seriously. Go to that site and look at any goalies stats on a 3 year sample size. I haven't found one yet where the % of saves doesn't rise from HD% to MD% to LD%.

That's because with a large sample size, shots from in close have a much better chance to go in than shots from farther out.

 

[Dertell]

Isn't that exactly the reason we got here in the first place? The whole reason anyone, including yourself, would use those statistics is to try not to use plain SV% specifically because of the oversimplifications it contains.

Goaltenders are different from skaters. Skaters impact volume (shots,hits,dump,carry-ins,passes,etc) and thus rates. They play a part in offensive %, but to a much lesser extent. After all, they face a wide range of goaltenders and whether the puck hit someone before it gets in is largely out of their control.

Basically, skaters have more responsibilities to evaluate so they'll leave more traces. On the other hand, the goaltender's one and only job is to stop pucks. Save%/GAA is obviously less than ideal and plenty of new stats/models have been made, but there's little else to go with. When everyone in the class gets >90% in an exam, the teacher'll have a hard time finding those with more difficulties.

That, and the job is very much related to the mental and emotional state of the person but that's a topic for another day....

 

[Dertell]

moving the discussion from Armchair GM Thread to this thread to keep everything more on-topic

It's just embarrassing stuff when the same 3/4 posters spew the same garbage thread after thread.

Get over yourself. I have to read you and the same 20 posters repeat the same points thread after thread.

They cherry pick stats that fit their narrative and ignore when people call them wrong.

I'd block them, but then this thread would be still on the first page.

Because I'm sure there's soooooo many examples of us cherry-picking stats, I won't ask you to give any. You'd force to say the "all the time" non-answer. I wouldn't want to waste your precious time.

HF Flames is a tire fire, and it's no wonder posters have went elsewhere for Flames news/discussion.

Your attempt at guilt-tripping is bad. If my and 3 others' 2-3 posts a day accomplished that, good riddance.

If you want to keep the spectrum of acceptable opinions within an certain range, you're free to make your own private forum. There's nothing wrong with that, but this is a public forum. Seriously though, 95% of hockey communities (HFBoards included) is anti-fancy stats, what are you all complaining about?

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Analytics scratches that itch that it is hard to get at. I like it.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Have the Flames underutilized Freddie Hamilton as a 4th center instead of trying him as 3rd line RW? He's such a mystery player because he can never seem to get into the lineup and when he does it's as been as a center or LW beside guys like Brouwer and Hathaway who are virtual anchors.

Many of us noticed he had some chemistry last year with Gaudreau and Monahan a year ago. Last year he showed some chemistry on Stajan's wing. But these were such short-lived experiments.

What we do know however, is that Hamilton has a knack for shot generation.

2016-17 ZSA Individual Shots (per hockeyanalysis)

FWD|TOI|iShots/60|iFenwick/60
FROLIK, MICHAEL|913:55|9.91|13.33
BACKLUND, MIKAEL|851:00|9.8|13.47
MONAHAN, SEAN|907:47|8.53|11.24
TKACHUK, MATTHEW|790:14|7.9|10.63
FERLAND, MICHEAL|700:27|7.71|10.36
GAUDREAU, JOHNNY|869:27|7.66|9.45
HAMILTON, FREDDIE | 213:43 | 7.58 | 10.39
BENNETT, SAM|843:50|7.25|9.67
CHIASSON, ALEX|804:45|6.34|7.9
VERSTEEG, KRIS|687:06|6.29|8.64
HATHAWAY, GARNET|200:12|5.39|7.79
LAZAR, CURTIS|279:22|5.37|6.87
BOUMA, LANCE|503:05|5.13|7.75
BROUWER, TROY|737:50|4.88|7.16
STAJAN, MATT|749:29|3.84|6.32

Honestly it's baffling how little he played last year in roles suited to his biggest strength. His ability to generate shots is worth experimenting with in the top nine.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Have the Flames underutilized Freddie Hamilton as a 4th center instead of trying him as 3rd line RW? He's such a mystery player because he can never seem to get into the lineup and when he does it's as been as a center or LW beside guys like Brouwer and Hathaway who are virtual anchors.

Many of us noticed he had some chemistry last year with Gaudreau and Monahan a year ago. Last year he showed some chemistry on Stajan's wing. But these were such short-lived experiments.

What we do know however, is that Hamilton has a knack for shot generation.

2016-17 ZSA Individual Shots

FWD|TOI|iShots/60|iFenwick/60
FROLIK, MICHAEL|913:55|9.91|13.33
BACKLUND, MIKAEL|851:00|9.8|13.47
MONAHAN, SEAN|907:47|8.53|11.24
TKACHUK, MATTHEW|790:14|7.9|10.63
FERLAND, MICHEAL|700:27|7.71|10.36
GAUDREAU, JOHNNY|869:27|7.66|9.45
HAMILTON, FREDDIE | 213:43 | 7.58 | 10.39
BENNETT, SAM|843:50|7.25|9.67
CHIASSON, ALEX|804:45|6.34|7.9
VERSTEEG, KRIS|687:06|6.29|8.64
HATHAWAY, GARNET|200:12|5.39|7.79
LAZAR, CURTIS|279:22|5.37|6.87
BOUMA, LANCE|503:05|5.13|7.75
BROUWER, TROY|737:50|4.88|7.16
STAJAN, MATT|749:29|3.84|6.32

Honestly it's baffling how little he played last year in roles suited to his biggest strength.

I think the sample size is far too small to say anything like what you're suggesting. None of us have seen enough of Familton to really speak to his strengths.

I can say though that in the very limited viewings we got though that I never saw him make a boneheaded play or do anything that left me wincing.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Have the Flames underutilized Freddie Hamilton as a 4th center instead of trying him as 3rd line RW? He's such a mystery player because he can never seem to get into the lineup and when he does it's as been as a center or LW beside guys like Brouwer and Hathaway who are virtual anchors.

Many of us noticed he had some chemistry last year with Gaudreau and Monahan a year ago. Last year he showed some chemistry on Stajan's wing. But these were such short-lived experiments.

What we do know however, is that Hamilton has a knack for shot generation.

2016-17 ZSA Individual Shots (per hockeyanalysis)

FWD|TOI|iShots/60|iFenwick/60
FROLIK, MICHAEL|913:55|9.91|13.33
BACKLUND, MIKAEL|851:00|9.8|13.47
MONAHAN, SEAN|907:47|8.53|11.24
TKACHUK, MATTHEW|790:14|7.9|10.63
FERLAND, MICHEAL|700:27|7.71|10.36
GAUDREAU, JOHNNY|869:27|7.66|9.45
HAMILTON, FREDDIE | 213:43 | 7.58 | 10.39
BENNETT, SAM|843:50|7.25|9.67
CHIASSON, ALEX|804:45|6.34|7.9
VERSTEEG, KRIS|687:06|6.29|8.64
HATHAWAY, GARNET|200:12|5.39|7.79
LAZAR, CURTIS|279:22|5.37|6.87
BOUMA, LANCE|503:05|5.13|7.75
BROUWER, TROY|737:50|4.88|7.16
STAJAN, MATT|749:29|3.84|6.32

Honestly it's baffling how little he played last year in roles suited to his biggest strength. His ability to generate shots is worth experimenting with in the top nine.

While I do think F. Hamilton deserved more playing time last year, I also feel like his shots production alone is not something you can point at as a reason to play him in the top 9.

I specifically remember a few games where he was flying, taking a ton of shots, and even had a disallowed goal. Did he look great as an energy player? Sure. But most of the shots weren't particularly high quality shots if memory serves.

That being said, he's an option I wouldn't mind seeing how he does with Bennett and Versteeg, if Brouwer/Lazar/Foo/whoever don't click.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

I think the sample size is far too small to say anything like what you're suggesting. None of us have seen enough of Familton to really speak to his strengths.

He was ninth in the AHL in shots a year ago, with seven guys ahead of him playing more games. He was good for 3.13 shots per game down there.

His NHL history also shows an ability to generate shot attempts, on teams that weren't as structurally sound as the Flames last year:

Year|TOI|iShots|iFenwick|iCorsi
2016-17|213:43|7.58|10.39|12.91
2015-16|40:33|8.88|8.88|13.32
2014-15|110:08|5.99|7.63|11.99
2013-14|94:24|6.99|10.17|13.98

Neither the Bob Hartley Flames nor the Patrick Roy Avs were likely to inflate one's shots.

Shots alone aren't everything (Blake Comeau), but they're a good indicator of the kind of complimentary winger Bennett/Versteeg are desperate for. The chart in the post above suggests it's something worth experimenting with.

 

[Wayne Primeau]

If Freddie's as good as the stats suggest, then why not give him a look in that extra wing spot?

13 - 23 - 79
19 - 11 - 67
10 - 93 - 36
25 - 77 - 20
18

The kid line, so to speak.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I actually like Familton. Would be nice if they gave Bouma's spot to him.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

So the high danger chance impact from forwards in the league. Backlund is only an offensive specialist because he takes a lot of defensive zone starts and also the hardest competition, so it's only natural he allows a little more high danger chances than his team mates. Monahan however takes far easier matchups and far more offensive zone starts than his team mates and has one of the worst high danger suppression in the league, even if he generates more high danger chances.

 

[Dack]

So the high danger chance impact from forwards in the league. Backlund is only an offensive specialist because he takes a lot of defensive zone starts and also the hardest competition, so it's only natural he allows a little more high danger chances than his team mates. Monahan however takes far easier matchups and far more offensive zone starts than his team mates and has one of the worst high danger suppression in the league, even if he generates more high danger chances.

http://hockeyviz.com/fixedImg/teamShotLocDefWi/1617/CGY/monahse94/wrap

I think Monahan is bad defensively (not stirred by this) I've thought that for a while he's not well rounded enough to be a true 1C at least right now.

 

[Sparky93]

So the high danger chance impact from forwards in the league. Backlund is only an offensive specialist because he takes a lot of defensive zone starts and also the hardest competition, so it's only natural he allows a little more high danger chances than his team mates. Monahan however takes far easier matchups and far more offensive zone starts than his team mates and has one of the worst high danger suppression in the league, even if he generates more high danger chances.

Let's just be thankful we don't have Jamie Benn! We should probably trade Monahan for Lee before anyone else sees this little chart lol.

 

[Anglesmith]

So the high danger chance impact from forwards in the league. Backlund is only an offensive specialist because he takes a lot of defensive zone starts and also the hardest competition, so it's only natural he allows a little more high danger chances than his team mates. Monahan however takes far easier matchups and far more offensive zone starts than his team mates and has one of the worst high danger suppression in the league, even if he generates more high danger chances.

Seriously, after it was blatantly clear how bad that chart was for defencemen (Radko Gudas the juggernaut), why bother posting the same thing for forwards?

For what it's worth, there's nothing wrong with the graph if you take out the labels on the four quadrants. If you take those labels out, all this is is information (though even with that, you still have to do some digging to find out how chances are being categorized in this approach). As soon as those labels are added, the information turns into opinion, and in this case, probably not a very good one.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Ah yes, Jonathan Drouin, shutdown specialist.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Ah yes, Jonathan Drouin, shutdown specialist.

Almost as good as Travis Zajac: Offensive specialist