News Article: Are the Senators better under Boucher?

[slamigo]

I don't know, it seems like instead of Yost asking the question in the form of the hypothesis "Are the Senators better under Boucher?" Yost wants to say "The Sens arent better under Boucher" and then pick stats to come to that conclusion, aka bias.
I suppose it makes for a more compelling article to write, but its weird you never see hockey stats guys ask a question, and then come to the conclusion that they might be wrong about that hypothesis, or there is no clear cut answer. That is actually an acceptable outcome.

Nailed it. Total confirmation bias in his article. He basically started with a conclusion in mind and catered the article to that conclusion.
In past articles that he's written, he seemed more prone to outing possible rationales for the data. In this one, he picked one outcome and bolstered his argument with data as if it were proof. Rather, the data presented only possibilities and not answers. He simply ignored any possibility that didn't fit his predetermined conclusion.

 

[DrEasy]

Well, for fun I started to read the article and its probably one of the few times I ever read a Yost article, and I already see a few holes. He draws a conclusion here:

"A second note: while the goal differential seems fantastic, it’s almost exclusively goaltender driven. Ottawa goaltenders have stopped 94.5 per cent of shots with the Karlsson/Methot pairing together this year, which is impossibly high. Their four-year SV% at 5-on-5 before this year was, as you might have guessed, right around league average (92.5 per cent)."

But why does his conclusion have to be that it is goaltender driven, and not that Karlsson-Methot focusing more on D are actually the reason that it's at 94.5%?

Because that stat is still "impossibly high", no matter how much you focus on defense? I mean I don't know, but there you go, we have at least something to discuss. Better than "he's a hack".

I don't know, it seems like instead of Yost asking the question in the form of the hypothesis "Are the Senators better under Boucher?" Yost wants to say "The Sens arent better under Boucher" and then pick stats to come to that conclusion, aka bias.
I suppose it makes for a more compelling article to write, but its weird you never see hockey stats guys ask a question, and then come to the conclusion that they might be wrong about that hypothesis, or there is no clear cut answer. That is actually an acceptable outcome.

As you said, it would make for a boring read. I also agree that there is potentially some lying by omission of conclusions that didn't favor his hypothesis (so yeah, a fishing expedition of sorts), and that's how people can debunk it: fight his stats with better stats.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Same here. Dude looks at some numbers and comes up with some conclusion. "He's a hack" is a much less convincing opinion. If you're going to dismiss him, use his own methodology and come up with better numbers.

He's not a hack, he got hacked.

 

[Micklebot]

Because that stat is still "impossibly high", no matter how much you focus on defense? I mean I don't know, but there you go, we have at least something to discuss. Better than "he's a hack".


As you said, it would make for a boring read. I also agree that there is potentially some lying by omission of conclusions that didn't favor his hypothesis (so yeah, a fishing expedition of sorts), and that's how people can debunk it: fight his stats with better stats.

Why is it impossibly high for Karlsson and Methot, but not for for Doughty and McNabb who when together had an on ice sv% of 94.58 over the last 4 seasons? Roughly 3 times bigger sample, but it's impossibly high for Karlsson and nobody bats an eye for Doughty. Weber's at 95.09 this year with Emelin, and two years ago managed 94.85% over a full season with Josi. Didn't fair as well last year mind you, but the point is, top D pairs get these kind of results from time to time with a specific D partner and it usually isn't used to dismiss them. Fact is, Karlsson's on ice sv% might be high with Methot so far this season, but it also probably lower than you'd expect away from him, so he ends up with a pretty normal looking on ice Sv%. If you look at the top 60 D in TOI (rough way to represent top pair D), Karlsson ranks 20th in on ice sv% at 92.68. Seems an odd stat to suggest is unsustainable to me, but when you reduce the sample artificially to suit your argument, you end up with something that will sway opinion, even if the sample is unusably small.

That's the grip with Yost's article, he had to reduce samples to get to that unsustainable sv%, but you could do that with a lot of players.

 

[DrEasy]

Why is it impossibly high for Karlsson and Methot, but not for for Doughty and McNabb who when together had an on ice sv% of 94.58 over the last 4 seasons? Roughly 3 times bigger sample, but it's impossibly high for Karlsson and nobody bats an eye for Doughty. Weber's at 95.09 this year with Emelin, and two years ago managed 94.85% over a full season with Josi. Didn't fair as well last year mind you, but the point is, top D pairs get these kind of results from time to time with a specific D partner and it usually isn't used to dismiss them. Fact is, Karlsson's on ice sv% might be high with Methot so far this season, but it also probably lower than you'd expect away from him, so he ends up with a pretty normal looking on ice Sv%. If you look at the top 60 D in TOI (rough way to represent top pair D), Karlsson ranks 20th in on ice sv% at 92.68. Seems an odd stat to suggest is unsustainable to me, but when you reduce the sample artificially to suit your argument, you end up with something that will sway opinion, even if the sample is unusably small.

That's the grip with Yost's article, he had to reduce samples to get to that unsustainable sv%, but you could do that with a lot of players.

You have looked at numbers much more closely than I have, so I'll trust you on what you're saying. I'd have to plot all those SV% across the league to see if 95 is a likely occurrence or an outlier. In the latter case (which is my guess, since the mean is far from that number), the next question would be if that outlier is a skill or luck.

But is that really the grip with Yost's article? You're the first one to point this very specific issue out AFAIK, instead of just calling him a "hack". And that's my grip with people who have a grip.

 

[Micklebot]

You have looked at numbers much more closely than I have, so I'll trust you on what you're saying. I'd have to plot all those SV% across the league to see if 95 is a likely occurrence or an outlier. In the latter case (which is my guess, since the mean is far from that number), the next question would be if that outlier is a skill or luck.

But is that really the grip with Yost's article? You're the first one to point this very specific issue out AFAIK, instead of just calling him a "hack". And that's my grip with people who have a grip.

What I'm getting at is that .945 on ice sv% is high, but you can likely find countless players with that over a ~500 min sample (what Meth and Karlsson have played together). More useful would be Karlsson's on ice Sv% regardless of partner, as at least you're getting closer to a reasonable sample.

The gripe with Yost isn't one specific stat, it's searching for the stats that suit his argument and ignoring the rest. It's like reading a poster on HF trying to support his guy, or trash another teams guy.

 

[bert]

Did yost say we were playing a worse brand of hockey vs last year?

Yes he said they are the same based on advanced stats. When clearly this years team is better. They dont get outplayed nearly as bad or as often, they dont give up outrageous amounts of goals, they actually outplay other teams. And as 2Cowen pointed out way less 'WTF' moments. They are so much better in the neutral zone, thats the biggest difference to me. Way less offsides way less turnovers.

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

Yes he said they are the same based on advanced stats. When clearly this years team is better. They dont get outplayed nearly as bad or as often, they dont give up outrageous amounts of goals, they actually outplay other teams. And as 2Cowen pointed out way less 'WTF' moments. They are so much better in the neutral zone, thats the biggest difference to me. Way less offsides way less turnovers.

Way less second chance opportunities against from what I see as well

 

[Stylizer1]

I don't expect this roster to get any better results, just maybe a little more consistent.

 

[Cosmix]

Yes he said they are the same based on advanced stats. When clearly this years team is better. They dont get outplayed nearly as bad or as often, they dont give up outrageous amounts of goals, they actually outplay other teams. And as 2Cowen pointed out way less 'WTF' moments. They are so much better in the neutral zone, thats the biggest difference to me. Way less offsides way less turnovers.

That is what I notice the most: the team is playing a very strong defensive game in the neutral zone (call it a neutral zone trap if you wish). By playing defensively in the neutral zone, the team is not forechecking as much and thus not getting the same quantity of offensive scoring chances. The result is still a bubble team which I think can only be changed by an influx of more talented players. The addition of Chabot and White will help.

 

[aragorn]

I don't expect this roster to get any better results, just maybe a little more consistent.

I think so too & it shows in their results. I think most expected them to be fighting for a playoff position at this point & that is exactly where they are. They are playing better defensively & slightly more consistently but don't exactly have the horses to win consistently as the better teams who do have the horses do. I'm not sure this roster is better than what we are seeing, an 8th place team or hanging on to the 3rd spot in the division for the remainder of the yr to make the playoffs.

While I think White & Chabot will help next yr, the question is how long will it take them to get up to speed in the NHL & then take that next step to excel in this league? 1 yr, 2 yrs or more? And then will the stars we depend on now still be good or will their skills start to decline? I think we just have to hope their progression is somehow accelerated & we get lucky with someone else who becomes a star rapidly too at the same time while our stars are still able to play well consistently.

 

[SilverSeven]

3rd string goaltender for the majority of the year.

This team with Anderson likely leads the Atlantic right now.

 

[Caeldan]

About the only thing I don't like is our tendency to allow goals in the last minute of a period, especially the 2nd.
Over 42 games we've allowed 1 in the first, 7 in the second and 1 in the third (last night).
On offense, we've scored 1 in the first and then have managed 6 EN goals in the final minute. So removing those EN goals, we're at a -8 when in the last minute of a period

 

[SilverSeven]

About the only thing I don't like is our tendency to allow goals in the last minute of a period, especially the 2nd.
Over 42 games we've allowed 1 in the first, 7 in the second and 1 in the third (last night).
On offense, we've scored 1 in the first and then have managed 6 EN goals in the final minute. So removing those EN goals, we're at a -8 when in the last minute of a period

Andy! Andy! Andy!

I mean, we can't definitively say he solves this, but throughout his entire time here, Anderson has had a hell of a knack for not letting in those back breaker style goals.

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

Andy! Andy! Andy!

I mean, we can't definitively say he solves this, but throughout his entire time here, Anderson has had a hell of a knack for not letting in those back breaker style goals.

Wraparounds is his kryptonite

 

[JD1]

Yost seems to be writing a lot of columns these days that start from a conclusion and then have facts to support it.

Are the Sens better? Last year we were 27th on the PP and 29th on the PK. I think the collective consensus on this board was that with average special teams we make the playoffs.

Boucher said he would improve the special teams. This year to date we are 20th on the PP and 13th on the PK. Average. And we are solidly in a playoff spot.

And as good as Condon has been he was at the helm of Montreal's collapse and out of the league at the start of the season. We are where we are with a 3rd string goalie.

It isn't really debatable IMO.

 

[Micklebot]

Yost seems to be writing a lot of columns these days that start from a conclusion and then have facts to support it.

Are the Sens better? Last year we were 27th on the PP and 29th on the PK. I think the collective consensus on this board was that with average special teams we make the playoffs.

Boucher said he would improve the special teams. This year to date we are 20th on the PP and 13th on the PK. Average. And we are solidly in a playoff spot.

And as good as Condon has been he was at the helm of Montreal's collapse and out of the league at the start of the season. We are where we are with a 3rd string goalie.

It isn't really debatable IMO.

Really don't think it's fair to characterize Condon as a third string goalie, he certainly hasn't played like one.

Last year was his first year as an NHL goalie, little lone being thrown into the fire as a starter, and while yes, his performance did drop off, the Habs had numerous injuries to their skaters as well (Gallagher, Petry, Subban, Beaulieu and Desharnais all missed time). Blaming their collapse on Condon is disingenuous.

It's also problematic that you automatically call him our 3rd string. He wasn't here for camp, so was never given a shot to win a spot as the backup, but he clearly performed well enough to win that role since his arrival. To me, it's quite clear that he's the 2nd string goalie on this teams depth chart, not Hammond (who I'm not as down on as some, I still think if healthy, he's an adequate backup).

 

[JD1]

Really don't think it's fair to characterize Condon as a third string goalie, he certainly hasn't played like one.

Last year was his first year as an NHL goalie, little lone being thrown into the fire as a starter, and while yes, his performance did drop off, the Habs had numerous injuries to their skaters as well (Gallagher, Petry, Subban, Beaulieu and Desharnais all missed time). Blaming their collapse on Condon is disingenuous.

It's also problematic that you automatically call him our 3rd string. He wasn't here for camp, so was never given a shot to win a spot as the backup, but he clearly performed well enough to win that role since his arrival. To me, it's quite clear that he's the 2nd string goalie on this teams depth chart, not Hammond (who I'm not as down on as some, I still think if healthy, he's an adequate backup).

Condon was front and centre in Montreal's collapse last year. I didn't blame that collapse solely on Condon and suggesting I did is disingenuous. I said he was at the helm of it and he was. Yes they had injuries, absolutely, but the simple reality of their collapse last year was that amongst their various problems, less than NHL calibre goaltending was a huge part of the problem. They were talking about this the other night on TV....how on January 14th of last year moving forward Condon's numbers were really bad.

I called Condon our 3rd string goalie because that is what he was. Anderson won the job out of camp not that he had to because he is the de facto #1. Hammond came out of camp as the #2. Condon was picked up as an insurance policy when Anderson's situation became clear.

At this point Condon has played his way in to the 2nd position on the depth chart.....but he has not done that because he has outplayed anyone, he's done that because no one else is playing. Hammond got hurt. How would things have turned out had Hammond not been hurt? Playing behind this team defence would Hammond have lost that job to Condon? Fact is I don't know and neither do you. But I doubt he'd of been given the opportunity to play his way in to the 2nd position of the depth chart without Hammond having played his way out of it. There certainly was NO intent when they grabbed Condon for him to be anything other than a back up to Hammond.

We have a starter that is not playing. We have a backup that is injured. Next guy up is doing a good job. So stating that he was our 3rd string goalie is frankly IMO pretty darn accurate. Hammond may never be given a chance to win his job back - and if he isn't I understand it - but it is unfortunate for him because injuries have really derailed every opportunity he's had to build on his ruin from two seasons ago.

 

[JD1]

Last year, playing for Montreal, Condon had a 903 save percentage. Montreal was a train wreck but part of that was getting sub 500 goaltending for the 2nd half of the season

last year playing behind that train wreck that was the Ottawa Senators, Anderson had a 916 save percentage and Hammond had a 914 percentage. Hammond had a difficult year, injured in camp, played spot duty, wasn't putting up great numbers, but got a good run towards the end of the year and with the extra work his play improved substantially and he salvaged the year with a 914 percentage in front of a pretty weak defensive team.

There's just no way Condon would have been handed the reins of this team unless the team had no other choice. Hammond earned that right and as I said, unfortunately injuries haven't let him build on his run from two years ago.

 

[Micklebot]

Last year, playing for Montreal, Condon had a 903 save percentage. Montreal was a train wreck but part of that was getting sub 500 goaltending for the 2nd half of the season

last year playing behind that train wreck that was the Ottawa Senators, Anderson had a 916 save percentage and Hammond had a 914 percentage. Hammond had a difficult year, injured in camp, played spot duty, wasn't putting up great numbers, but got a good run towards the end of the year and with the extra work his play improved substantially and he salvaged the year with a 914 percentage in front of a pretty weak defensive team.

There's just no way Condon would have been handed the reins of this team unless the team had no other choice. Hammond earned that right and as I said, unfortunately injuries haven't let him build on his run from two years ago.

First off, we got Condon because both Hammond and Anderson were out, though I imagine we would have gone after a backup either way.

Nobody said Condon would be handed the reins, I said he never got a shot to compete for them. Once he was given a shot, he clearly showed to be playing at the higher level. You can debate whether that will last, but he's got the better pedigree, and he passes the eye test as a better technical goaltender. Hammond's best attribute though is that he doesn't give up on a play, so credit where it's due.

As for comparing Hammond and Condon's sv% last year, I think when you look at the numbers closely, you'll find that Condon likely faced a more difficult situation;

While they were in net, Ottawa allowed 30.14 SA/60 and 56.73 CA/60, while Mtl allowed 27.74 SA/60 and 52.97 CA/60, sounds like an easier night for Condon, but not so fast. Mtl allowed very similar SCA/60 as Ottawa, 20.56/60 for Ott, and 20.05/60 for Mtl, so right there, the average shot for Condon appears to have been higher quality as about 36% of Hammonds CA were also SCA, whlle close to 38% of Condon's CA were also SCA. It gets worse though, in terms of HDCA, Ottawa allowed 9.74/60 in front of Hammond last year, while Mtl allowed 9.82/60 in front of Condon. That means more high danger chances against with fewer total shots, which will not be beneficial to a goalies sv%.

All that, and I haven't even broken it down to the portion of the season where Mtl had all the injuries.

Point is, sv%, even if you break it down to just looking at ES, is still a very rough gauge of how a goalie is actually performing. I'm not saying Condon had a great year, or that Hammond's was terrible, but I am saying that Sv% doesn't really tell the story one way or another, and you trying to play up how terrible we were defensively only works if you believe that Mtl was playing fantastic D, which they clearly were not.

Of note, we actually played significantly better in front of Hammond compared to Anderson by all the above metrics, it seems like the team tightened up in front of Hammond knowing they had to help out. In Mtl, the opposite was true, Price benefited from much more favourable scoring chance numbers and High danger scoring chance rates than Condon.

At the end of the day though, what's really relevant is whether you think if Hammond was healthy right now, would he be playing ahead of Condon. If the answer is no, we aren't playing our 3rd string goalie. At some point this season (and imo, very early on), Condon quite clearly passed Hammond on the depth chart.

 

[Viletho]

On the Condon's topic. I don't have the actual number because I heard them on the radio this morning.

They have made the comparaison between Condon's collapse last year to Carey Price's present bad stretch. It was on 16 games when the Habs started to lose a lot and Condon had better number that Price has this year. ( only the bad stretch )

Unfortunately, i don't have the number. Do your own conclusion. It doesn't tell much. But maybe Condon wasn't that bad and it was the Habs who were terrible.

Condon right now has more experience and know better how to prepare if he need to play the #1 role

 

[JD1]

First off, we got Condon because both Hammond and Anderson were out, though I imagine we would have gone after a backup either way.

Nobody said Condon would be handed the reins, I said he never got a shot to compete for them. Once he was given a shot, he clearly showed to be playing at the higher level. You can debate whether that will last, but he's got the better pedigree, and he passes the eye test as a better technical goaltender. Hammond's best attribute though is that he doesn't give up on a play, so credit where it's due.

As for comparing Hammond and Condon's sv% last year, I think when you look at the numbers closely, you'll find that Condon likely faced a more difficult situation;

While they were in net, Ottawa allowed 30.14 SA/60 and 56.73 CA/60, while Mtl allowed 27.74 SA/60 and 52.97 CA/60, sounds like an easier night for Condon, but not so fast. Mtl allowed very similar SCA/60 as Ottawa, 20.56/60 for Ott, and 20.05/60 for Mtl, so right there, the average shot for Condon appears to have been higher quality as about 36% of Hammonds CA were also SCA, whlle close to 38% of Condon's CA were also SCA. It gets worse though, in terms of HDCA, Ottawa allowed 9.74/60 in front of Hammond last year, while Mtl allowed 9.82/60 in front of Condon. That means more high danger chances against with fewer total shots, which will not be beneficial to a goalies sv%.

All that, and I haven't even broken it down to the portion of the season where Mtl had all the injuries.

Point is, sv%, even if you break it down to just looking at ES, is still a very rough gauge of how a goalie is actually performing. I'm not saying Condon had a great year, or that Hammond's was terrible, but I am saying that Sv% doesn't really tell the story one way or another, and you trying to play up how terrible we were defensively only works if you believe that Mtl was playing fantastic D, which they clearly were not.

Of note, we actually played significantly better in front of Hammond compared to Anderson by all the above metrics, it seems like the team tightened up in front of Hammond knowing they had to help out. In Mtl, the opposite was true, Price benefited from much more favourable scoring chance numbers and High danger scoring chance rates than Condon.

At the end of the day though, what's really relevant is whether you think if Hammond was healthy right now, would he be playing ahead of Condon. If the answer is no, we aren't playing our 3rd string goalie. At some point this season (and imo, very early on), Condon quite clearly passed Hammond on the depth chart.

You like to argue don't you....anyone that starts a post saying "first off" is interested in arguing and wants to be proven correct.

Since Condon has been handed the reins, no one else has been healthy. He's played well enough for the team to win, no doubt about that, and he's been in a difficult situation with no credible NHL experienced backup. That said, he's hasn't really shown he is playing at a higher level, there simply hasn't been anyone else playing.

The stats you posted do favour Condon in terms of difficulty...but you seem like a guy that is good with numbers. Take the numbers you posted and extended that out and tell me how many minutes Condon has to play to face 1, just 1, more difficult shot than Hammond. You are splitting hairs. "it gets worse" you are really really stretching. 9.74 versus 9.82. You cannot be serious? Do the math and tell me how many games it would have taken for Condon to face 1 extra difficult chance.

My playing up how terrible we were defensively has NOTHING to do with how Montreal played. NOTHING. It is a relatively straight forward fact that Hammond posted that 914 % playing in front of a loose D. That's it, that's all. How do you think he'd do playing in front of our current tight D that gives up a lot less?

If Hammond was healthy I believe that Condon would never have received the opportunity he did. That wasn't the case, Condon got the opportunity, he's done well with it and at this point, I think there is no opportunity short of an injury to Condon for Hammond to steal that spot back. And that is due to Hammond's injury history.

Honestly Micklebot, I don't think this is a hard situation to understand. Stating Condon was a 3rd string goalie is a pretty simple statement. He got an opportunity due to personal circumstance and due to injury. He's done well with it. No question .But as someone else posted in this thread, with Anderson in net we might be in first.

nuff said on this one for me.

 

[Senateurs]

They are more structured, in all three zones, but most importantly in the D zone. I've been pleasantly surprised at how well Phaneuf and Ceci have been playing in the last month. I wasn't so sure about this pairing at first but I really like their game right now.

Special teams are better, which, along with our improved defensive play, helps us win close games.

Goaltending is part of any good team now, so obviously, a lot of credit has to be given to Condon and Andy. However, our wins are not solely because our goalie stood on it's hear like the previous years.

The offense is not there here but I'm not worried one bit. We had to fix the team's structure and the overall defensive game first and foremost. Goals will come, even if it takes a full season of learning to play Guy's system.

It reminds me of the first few years une J.Martin. At first it was a bit boring but they were winning. Then after a few season, the offense was unbelievable but they still had the structure.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Way less second chance opportunities against from what I see as well

Well I'm sure there's a stat to back this up.

. We do look better imo. But if someone were to show me numbers that show pretty much everything is the same. Then I would have to think to myself "maybe it's just looks" and at the end of the day who cares how you look. Your accomplishing (or not accomplishing) the same things.


And when I say we look better, to me. Not saying much. Last year we were a downright abomination the worst season I had seen in my hockey viewing life (from an entertainment standpoint). I mean that team had me pulling my hair out.

 

[DrEasy]

And when I say we look better, to me. Not saying much. Last year we were a downright abomination the worst season I had seen in my hockey viewing life (from an entertainment standpoint). I mean that team had me pulling my hair out.

And yet we were in the playoff race until Turris got hurt.