Assume you could quantify anything, what stat could revolutionize hockey evalutation?

[The Optimist]

Meaningful assists. Players get an assist if they do something instrumental to the play. Assists are not limited to two. If 3 players were important to the play then 3 meaningful assists are awarded. Additionally, touches of the puck are not required to receive an assist. If a play for example is screening the goalie or running a pick play they too get an assist.

Not likely to revolutionize anything but it would make fantasy hockey more fun.

 

[sal00]

Those scores measuring actual potential ceilings like all the Fantasy Hockey GM games out there

 

[Hasa92]

Someone already said this but hockey needs a formula for shot difficulity.

For both saves and shooting, this implemented to corsi would be a really good asset on determiming players & teams skill and playstyle.

 

[Narow]

Time of possession is a tricky one. I hear it all the time people want it because they want ACTUAL time of possession, not a proxy via shot attempts. But ill pose you this question: Why is time of possession more important? I mean if the point of a game is to score goals which involves getting shots on net, why is time of possession more important? Say a team just holds the puck in the corners of the rink, or up high with the defenseman and gets very few shots on net, why would that be more important that a team that gets more shots on net

The only way I could see actual possession time as being important is if you could measure players efficiency at turning possession time with the puck into actual shots. Like high possession time and low shot totals is inefficient. High shot + high possession time means a dominant player

Cus then you can divided goals/shots by possesion time and you get an average of how effective a team/player is with the puck

Example

Team A vs Team B
30% possesion vs 68% (couple of seconds/ minutes when noone has possesion.

Time: 17:38 vs 40:00

But score is 3-2 to team A

Divide goals by time and we get

Team A: 0.17
Team B: 0.05
Could rewrite it as
Team A 1.7
Team B 0.5

The higher the number the more time effective a team or player was with the puck. It is basically goal per minute of puck possesion.

Would also be cool as it may prove a lesser team was more effective with the puck despite loosing the game.

But i think it would be best applied to individual players. Especially pure sniper or finnishers would be interesting. Lots of goals with little contact on puck.

You could take it further by having individual tracking of all 3 zones aswell. Could help in evaluating defencemen or most effective forwards..

Could make voting awards such as norris, selke a bit less subjective.

In addition to ensure correct readings a small pressure censor is added on the stick. Which also could give info as to what forces a player produces when shooting or passing but maybe that is a step too far.. obviously the sensor would be like fused with the stick tape ideally and not noticeable for the player.

 

[Little Psycho]

A star that tracks when players break up plays, poke the puck away, or any other good defensive play would be interesting to see. This would make someone like Drew Doughty seem even more impressive

I get annoyed when people trash talk Doughty, they just have to watch him play to see what he brings.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Time of possession is a tricky one. I hear it all the time people want it because they want ACTUAL time of possession, not a proxy via shot attempts. But ill pose you this question: Why is time of possession more important? I mean if the point of a game is to score goals which involves getting shots on net, why is time of possession more important? Say a team just holds the puck in the corners of the rink, or up high with the defenseman and gets very few shots on net, why would that be more important that a team that gets more shots on net

The only way I could see actual possession time as being important is if you could measure players efficiency at turning possession time with the puck into actual shots. Like high possession time and low shot totals is inefficient. High shot + high possession time means a dominant player

possession time is important because the other team can't score when they don't have the puck. i.e goal prevention.

i think with certain top tier players like Pat Kane as the most glaring example, he can simply hold onto pucks and make plays that most other players can't make instead of just hurling the puck to the net.

Kane's shot metrics aren't very appealing and the "eye test" says he is one of the best individual possession players in the league.

 

[Peanut]

A star that tracks when players break up plays, poke the puck away, or any other good defensive play would be interesting to see. This would make someone like Drew Doughty seem even more impressive

Its getting there slowly

 

[Aceboogie]

possession time is important because the other team can't score when they don't have the puck. i.e goal prevention.

i think with certain top tier players like Pat Kane as the most glaring example, he can simply hold onto pucks and make plays that most other players can't make instead of just hurling the puck to the net.

Kane's shot metrics aren't very appealing and the "eye test" says he is one of the best individual possession players in the league.

If the end result is goal preventation, a high shot volume- average time of possession team can still end up with same results as mid shot volume- high time of possession team but being able to keep a team to outside even tho they have possession

We do already measure that end result of goals and shots. Time of possession only muddies the waters more because that stat by itself is not at end, only a means to an end. Shots are still the end.

For example, 1 team can possess puck 70% of the game but only get 45% of the shots. They are largely just being ineffective with the puck. But would people start saying "oh well that team is a better possession team because of time of possession"

Time of possession would be a good micro-stat like zone exits or entries are. They are good for looking at smaller, select aspects of a game. But time of possession wouldn't and shouldnt replace shot metrics as the larger all-encompassing metric to evaluate games and players. Because the end result is still to get shots on net and prevent them on yours

As for your example, its actually pretty good. Pat Kane has poor shots for (145th overall for forwards) and shots against (155th overall). He does however rank high in individual shots for (7th in league for forwards). So I get where your coming from, but its a bit off because Kane does shoot it a ton, its his line that doesnt shoot (next forward has 40 less shots on his team). The question is: is being on a line with low volume shooters costing him and the team more than its benefiting them? His goals for% is below average on the Hawks. Would shooting more get more goals for him, his line and his team. And if shooting more meant losing possession and hsots against, does good outweigh bad

Basically, even right now if Kane is a monster at time of possession, the result of goals scored and goals scored against isnt doing Kane all that well. Would lowering T.O.P and increasing shots do them better?

 

[Aceboogie]

Someone already said this but hockey needs a formula for shot difficulity.

For both saves and shooting, this implemented to corsi would be a really good asset on determiming players & teams skill and playstyle.

There already is multiple

There is High danger chances for that tracks shots faced and received from in close or high danger chances. Then also for mid and low danger chances. Lastly expected goals % combined all those to indicate how many goals should have been scored for or against based on shot location and shot volume on the ice

 

[Clamshells]

Positional play would be a big one. With the player tracking data they're starting to collect, it would be interesting to have a computer calculated ideal position for the play and how close players come to it.

Basically like goalie angles but for every situation, like defencemen playing a 2 on 1, or a PK set up, or a shooter getting into open lanes.

 

[Aceboogie]

Positional play would be a big one. With the player tracking data they're starting to collect, it would be interesting to have a computer calculated ideal position for the play and how close players come to it.

Basically like goalie angles but for every situation, like defencemen playing a 2 on 1, or a PK set up, or a shooter getting into open lanes.

This is what I am excited about. Player tracking. Player tracking can better assign responsibility for shots on the ice as it can track where that shot came from and where a selected player was in relation to the shot. Aka if a shot came on your area, you get more blame

Or things like positioning and board battles won

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

+\- based on actual impact of scoring or giving up a goal, not just being on the ice.

 

[Channelcat]

Stanley cups lifted

 

[Narow]

+\- based on actual impact of scoring or giving up a goal, not just being on the ice.

How does one judge impact tho? Assists/goals for plus but how do you do minus?

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

A stat to see who's fault it was

 

[The Blunder Years]

A stat that tracks any action other then goal or assist that directly leads to a goal. Whether it be a hit or a takeaway, or maybe even a great outlet pass to kickstart a rush. There's always been moments where a player has done something that's amazing before a goal and isn't on the stat sheet.