Sproul made another good play in the first. Forgot to time stamp it in the GDT but someone else and myself noticed it. Moved and battled the puck up along the boards, and then got the puck and moved it out of the zone using the glass.
BinCookin's Defensive Scoring
- Thread starter BinCookin
- Start date
Sproul made another good play in the first. Forgot to time stamp it in the GDT but someone else and myself noticed it. Moved and battled the puck up along the boards, and then got the puck and moved it out of the zone using the glass.
BinCookin
Registered User
Good eye.
I didn't give him a plus on that play (3:10) in the first, because he only got it out to the line, where their D man blocked it, it was a solid poke check my Mantha that lead to a 2on1.
But that's one of those ones that i enjoy the debate on.
If we time stamp or try to do this during the GDT, we could actually agree on some of these plays during the game
Thanks for reading and helping out though. I can mark this play down for you.
Henkka
Registered User
Quite funny... Smith put with Sproul --> positive evening.
Still crazy how it goes.
Smith with Kronwall, Kronwall goes +2-2 =0, Smith goes +2 -7 = -5
Smith with Sproul, Sproul goes +4 -0 = +4, Smith goes +4 -3 = +1
Always worse than his partner.
Still crazy how it goes.
Smith with Kronwall, Kronwall goes +2-2 =0, Smith goes +2 -7 = -5
Smith with Sproul, Sproul goes +4 -0 = +4, Smith goes +4 -3 = +1
Always worse than his partner.
BinCookin
Registered User
DET vs BUF
Green()
2-12:40(+) good shot on pp
3-13:40(+) on the tape pass
DDK()
1-9:50(-) DDK just misses a pass
2-6:15(+) nice drop pass by DDk
Kronwall()
3-17:30(-) penalty, hook on the hands
3-3:10(+) good muscling a guy off the puck along the boards
Smith()
1-14:14(-) Smith Turnover right up the middle
1-11:38(-) took pass poorly, caused turnover
1-5:03(-) pure giveaway by smith, another scoring chance against
3-12:30(+) good point shot
3-9:44(-) fumbled the puck on pass
Ericsson()
1-17:40(-) Poor awareness leads to breakaway against
3-15:50(+) nice short pass in D zone by E
Sproul()
2-7:35(+) good box out by sproul, made sure point shot on net was easy to stop
2-4:04(+) great pass up the middle to Vanek, Assist on Goal 1
3-18:25(-) sproul jumps up at wrong time leaving only 1 d-man back, leads to goal against
3-2:17(+) accurate spin pass
3-1:55(+) good shot on goal
Also i updated the yearly stats.
Green()
2-12:40(+) good shot on pp
3-13:40(+) on the tape pass
DDK()
1-9:50(-) DDK just misses a pass
2-6:15(+) nice drop pass by DDk
Kronwall()
3-17:30(-) penalty, hook on the hands
3-3:10(+) good muscling a guy off the puck along the boards
Smith()
1-14:14(-) Smith Turnover right up the middle
1-11:38(-) took pass poorly, caused turnover
1-5:03(-) pure giveaway by smith, another scoring chance against
3-12:30(+) good point shot
3-9:44(-) fumbled the puck on pass
Ericsson()
1-17:40(-) Poor awareness leads to breakaway against
3-15:50(+) nice short pass in D zone by E
Sproul()
2-7:35(+) good box out by sproul, made sure point shot on net was easy to stop
2-4:04(+) great pass up the middle to Vanek, Assist on Goal 1
3-18:25(-) sproul jumps up at wrong time leaving only 1 d-man back, leads to goal against
3-2:17(+) accurate spin pass
3-1:55(+) good shot on goal
Also i updated the yearly stats.
Mount Suribachi
Registered User
What I find interesting is that Ericsson has so many plusses, which for a D who won't get many +++ for offensive plays, is quite impressive
InjuredChoker
Registered User
he's been surprisingly solid this season. he and sproul are the only ones who have played at or above my expectations.
Henkka
Registered User
They have also had easiest 3rd pairing matchups. It always helps and at same time some shut-down guys get slack when sucking against superstar forwards.
BTW, Smith was good against the Devils!
Leronziia
kenorH
The difference between Smith's best and worst is staggering. Made worse by his lack of consistency, so that we see both in the space of a week.
BinCookin
Registered User
DET vs NJ
Green()
1-14:40(+) nice pass under pressure up to Larkin
1-5:40(+) nice short pass in D-zone
DDK()
2-13:55(-) fail to clear leads to 3rd goal
3-17:20(+) good SOG into traffic
Kronwall()
1-15:37(+) good pass up the middle on the tape
Smith()
1-15:50(+) good shot, and stand up at the line play
3-14:50(-) turnover, leads to kinda 2on1
Ericsson()
1-16:35(+) good point SOG
1-4:25(+) nice pinch in from the point
2-14:34(-) Penalty interference
2-0:24(+) great spin pass right on the tape
Sproul()
1-2:50(+) great pass d-d on the PP under pressure
2-15:58(--) sproul beaten cleanly on the boards, leads towards goal, easy walk out.
Smith only made 1 mistake today. Qualifies him as having a great night. For the most part the D played well tonight. As much as the game seemed sloppy at time, a lot of that was from forwards turning the pucks over, and not the D.
Green()
1-14:40(+) nice pass under pressure up to Larkin
1-5:40(+) nice short pass in D-zone
DDK()
2-13:55(-) fail to clear leads to 3rd goal
3-17:20(+) good SOG into traffic
Kronwall()
1-15:37(+) good pass up the middle on the tape
Smith()
1-15:50(+) good shot, and stand up at the line play
3-14:50(-) turnover, leads to kinda 2on1
Ericsson()
1-16:35(+) good point SOG
1-4:25(+) nice pinch in from the point
2-14:34(-) Penalty interference
2-0:24(+) great spin pass right on the tape
Sproul()
1-2:50(+) great pass d-d on the PP under pressure
2-15:58(--) sproul beaten cleanly on the boards, leads towards goal, easy walk out.
Smith only made 1 mistake today. Qualifies him as having a great night. For the most part the D played well tonight. As much as the game seemed sloppy at time, a lot of that was from forwards turning the pucks over, and not the D.
Mount Suribachi
Registered User
BinCookin
Registered User
Henkka
Registered User
I have collected my own Scoring chance data all season (missing only 3 games), and now there would be some info to look.
I have a point scale, where:
Goal = 3 points
Quality scoring chance assist, which did became a goal = 3 points
Quality scoring chance = 2 points
Quality scoring chance assist = 2 points
Screen that affected to Goal scored = 2point
Scoring attempt from medium-danger zone = 1 point
Assist = 1 point
Assist for scoring attempt = 1 point
Screen for scoring attempt = 1 point
Faceoff win for scoring attempt = 1 point
Drawn penalty = 1 point
Forecheking play which did lead to Quality chance = 2 point
Forecheking play which did liead to Scoring attempt = 1 point
Key Block which did prevent a scoring chance = 1 point
Good Defensive play which did prevent a scoring chance or did transition the game = 1 point
Penalty kill play, which did clear the DefZone pressure = 1 point
A shot attempt, which was never purposed to be a goal-scoring attempt = 0 points.
This kind of point-system idea was to create somekind of scale, that "who will help the team, one way or another". Not just shot metrics. I also tried to create some easily seen intangibles there. Screens, drawn penalties, Faceoffs, Blocks, Defensive plays, Penallty Killing. Stats that people won't see on point-scoring table.
It also includes a "heatmap" to see better who shoots from high-danger areas and who not. Who passes to high-danger areas and who won't. It's my own eye-test which determines a high-danger shot/pass and regular shot attempt or passing play. I reviews situations multiple times from PVR which one it was, if it was not obvious at first look.
The heatmap is a no-brainer, if you want to create great hockey stats, because Corsi's won't tell that. In Corsi, every shot attempt is valued as equal and that causes noise on that data. My data is not perfect data either, but it is one view to see the game, and Imo, I've put the best way I could to measure players in somewhat easy way. I have shot attempts which are valued from zero to 3 points (goal).
My scoring attempts are mostly "Eye-tested heatmap Fenwick For". I couldn't get a better name for it. But that's what it is. Shot attempts for shot blocker are meaningless to me = 0 point value, so we go with Fenwick. I count blocks, if our guy does it against the opposite team, of course. Preveting and attempt. Heatmapped shots on goal + missed shots on good scoring areas is that drives mostly my system + who will assist those. That's the most interesting stat you can't from anywhere. No one tracks playmakers stats, who did assist the shot or quality chance. But here it is.
Collecting these points doesn't take any extra time for me. I usually watch a LIVE game, replay some situations and I'll be left behind few minutes of the LIVE feed in games. But on infractions and between periods I can catch the missed time up. This has been fun to do, I would usually fall on sleep on commercial breaks if I wouldn't have this stat "job".
I have different kind of separations for those stats. We can do whatever we want, everybody can ask whatever you want and I can give different numbers. I could look only offensive plays (point scoring on my scale) or defensive plays (Blocks, Def playes, PK plays combined) or whatever you want. Who creates most Quality Scoring chances. Who has most/least intangibles plays?
But this is the current rank from games this season. All games are not collected, at least that 0-1 loss against Washington is missing and two other games (one PHI and CGY game).
But my current rank.
1. Anthony Mantha, 9.83 (points/game)
2. Henrik Zetterberg, 9.50 (points(game)
3. Dylan Larkin, 8.57
4. Tomas Vanek 8.48
5. Tomas Tatar 8.45
6. Gustav Nyquist 7.52
That's our TOP6 in all situations. Helm, Nielsen, Abdelkader, Athanasiou, Glendening and Sheahan come next.
Somebody had to take the torch from Datsyuk as being the offensive leader, and I'm very surprised that Mantha has been so great. His scoring chance rate has most quality. Quality shots + Passes to Quality chances. He is slightly above Zetterberg and could regress as the season goes on and game wear comes up. But those numbers are promising. Same level as Datsyuk was at last season. And that's freaking something.
I'll post rest of the stats later today.
I have my own stats also for defencemen, but those offensively weighted. I've implemented BinCookin stats to my own to have also more those negative points, to get better overall results. And my god they match well with eye-test.
I have a point scale, where:
Goal = 3 points
Quality scoring chance assist, which did became a goal = 3 points
Quality scoring chance = 2 points
Quality scoring chance assist = 2 points
Screen that affected to Goal scored = 2point
Scoring attempt from medium-danger zone = 1 point
Assist = 1 point
Assist for scoring attempt = 1 point
Screen for scoring attempt = 1 point
Faceoff win for scoring attempt = 1 point
Drawn penalty = 1 point
Forecheking play which did lead to Quality chance = 2 point
Forecheking play which did liead to Scoring attempt = 1 point
Key Block which did prevent a scoring chance = 1 point
Good Defensive play which did prevent a scoring chance or did transition the game = 1 point
Penalty kill play, which did clear the DefZone pressure = 1 point
A shot attempt, which was never purposed to be a goal-scoring attempt = 0 points.
This kind of point-system idea was to create somekind of scale, that "who will help the team, one way or another". Not just shot metrics. I also tried to create some easily seen intangibles there. Screens, drawn penalties, Faceoffs, Blocks, Defensive plays, Penallty Killing. Stats that people won't see on point-scoring table.
It also includes a "heatmap" to see better who shoots from high-danger areas and who not. Who passes to high-danger areas and who won't. It's my own eye-test which determines a high-danger shot/pass and regular shot attempt or passing play. I reviews situations multiple times from PVR which one it was, if it was not obvious at first look.
The heatmap is a no-brainer, if you want to create great hockey stats, because Corsi's won't tell that. In Corsi, every shot attempt is valued as equal and that causes noise on that data. My data is not perfect data either, but it is one view to see the game, and Imo, I've put the best way I could to measure players in somewhat easy way. I have shot attempts which are valued from zero to 3 points (goal).
My scoring attempts are mostly "Eye-tested heatmap Fenwick For". I couldn't get a better name for it. But that's what it is. Shot attempts for shot blocker are meaningless to me = 0 point value, so we go with Fenwick. I count blocks, if our guy does it against the opposite team, of course. Preveting and attempt. Heatmapped shots on goal + missed shots on good scoring areas is that drives mostly my system + who will assist those. That's the most interesting stat you can't from anywhere. No one tracks playmakers stats, who did assist the shot or quality chance. But here it is.
Collecting these points doesn't take any extra time for me. I usually watch a LIVE game, replay some situations and I'll be left behind few minutes of the LIVE feed in games. But on infractions and between periods I can catch the missed time up. This has been fun to do, I would usually fall on sleep on commercial breaks if I wouldn't have this stat "job".
I have different kind of separations for those stats. We can do whatever we want, everybody can ask whatever you want and I can give different numbers. I could look only offensive plays (point scoring on my scale) or defensive plays (Blocks, Def playes, PK plays combined) or whatever you want. Who creates most Quality Scoring chances. Who has most/least intangibles plays?
But this is the current rank from games this season. All games are not collected, at least that 0-1 loss against Washington is missing and two other games (one PHI and CGY game).
But my current rank.
1. Anthony Mantha, 9.83 (points/game)
2. Henrik Zetterberg, 9.50 (points(game)
3. Dylan Larkin, 8.57
4. Tomas Vanek 8.48
5. Tomas Tatar 8.45
6. Gustav Nyquist 7.52
That's our TOP6 in all situations. Helm, Nielsen, Abdelkader, Athanasiou, Glendening and Sheahan come next.
Somebody had to take the torch from Datsyuk as being the offensive leader, and I'm very surprised that Mantha has been so great. His scoring chance rate has most quality. Quality shots + Passes to Quality chances. He is slightly above Zetterberg and could regress as the season goes on and game wear comes up. But those numbers are promising. Same level as Datsyuk was at last season. And that's freaking something.
I'll post rest of the stats later today.
I have my own stats also for defencemen, but those offensively weighted. I've implemented BinCookin stats to my own to have also more those negative points, to get better overall results. And my god they match well with eye-test.
Last edited:
Really appreciate the work you and BinCookin put in to do this sort of stuff, thanks. Just wanted to throw out a quick note here when looking at this list/numbers that those six wouldn't be a bad looking top6, not just production wise but player mix with small/big, snipers, net guys, etc. And the rest, in order, sort out pretty well for the bottom6. If we're ever healthy I would have a hard time complaining about a lineup like that.
Henkka
Registered User
Okay, let's take a look to my own Scoring Chance data. +20 game sample is starting to tell us something.
This is called "Heatmapped Fenwick for + some intangibles + Defensive efforts" how player can help the team kind of point scoring -system.
Total season stats after the Panthers game:
Player, Goals+Assists, AllAttempts(Quality)+AssistedAttempts(Quality), Screens+OtherOffPlay+OtherDefPlay = Total
C/LW Zetterberg, 24 games, 4+12, 48(22)+75(31), 10+16+6 = 224
Henrik Zetterberg has had 4 goals and 12 assists. He has also had 48 total Scoring attempts including goals and Quality chances. 22 of them have been Quality chances including goals. He has had 75 total Assisted scoring attempts, including assists and assists for Quality chances. 31 of his assists have been for Quality Chances, including "real" assists. He has also 10 screen plays and 16 Other Offensive plays, which have been are 4 Forecheking plays, 7 Key Faceoff wins and 5 drawn penalties. He has also had 6 good defensive plays, with 5 key takeaways (preventing opposite scoring chance) and 1 shot block. 224 points total on my scale.
C/LW Larkin, 24 games, 7+1, 72(29)+52(17), 4+18+6 = 208
Larkin has had 29 Quality Chances and 17 Assisted Quality Chances. These are most important stats my statistics bring out. Of his 4+18+6 intangibles, 4 were screens, 9 were Forecheking plays, 4 Key Faceoffs, 5 Drawn penalties, 4 Good defensive plays and 2 blocked attempts.
W Tatar, 24 games, 3+4, 70(36)+40(11), 7+14+7 = 192
Tatar has had 36 Quality chances, which is highest total amount in our team. 11 Assisted Quality chances. His puck luck has been kind of unsustainable, with those amount of chances he should have at least double amount of goals. His intangibles are 7 screens, 8 Forecheking plays and 6 Drawn Penalties, 2 good defensive plays and 5 blocked shots.
RW Nyquist, 24 games, 4+10, 49(25)+53(21), 5+7+8 = 182
Nyquist has 21 assisted Quality scoring chances which is second most after Zetterberg's 31. He has 46 combined Quality Chances + Assists, and also Tatar and Larkin have same totals. So basicly all of them create chances at same level. One by shooting from dangerous areas (Tatar), one by assisting them (Nyquist). Larkin takes a lot of bad shots, but his very high volume of shot gives you also nice amount in quality.
C Nielsen, 24 games, 5+8, 44(22)+40(16), 7+14+7 = 170
Nielsen was a big disappointment on my point-scale at earlier on the season. He looked like a 2-3 million player when signed for +5 million. But he is a veteran, and when season goes on, looks like veterans start carrying the team more and kids will regress under the game wear. Nielsen has been one of our "most-effort" players during our current point-streak. He shoots rarely, put he is picking shots from quality areas. 50% quality rating from all attempts is always good. He should just probably shoot a bit more. 22+16=38 Quality scoring chances total is okay, but he should bring them more in as our second highest paid player. I think the first 15 games were an adjustment period and also World Cup did eat this adjustment period because he missed our own training camp.
W Abdelkader, 22 games, 4+4, 32(19)+31(6), 27+11+8 = 142
Abdelkader has quite good production compared to his offensive effort. Only 27 Quality scoring chance plays, mostly on power-play. He has been weak offensively at this season overall. But he brings most intangibles per game. That 46 intangibles (27 screens, 7 forecheking plays, 4 drawn penalties, 4 good defensive plays, 3 blocked shots and 1 good PK play) is team-high per game and that doesn't include any key faceoffs, which centers are usually getting more as a no-brainer.
C/RW Glendening, 24 games, 1+6, 35(10)+21(9), 10+14+23 = 129
Now I really understand why Glendening is always praised by coaches as hardest working player. He really does those dirty things and is best defensive player to prevent opposite scoring chances. He also has had some creativity at this season, and when he was promoted to TOP3 lines it didn't look at all so stupid move on my statistics. He did create those Quality scoring chances for Ott and Miller and had them more than guys like Helm and Sheahan had at TOP3 lines. It was deserved. He has 47 intangibles (10 screens, 9 forecheking plays, 2 key faceoff which lead to scoring chance, 3 drawn penalties, 5 good defensive plays, 11 key blocked attempts, 7 good PK-plays) is the team-high and 23 good defensive plays is the clear TOP figure as the best defensive forward in our team. He will be underpaid on his becoming 1.8M contract.
C/LW Sheahan, 24 games, 0+4, 44(18)+16(5), 18+4+14 = 123
Sheahan has struggled with point-scoring through all season, but his numbers should be a bit better than they currently are. He does also those dirty things, had had 18 quality scoring chances which should transfer to 3-4 goals on long run. He also has nice amount of intangibles and is not totally useless like everybody is blaiming him to be. He isn't setting the world on fire either and is a 4th liner at maximum if the full team ever will be healthy and put together (Mantha & AA included).
C Helm, 17 games, 4+3, 35(19)+15(6), 5+18+13 = 118
Helm has almost indentical stats than Sheahan, and biggest difference is 4 goals vs. 0. Helm has one empty-netter so the real difference is 3 goals. Kind of same amount of scoring chances, passing plays and intangibles. Of course Helm has done this at 7 less games, so he has been better. But they play almost exactly same "game" on my statistics. Sheahan has more screens and Helm more offensive intangibles. Helm as again, most drawn penalties (7) from our team. This has been happening since he entered the league. He doesn't dive but he collects them in a some kind of purposive and smart way.
LW Vanek, 13 games, 4+6, 30(17)+22(12), 13+3+2 = 109
Vanek has been an offensive beast. Very high rate of quality scoring chances, has total of 17+12=29 of them and has second highest per game rate. His chances also have transferred to points a little bit better rate than they should. But those always very dangerous and smart plays. Doesn't have much of intangibles (especially defensive), he concentrates only on offence.
I'll update rest of the players in here soon.
This is called "Heatmapped Fenwick for + some intangibles + Defensive efforts" how player can help the team kind of point scoring -system.
Total season stats after the Panthers game:
Player, Goals+Assists, AllAttempts(Quality)+AssistedAttempts(Quality), Screens+OtherOffPlay+OtherDefPlay = Total
C/LW Zetterberg, 24 games, 4+12, 48(22)+75(31), 10+16+6 = 224
Henrik Zetterberg has had 4 goals and 12 assists. He has also had 48 total Scoring attempts including goals and Quality chances. 22 of them have been Quality chances including goals. He has had 75 total Assisted scoring attempts, including assists and assists for Quality chances. 31 of his assists have been for Quality Chances, including "real" assists. He has also 10 screen plays and 16 Other Offensive plays, which have been are 4 Forecheking plays, 7 Key Faceoff wins and 5 drawn penalties. He has also had 6 good defensive plays, with 5 key takeaways (preventing opposite scoring chance) and 1 shot block. 224 points total on my scale.
C/LW Larkin, 24 games, 7+1, 72(29)+52(17), 4+18+6 = 208
Larkin has had 29 Quality Chances and 17 Assisted Quality Chances. These are most important stats my statistics bring out. Of his 4+18+6 intangibles, 4 were screens, 9 were Forecheking plays, 4 Key Faceoffs, 5 Drawn penalties, 4 Good defensive plays and 2 blocked attempts.
W Tatar, 24 games, 3+4, 70(36)+40(11), 7+14+7 = 192
Tatar has had 36 Quality chances, which is highest total amount in our team. 11 Assisted Quality chances. His puck luck has been kind of unsustainable, with those amount of chances he should have at least double amount of goals. His intangibles are 7 screens, 8 Forecheking plays and 6 Drawn Penalties, 2 good defensive plays and 5 blocked shots.
RW Nyquist, 24 games, 4+10, 49(25)+53(21), 5+7+8 = 182
Nyquist has 21 assisted Quality scoring chances which is second most after Zetterberg's 31. He has 46 combined Quality Chances + Assists, and also Tatar and Larkin have same totals. So basicly all of them create chances at same level. One by shooting from dangerous areas (Tatar), one by assisting them (Nyquist). Larkin takes a lot of bad shots, but his very high volume of shot gives you also nice amount in quality.
C Nielsen, 24 games, 5+8, 44(22)+40(16), 7+14+7 = 170
Nielsen was a big disappointment on my point-scale at earlier on the season. He looked like a 2-3 million player when signed for +5 million. But he is a veteran, and when season goes on, looks like veterans start carrying the team more and kids will regress under the game wear. Nielsen has been one of our "most-effort" players during our current point-streak. He shoots rarely, put he is picking shots from quality areas. 50% quality rating from all attempts is always good. He should just probably shoot a bit more. 22+16=38 Quality scoring chances total is okay, but he should bring them more in as our second highest paid player. I think the first 15 games were an adjustment period and also World Cup did eat this adjustment period because he missed our own training camp.
W Abdelkader, 22 games, 4+4, 32(19)+31(6), 27+11+8 = 142
Abdelkader has quite good production compared to his offensive effort. Only 27 Quality scoring chance plays, mostly on power-play. He has been weak offensively at this season overall. But he brings most intangibles per game. That 46 intangibles (27 screens, 7 forecheking plays, 4 drawn penalties, 4 good defensive plays, 3 blocked shots and 1 good PK play) is team-high per game and that doesn't include any key faceoffs, which centers are usually getting more as a no-brainer.
C/RW Glendening, 24 games, 1+6, 35(10)+21(9), 10+14+23 = 129
Now I really understand why Glendening is always praised by coaches as hardest working player. He really does those dirty things and is best defensive player to prevent opposite scoring chances. He also has had some creativity at this season, and when he was promoted to TOP3 lines it didn't look at all so stupid move on my statistics. He did create those Quality scoring chances for Ott and Miller and had them more than guys like Helm and Sheahan had at TOP3 lines. It was deserved. He has 47 intangibles (10 screens, 9 forecheking plays, 2 key faceoff which lead to scoring chance, 3 drawn penalties, 5 good defensive plays, 11 key blocked attempts, 7 good PK-plays) is the team-high and 23 good defensive plays is the clear TOP figure as the best defensive forward in our team. He will be underpaid on his becoming 1.8M contract.
C/LW Sheahan, 24 games, 0+4, 44(18)+16(5), 18+4+14 = 123
Sheahan has struggled with point-scoring through all season, but his numbers should be a bit better than they currently are. He does also those dirty things, had had 18 quality scoring chances which should transfer to 3-4 goals on long run. He also has nice amount of intangibles and is not totally useless like everybody is blaiming him to be. He isn't setting the world on fire either and is a 4th liner at maximum if the full team ever will be healthy and put together (Mantha & AA included).
C Helm, 17 games, 4+3, 35(19)+15(6), 5+18+13 = 118
Helm has almost indentical stats than Sheahan, and biggest difference is 4 goals vs. 0. Helm has one empty-netter so the real difference is 3 goals. Kind of same amount of scoring chances, passing plays and intangibles. Of course Helm has done this at 7 less games, so he has been better. But they play almost exactly same "game" on my statistics. Sheahan has more screens and Helm more offensive intangibles. Helm as again, most drawn penalties (7) from our team. This has been happening since he entered the league. He doesn't dive but he collects them in a some kind of purposive and smart way.
LW Vanek, 13 games, 4+6, 30(17)+22(12), 13+3+2 = 109
Vanek has been an offensive beast. Very high rate of quality scoring chances, has total of 17+12=29 of them and has second highest per game rate. His chances also have transferred to points a little bit better rate than they should. But those always very dangerous and smart plays. Doesn't have much of intangibles (especially defensive), he concentrates only on offence.
I'll update rest of the players in here soon.
Last edited:
Henkka
Registered User
LW Anthony Mantha, 9 games, 3+2, 28(16)+16(8), 7+5+1 = 86
Mantha is something special. He has come in really high quality level on his plays. Has highest Quality chances/60 rate from whole team instantly, and those chances are also transferring to points and goals. His intangibles have been 7 screens, 4 forecheking plays, 1 drawn penalty and 1 blocked shot. There's not much defence, but he will be an offensive weapon. That reach is his ultimate elite skill combined to his great hand-eye coordination. He just has IT. His scoring chance rate/60 is same as Datsyuk had at last season. That's freaking impressive. He came in during our losing streak and now we are on a point-streak- that's not a coincidence. Also his Corsi-numbers are ultimate best and he is dragging everybody up on that criteria.
W Steve Ott, 20 games, 2+1, 18(8)+15(6), 3+6+14 = 73
Ott has been pleasant surprise. Guy has some quality offense in him on his rare minutes. Perfect 4th liner on small minutes. Only minus on his play has been some unneeded stupid penalties. Our second best defensive player after Glendening in DefPlays/60.
W Andreas Athanasiou, 13 games, 4+1, 28(13)+14(6), 1+3+1 = 71
Athanasiou looked good until his injury. I thought his offence was just exploding out, but then come the injury. He has least intangibles, but is very dangerous on Quality scoring/60 (3rd best after Mantha and Vanek). He will have good years with him.
W Drew Miller, 17 games, 2+0, 16(7)+8(4), 3+4+5 = 49
Miller has been quite meh. Ott has outplayed him so badly that there's kind of no need for him anymore. He is not the best penalty killer anymore, or even 5th best. Nothing happens at ES when he is on the ice. I think Miller has been the biggest factor to our bad 4th line possession numbers for multiple seasons.
LW Tyler Bertuzzi, 7 games, 0+0, 5(1)+5(0), 0+3+1 = 15
7 games and injured. Didn't get going any better than current 4th line veterans. Looked very good at pre-season games, but NHL was just too much him so far. Couldn't create any quality, but had some offensive intangibles. Time to get better in the minors.
LW Tomas Jurco, 2 games, 0+0, 2(2)+1(0), 1+0+1 = 7
Only two games behind and didn't set the world on fire. His numbers at earlier season weren't impressive either, so I have hard time to believe there is anything special to be lost in him. He has to put things happen, that what NHLrs do. Go get that puck if you don't have it, shoot it if you have it. Don't lose the valuable time you have on the ice. These are metrics which will do or lose an NHL career.
That injury affected on him, it looked really much better before that. He was hungry and dedicated. It's probably too early to make a judgment, but I'm the least surprised, if he is one "Frk", Pulkkinen or "Nestrasil" to be lost on waivers and no one cries after.
------
"Heatmapped Fenwick for + some intangibles + Defensive efforts"
Current Totals/Game:
1. Mantha, 9.56 (86 points / 9 games)
2. Zetterberg 9.33
-------------- These are Elite level numbers compared to other teams.
3. Larkin 8.58
4. Vanek 8.38
-------------- These are what borderline 1st liners usually have.
5. Tatar 7.99
6. Nyquist 7.58
------------ These are what 2nd liners usually have.
7. Nielsen 7.08
8. Helm 6.94
9. Abdelkader 6.45
------------ These are what typically Middle6 forwards will have.
10. Athanasiou 5.46
11. Glendening 5.38
12. Sheahan 5.13
---------------- Thse are what better Bottom6 players usually have. Athanasiou has more offence in him than a 4th liner, when excluding those intangibles. He also hasn't at PP time at all, which will regress his numbers compared to other offensive player. there's a potential burst coming out some day when he gets his chance and consistency.
13. Ott 3.65
14. Jurco 3.50
15. Miller 2.88
16. Bertuzzi 2.14
--------- These are fringe player numbers. Miller has become useless and Bertuzzi wasn't ready. Jurco also doesn't fit on the 4th line like Ott does.
Mantha is something special. He has come in really high quality level on his plays. Has highest Quality chances/60 rate from whole team instantly, and those chances are also transferring to points and goals. His intangibles have been 7 screens, 4 forecheking plays, 1 drawn penalty and 1 blocked shot. There's not much defence, but he will be an offensive weapon. That reach is his ultimate elite skill combined to his great hand-eye coordination. He just has IT. His scoring chance rate/60 is same as Datsyuk had at last season. That's freaking impressive. He came in during our losing streak and now we are on a point-streak- that's not a coincidence. Also his Corsi-numbers are ultimate best and he is dragging everybody up on that criteria.
W Steve Ott, 20 games, 2+1, 18(8)+15(6), 3+6+14 = 73
Ott has been pleasant surprise. Guy has some quality offense in him on his rare minutes. Perfect 4th liner on small minutes. Only minus on his play has been some unneeded stupid penalties. Our second best defensive player after Glendening in DefPlays/60.
W Andreas Athanasiou, 13 games, 4+1, 28(13)+14(6), 1+3+1 = 71
Athanasiou looked good until his injury. I thought his offence was just exploding out, but then come the injury. He has least intangibles, but is very dangerous on Quality scoring/60 (3rd best after Mantha and Vanek). He will have good years with him.
W Drew Miller, 17 games, 2+0, 16(7)+8(4), 3+4+5 = 49
Miller has been quite meh. Ott has outplayed him so badly that there's kind of no need for him anymore. He is not the best penalty killer anymore, or even 5th best. Nothing happens at ES when he is on the ice. I think Miller has been the biggest factor to our bad 4th line possession numbers for multiple seasons.
LW Tyler Bertuzzi, 7 games, 0+0, 5(1)+5(0), 0+3+1 = 15
7 games and injured. Didn't get going any better than current 4th line veterans. Looked very good at pre-season games, but NHL was just too much him so far. Couldn't create any quality, but had some offensive intangibles. Time to get better in the minors.
LW Tomas Jurco, 2 games, 0+0, 2(2)+1(0), 1+0+1 = 7
Only two games behind and didn't set the world on fire. His numbers at earlier season weren't impressive either, so I have hard time to believe there is anything special to be lost in him. He has to put things happen, that what NHLrs do. Go get that puck if you don't have it, shoot it if you have it. Don't lose the valuable time you have on the ice. These are metrics which will do or lose an NHL career.
That injury affected on him, it looked really much better before that. He was hungry and dedicated. It's probably too early to make a judgment, but I'm the least surprised, if he is one "Frk", Pulkkinen or "Nestrasil" to be lost on waivers and no one cries after.
------
"Heatmapped Fenwick for + some intangibles + Defensive efforts"
Current Totals/Game:
1. Mantha, 9.56 (86 points / 9 games)
2. Zetterberg 9.33
-------------- These are Elite level numbers compared to other teams.
3. Larkin 8.58
4. Vanek 8.38
-------------- These are what borderline 1st liners usually have.
5. Tatar 7.99
6. Nyquist 7.58
------------ These are what 2nd liners usually have.
7. Nielsen 7.08
8. Helm 6.94
9. Abdelkader 6.45
------------ These are what typically Middle6 forwards will have.
10. Athanasiou 5.46
11. Glendening 5.38
12. Sheahan 5.13
---------------- Thse are what better Bottom6 players usually have. Athanasiou has more offence in him than a 4th liner, when excluding those intangibles. He also hasn't at PP time at all, which will regress his numbers compared to other offensive player. there's a potential burst coming out some day when he gets his chance and consistency.
13. Ott 3.65
14. Jurco 3.50
15. Miller 2.88
16. Bertuzzi 2.14
--------- These are fringe player numbers. Miller has become useless and Bertuzzi wasn't ready. Jurco also doesn't fit on the 4th line like Ott does.
Last edited:
Henkka
Registered User
Some other splits from my data:
Most Quality Plays/60:
1. Mantha 9.96
2. Vanek 9.46
3. Athanasiou 7.25
4. Larkin 6.93
5. Nyquist 6.85
6. Zetterberg 6.83
7. Tatar 6.79
Most Creative plays/60:
1. Zetterberg 15.6
2. Vanek 14.0
3. Nyquist 12.6
4. Mantha 12.4
5. Larkin 11.9
6. Nielsen 10.1
7. Tatar 9.1
Most Intangibles/60:
1. Glendening 8.9
2. Helm 8.4
3. Abdelkader 7.6
4. Ott 6.8
5. Sheahan 6.7
6. Vanek 5.9
7. Mantha 5.4
8. Nielsen 5.0
Most DefensivePlays/60:
1. Glendening 4.4
2. Steve Ott 4.1
3. Helm 3.0
4. Sheahan 2.6
5. Nielsen 2.4
6. Miller 1.7
7. Abdelkader 1.3
OffensiveOnlyPoints/60:
1. Mantha 30.3
2. Vanek 29.7
3. Larkin 26.8
4. Athanasiou 25.2
5. Zetterberg 24.7
6. Nyquist 24.1
7. Tatar 23.7
8. Nielsen 19.7
9. Helm 19.0
10. Sheahan 16.2
11. Abdelkader 16.0
12. Jurco 15.9
13. Glendening 15.6
14. Ott 14.8
15. Miller 12.9
16. Bertuzzi 10.4
This last rank is very promising. Our three best young players, Mantha, Larkin and Athanasiou are already on the TOP4. Past 2nd line guys like Nyquist and Tatar. Those are the future building blocks, but we need more.
Most Quality Plays/60:
1. Mantha 9.96
2. Vanek 9.46
3. Athanasiou 7.25
4. Larkin 6.93
5. Nyquist 6.85
6. Zetterberg 6.83
7. Tatar 6.79
Most Creative plays/60:
1. Zetterberg 15.6
2. Vanek 14.0
3. Nyquist 12.6
4. Mantha 12.4
5. Larkin 11.9
6. Nielsen 10.1
7. Tatar 9.1
Most Intangibles/60:
1. Glendening 8.9
2. Helm 8.4
3. Abdelkader 7.6
4. Ott 6.8
5. Sheahan 6.7
6. Vanek 5.9
7. Mantha 5.4
8. Nielsen 5.0
Most DefensivePlays/60:
1. Glendening 4.4
2. Steve Ott 4.1
3. Helm 3.0
4. Sheahan 2.6
5. Nielsen 2.4
6. Miller 1.7
7. Abdelkader 1.3
OffensiveOnlyPoints/60:
1. Mantha 30.3
2. Vanek 29.7
3. Larkin 26.8
4. Athanasiou 25.2
5. Zetterberg 24.7
6. Nyquist 24.1
7. Tatar 23.7
8. Nielsen 19.7
9. Helm 19.0
10. Sheahan 16.2
11. Abdelkader 16.0
12. Jurco 15.9
13. Glendening 15.6
14. Ott 14.8
15. Miller 12.9
16. Bertuzzi 10.4
This last rank is very promising. Our three best young players, Mantha, Larkin and Athanasiou are already on the TOP4. Past 2nd line guys like Nyquist and Tatar. Those are the future building blocks, but we need more.
HIFE
Registered User
My defensive scoring vs. Panthers:
Green- 25:58 +29
DeKeyser- 23:03 +26
Ericsson- 20:57 +15
Oulette- 18:13 +8
Sproul- 14:22 0
Kronwall- 16:45 -3
Green and DeKeyser are in another universe of importance and ability among our D right now. Love them on the PK, Blashill is riding them hard. Ericsson isn't far behind it's amazing how much better he is this season than last. He REALLY helped XO along this game. Conversely I believe Kronwall was dragging down Sproul. RS didn't have a great showing but Kronwall was terrible. There's no way to hide his immobility. Skating effects puck-handling, quickness, everything. Kronwall should be done.
Green- 25:58 +29
DeKeyser- 23:03 +26
Ericsson- 20:57 +15
Oulette- 18:13 +8
Sproul- 14:22 0
Kronwall- 16:45 -3
Green and DeKeyser are in another universe of importance and ability among our D right now. Love them on the PK, Blashill is riding them hard. Ericsson isn't far behind it's amazing how much better he is this season than last. He REALLY helped XO along this game. Conversely I believe Kronwall was dragging down Sproul. RS didn't have a great showing but Kronwall was terrible. There's no way to hide his immobility. Skating effects puck-handling, quickness, everything. Kronwall should be done.
Henkka
Registered User
My defensive scoring vs. Panthers:
Green- 25:58 +29
DeKeyser- 23:03 +26
Ericsson- 20:57 +15
Oulette- 18:13 +8
Sproul- 14:22 0
Kronwall- 16:45 -3
Green and DeKeyser are in another universe of importance and ability among our D right now. Love them on the PK, Blashill is riding them hard. Ericsson isn't far behind it's amazing how much better he is this season than last. He REALLY helped XO along this game. Conversely I believe Kronwall was dragging down Sproul. RS didn't have a great showing but Kronwall was terrible. There's no way to hide his immobility. Skating effects puck-handling, quickness, everything. Kronwall should be done.
How is your scoring built? Kronwall doesn't look at all that bad on my scale, when I did impelement it with BinCookin's negative stats. It's so much easier to track forward statistics, so I'm really open minded to create some system for defence, because I don't like my "almost offensive only" statistics for defencemen.
My Hieararchy is kind of:
1. Green
-------- big gap
2.-3. DeKeyser
2.-3.-4. Kronwall
3.-4. Sproul
---------- gap
5.-6. Ericsson
5.-6. Marchenko
--------- gap
7. Ouellet
-------- gap
8. Smith
Also, one problematic thing is that Ericsson is looking better in my eye than he is collecting points, and Sproul probably vice versa. But I've thought that he also benefits playing at 3rd pair duties, against easier quality of competition.
Last edited:
HIFE
Registered User
I just scrolled through your collected offensive statistics your process of evaluation is impressive I think matches the eye-test well. To keep track of 12 players within the designated categories is a challenge. Great information I will be re-reading later.
To again quickly explain my form of BC's system, I'm trying to rate every touch of the puck as a + or - play. I'm bunching all categories together, defensive and offensive. For example a keep in, poke check, getting the puck out of the defensive zone, a shot to or near the net, these are all a + play. This game I charted a + for even a simple successful pass, a dump in, etc. to be generous scoring points.
The negatives are obvious poor positioning, giveaways, blocked shot, a lost battle, inability to collect what should be an easy puck, etc. A lame pass to a covered man may elicit a -, depends. Surprising how many times the D negate their own positive effects. For example twice in the 1st period Ouellet intercepted a pass and brought it into the offensive zone...only to completely lose the puck off his stick. In the 3rd DK let a player almost slip by him for a breakaway but he got a stick inside to break up the chance. These types of events are neutral.
Green and DeKeyser are studly. Near flawless hockey! Green I somehow noted 33 + and only 4 -. The shift to start the 2nd period with Nielsen's line, I think they both had like 4 or 5 positives, haha. The lower pairings have fewer marks because they play that much less.
Kronwall was that bad. +6 and -9. His inability to hold the line, fumbled pucks, blocked shots, lost battles, wrong positioning, giveaway passes were horrible the entire game. Defending or on the PK he stands around the net because he cannot properly chase into the corners and back, etc. Ericsson is on a total different level helping this team.
Henkka
Registered User
This is the main thing in everything. Have noticed exactly same. In my defensive points, especially at Brendan Smith's case, he does really many mistakes and saves them by himself. And many times, I did give a plus of that good defensive play. But it happened because of his own fumble, so it becomes a flawed stat. As for now, I have trained my eye-test to look these situations better. I'm not gonna ppost any defenceman stats in here. Those forward stats look good and predict future and give a bigger picture pretty well. they are based on scoring and chances + with some measured intangibles. It gives good combo.
what comes to defencemen, I think, if defenceman makes those mistakes and saves them himself, he should get negative point instead of neutral. Good defencemen won't fumble, simple as that.
And when some defencemen does that good play at first, and then loses the puck afterwards, I see this more as a positive play. Which happens first, will matter. the last part of the play could have a opposite forecheking pressure and that forces for the mistake, and not only players inability.
I could make a system like this:
Good defensive play +1 points
Good defensive play and fumble/giveaway after = +0.5 points
Fumble/Giveaway and own save after -0.5 points
Bad defensive mistake -1 points.
Something like that.
BinCookin
Registered User
Great work Henkka.
Data is interesting.
I have updated all my data today.
Funny note:
Lashoff makes no good plays per game
Lashoff makes one mistake per game.
This seems to be inline with exactly what you think he would provide, "boring moderately safe play" (him performing no good plays is why people hate him)(yet few appreciate that he is moderately safe)
Data is interesting.
I have updated all my data today.
Funny note:
Lashoff makes no good plays per game
Lashoff makes one mistake per game.
This seems to be inline with exactly what you think he would provide, "boring moderately safe play" (him performing no good plays is why people hate him)(yet few appreciate that he is moderately safe)
Henkka
Registered User
Here's my statistics about defencemen point-scoring.
Detroit Red Wings Defenceman total
13 goals
38 assists
51 points
55 Quality Scoring chances
56 Assisted Quality scoring chances
248 Scoring attempts
218 Assisted Scoring attempts
Scoring a point from Quality Chance -percentage: 0.4595
Scoring a point from Scoring Attempt -percentage: 0.1094
So these our own defencemen only. I've noticed that there'ss strong correlation on those Quality chances to prevent real scoring. Those weak "just attempts" need very much luck to bounce in and convert to real points.
I have my own formula, where i weight those Quality chances 4 times greater value than those "just Attempts", and here's how our defencemen SHOULD HAVE points, if the puck would be even between them:
Mike Green, 7+11=18 points
Green has had 27 Quality chances + 14 Quality assists at this season and this includes those points scored.
In all Attempts, he has had 77 Scoring attempts and 59 Assisted attempts
With that 0.4595 conversion ratio for Quality Chances, Green should have 18.84 points.
With that 0.1095 conversion ratio for Normal Attempts, he should have 14.88 points.
But when I weight those Quality chances more, and combine these values together, I get the final value for Green and his season points should be: 18.05 points.
So Green is very much produced exactly what he should have against his effort creating chances. It's interesting, that he has shot more quality chances than assisted, but doen't have more goals than assists. I think this clearly comes from there, where his dangerous chances usually end for rebounds, which some forward whacks in. Those dangerous shots create the havoc on the netfront and he gets credited an assist of those shots. Usually quality chance is the most difficult for the opposite goaltender, and can be clearly seen in my data, that many of other quality chances are rebounds from other quality chances. Quality chance rebounds won't happen at all as uasual from "weak" normal attempts.
***
Dan DeKeyser, 2+4= 6 points
DeKeyser has had 4 Quality chances and 9 assisted Quality chances
In all attempts, he has had 31 shots attempts and assisted 40 attempts
With that 0.4595 conversion ratio for Quality Chances, DeKeyser should have 5.97 points.
With that 0.1095 conversion ratio for Normal Attempts, he should have 7.77 points.
With that final value rating, DeKeyser should be having: 6.33 points.
So also his production has been in line. 1-2 Quality chances more, and he will "earn" his next point to keep the pace against the puck luck.
***
Ryan Sproul, 1+5= 6 points
Sproul has had 3 Quality chances and 4 assisted Quality chances
In all attempts, he has had 30 shots attempts and assisted 18 attempts
With that 0.4595 conversion ratio for Quality Chances, Sproul should have 3.22 points.
With that 0.1095 conversion ratio for Normal Attempts, he should have 5.256 points.
With that final value rating, Sproul should be having: 3.62 points.
So in Sproul case, it looks like he has given some lucky points or easy secondary assists somewhere, which doesn't match against his real effort. He is having 2-3 points too much. Those will even out in long run, if he doesn't start creating more better chances. His Quality vs. Normal Attempts ratio is team-weakest, worse than Ericsson who is second worst. Those weak shots or hard slappers high and wide the net won't help on long run. Sproul is getting regular PP time, so he is in more favourable position to do those plays. But so far, they aren't happening.
***
Jonathan Ericsson, 0+6= 6 points
Ericsson has had 1 Quality chance and 7 assisted Quality chances
In all attempts, he has had 26 shots attempts and 27 assisted attempts
With that 0.4595 conversion ratio for Quality Chances, Ericsson should have 3.676 points.
With that 0.1095 conversion ratio for Normal Attempts, he should have 5.80 points.
With that final value rating, Ericsson should be having: 4.10 points. Two lucky points have come from somewhere.
***
Alexey Marchenko, 0+5= 5 points
Marchenko has had 4 Quality chances and 6 assisted Quality chances
In all attempts, he has had 17 shots attempts and assisted 25 attempts
With that 0.4595 conversion ratio for Quality Chances, Marchenko should have 4.595 points.
With that 0.1095 conversion ratio for Normal Attempts, he should have 4.599 points.
With that final value rating, Marchenko should be having: 4.60 points. With 5 points total, his production is quite in line.
***
Brendan Smith, 2+2= 4 points
Smith has had 4 Quality chances and 6 assisted Quality chances
In all attempts, he has had 21 shots attempts and assisted 19 attempts
With that 0.4595 conversion ratio for Quality Chances, Smith should have 4.595 points.
With that 0.1095 conversion ratio for Normal Attempts, he should have 4.39 points.
With that final value rating, Smith should be having: 4.55 points. Smith's production is also quite in line. Could have 1 point more. His offensive numbers in scoring chance data isn't anyhow impressive, but he is a mistake-machine in defensive end. Nothing to be cried after as he walks to Free Agency. Green is offensively better, DeKeyser is overall better, Kronwall is overall better, Ericsson is defensively better, Ouellet is overall better, Marchenko is overall better, Sproul can be same mistake-pro wanna-be-forward, but at least a righty and bigger guy. Maybe Holland could get a 6th rounder of Smith at the deadline, like he did with Kindl.
***
Xavier Ouellet, 1+3= 4 points
Ouellet has had 3 Quality chances and 4 assisted Quality chances
In all attempts, he has had 14 shots attempts and assisted 11 attempts
With that 0.4595 conversion ratio for Quality Chances, Ouellet should have 3.22 points.
With that 0.1095 conversion ratio for Normal Attempts, he should have 2.74 points.
With that final value rating, Ouellet should be having: 3.12 points So Ouellet is almost in line, has got one extra point from somewhere. What is interesting, he didn't have any offense at starting part of the season, but it seems that his offense is coming out now. He has already matched Sproul in Quality chances with lot less total attempts. That Quality vs. All attempts ratio is third best after Kronwall and Green. He should just start pushing more chances now. In my defensive data, Ouellet has been second best defensive D-man after DeKeyser, so this is really promising. Is he the young kid who takes the next step?
***
Niklas Kronwall, 0+2= 2 points
Kronwall has had 10 Quality chances and 6 assisted Quality chances
In all attempts, he has had 30 shots attempts and assisted 16 attempts
With that 0.4595 conversion ratio for Quality Chances, Kronwall should have 7.352 points.
With that 0.1095 conversion ratio for Normal Attempts, he should have 5.256 points.
With that final value rating, Kronwall should be having: 6.93 points.
So Kronwall has been snakebit pretty badly. He should have 5 points more to his 2 total and he has been creating Quality chances with team-high ratio from his total chances. Better ratio than Green, but not just as high volume of chances. Those have been mostly on PP. This is what Ryan Sproul should become. They have almost same amount of total attempts, but Kronwall creates over two times more quality. At season end, Kronwall has overtaken Sproul in points, I can almost quarantee it. Kronwall's scoring power has been one missing elemement from the power-play at this season. He has those chances, they just haven't gone in, yet.
Detroit Red Wings Defenceman total
13 goals
38 assists
51 points
55 Quality Scoring chances
56 Assisted Quality scoring chances
248 Scoring attempts
218 Assisted Scoring attempts
Scoring a point from Quality Chance -percentage: 0.4595
Scoring a point from Scoring Attempt -percentage: 0.1094
So these our own defencemen only. I've noticed that there'ss strong correlation on those Quality chances to prevent real scoring. Those weak "just attempts" need very much luck to bounce in and convert to real points.
I have my own formula, where i weight those Quality chances 4 times greater value than those "just Attempts", and here's how our defencemen SHOULD HAVE points, if the puck would be even between them:
Mike Green, 7+11=18 points
Green has had 27 Quality chances + 14 Quality assists at this season and this includes those points scored.
In all Attempts, he has had 77 Scoring attempts and 59 Assisted attempts
With that 0.4595 conversion ratio for Quality Chances, Green should have 18.84 points.
With that 0.1095 conversion ratio for Normal Attempts, he should have 14.88 points.
But when I weight those Quality chances more, and combine these values together, I get the final value for Green and his season points should be: 18.05 points.
So Green is very much produced exactly what he should have against his effort creating chances. It's interesting, that he has shot more quality chances than assisted, but doen't have more goals than assists. I think this clearly comes from there, where his dangerous chances usually end for rebounds, which some forward whacks in. Those dangerous shots create the havoc on the netfront and he gets credited an assist of those shots. Usually quality chance is the most difficult for the opposite goaltender, and can be clearly seen in my data, that many of other quality chances are rebounds from other quality chances. Quality chance rebounds won't happen at all as uasual from "weak" normal attempts.
***
Dan DeKeyser, 2+4= 6 points
DeKeyser has had 4 Quality chances and 9 assisted Quality chances
In all attempts, he has had 31 shots attempts and assisted 40 attempts
With that 0.4595 conversion ratio for Quality Chances, DeKeyser should have 5.97 points.
With that 0.1095 conversion ratio for Normal Attempts, he should have 7.77 points.
With that final value rating, DeKeyser should be having: 6.33 points.
So also his production has been in line. 1-2 Quality chances more, and he will "earn" his next point to keep the pace against the puck luck.
***
Ryan Sproul, 1+5= 6 points
Sproul has had 3 Quality chances and 4 assisted Quality chances
In all attempts, he has had 30 shots attempts and assisted 18 attempts
With that 0.4595 conversion ratio for Quality Chances, Sproul should have 3.22 points.
With that 0.1095 conversion ratio for Normal Attempts, he should have 5.256 points.
With that final value rating, Sproul should be having: 3.62 points.
So in Sproul case, it looks like he has given some lucky points or easy secondary assists somewhere, which doesn't match against his real effort. He is having 2-3 points too much. Those will even out in long run, if he doesn't start creating more better chances. His Quality vs. Normal Attempts ratio is team-weakest, worse than Ericsson who is second worst. Those weak shots or hard slappers high and wide the net won't help on long run. Sproul is getting regular PP time, so he is in more favourable position to do those plays. But so far, they aren't happening.
***
Jonathan Ericsson, 0+6= 6 points
Ericsson has had 1 Quality chance and 7 assisted Quality chances
In all attempts, he has had 26 shots attempts and 27 assisted attempts
With that 0.4595 conversion ratio for Quality Chances, Ericsson should have 3.676 points.
With that 0.1095 conversion ratio for Normal Attempts, he should have 5.80 points.
With that final value rating, Ericsson should be having: 4.10 points. Two lucky points have come from somewhere.
***
Alexey Marchenko, 0+5= 5 points
Marchenko has had 4 Quality chances and 6 assisted Quality chances
In all attempts, he has had 17 shots attempts and assisted 25 attempts
With that 0.4595 conversion ratio for Quality Chances, Marchenko should have 4.595 points.
With that 0.1095 conversion ratio for Normal Attempts, he should have 4.599 points.
With that final value rating, Marchenko should be having: 4.60 points. With 5 points total, his production is quite in line.
***
Brendan Smith, 2+2= 4 points
Smith has had 4 Quality chances and 6 assisted Quality chances
In all attempts, he has had 21 shots attempts and assisted 19 attempts
With that 0.4595 conversion ratio for Quality Chances, Smith should have 4.595 points.
With that 0.1095 conversion ratio for Normal Attempts, he should have 4.39 points.
With that final value rating, Smith should be having: 4.55 points. Smith's production is also quite in line. Could have 1 point more. His offensive numbers in scoring chance data isn't anyhow impressive, but he is a mistake-machine in defensive end. Nothing to be cried after as he walks to Free Agency. Green is offensively better, DeKeyser is overall better, Kronwall is overall better, Ericsson is defensively better, Ouellet is overall better, Marchenko is overall better, Sproul can be same mistake-pro wanna-be-forward, but at least a righty and bigger guy. Maybe Holland could get a 6th rounder of Smith at the deadline, like he did with Kindl.
***
Xavier Ouellet, 1+3= 4 points
Ouellet has had 3 Quality chances and 4 assisted Quality chances
In all attempts, he has had 14 shots attempts and assisted 11 attempts
With that 0.4595 conversion ratio for Quality Chances, Ouellet should have 3.22 points.
With that 0.1095 conversion ratio for Normal Attempts, he should have 2.74 points.
With that final value rating, Ouellet should be having: 3.12 points So Ouellet is almost in line, has got one extra point from somewhere. What is interesting, he didn't have any offense at starting part of the season, but it seems that his offense is coming out now. He has already matched Sproul in Quality chances with lot less total attempts. That Quality vs. All attempts ratio is third best after Kronwall and Green. He should just start pushing more chances now. In my defensive data, Ouellet has been second best defensive D-man after DeKeyser, so this is really promising. Is he the young kid who takes the next step?
***
Niklas Kronwall, 0+2= 2 points
Kronwall has had 10 Quality chances and 6 assisted Quality chances
In all attempts, he has had 30 shots attempts and assisted 16 attempts
With that 0.4595 conversion ratio for Quality Chances, Kronwall should have 7.352 points.
With that 0.1095 conversion ratio for Normal Attempts, he should have 5.256 points.
With that final value rating, Kronwall should be having: 6.93 points.
So Kronwall has been snakebit pretty badly. He should have 5 points more to his 2 total and he has been creating Quality chances with team-high ratio from his total chances. Better ratio than Green, but not just as high volume of chances. Those have been mostly on PP. This is what Ryan Sproul should become. They have almost same amount of total attempts, but Kronwall creates over two times more quality. At season end, Kronwall has overtaken Sproul in points, I can almost quarantee it. Kronwall's scoring power has been one missing elemement from the power-play at this season. He has those chances, they just haven't gone in, yet.
Last edited:
Henkka
Registered User
My approximations for total season points based on these values:
Mike Green (misses ~5 games for current injury)
77 games, 14 goals + 29 assists = 43 points
Niklas Kronwall
68 games, 5 goals + 20 assists = 25 points
Dan DeKeyser
82 games, 4 goals + 12 assists = 16 points
Xavier Ouellet
67 games, 4 goals + 10 assists = 14 points
Alexey Marchenko
61 games, 2 goals + 11 assists = 13 points
Jonathan Ericsson
78 games, 1 goals + 10 assists = 11 points
Ryan Sproul
30 games, 2 goals + 6 assists = 8 points
Brendan Smith
25 games, 2 goals + 3 assists = 5 points
Mike Green (misses ~5 games for current injury)
77 games, 14 goals + 29 assists = 43 points
Niklas Kronwall
68 games, 5 goals + 20 assists = 25 points
Dan DeKeyser
82 games, 4 goals + 12 assists = 16 points
Xavier Ouellet
67 games, 4 goals + 10 assists = 14 points
Alexey Marchenko
61 games, 2 goals + 11 assists = 13 points
Jonathan Ericsson
78 games, 1 goals + 10 assists = 11 points
Ryan Sproul
30 games, 2 goals + 6 assists = 8 points
Brendan Smith
25 games, 2 goals + 3 assists = 5 points
Last edited:
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
GAME 3 - Drummondville Voltigeurs @ Victoriaville Tigres - Drummondville Voltigeurs leads series 2-0Wagers: 3Staked: $105.00Event closes- Updated: