oilerbear
Registered User
- Jun 2, 2008
- 3,168
- 199
I have created 50+ theories.
Once again ( all theories are Proprietary)
I created 2 that identify the entire goal diff Human machine action SOE ( sequence of event) actions that show the large affect +/-ve actions.
50 yr ago as a high function autistic child ( recently established) I noticed the violence of Clarke, Leach, Stoughton Flin Flon Bombers was about attacking and defending in front of the Net.
Homeplate.
45+ yr ago, playing road hockey with a younger Ron Gunville ( Player Personell director PA Raiders WHL champs), I noticed he moved with the ball, the ball hit him at a high rate.
The ball had 0% chance of going in.
the 2 Nd half of Goal diff analysis is exclusion of all closed shots driven by elite defencemen.
They establish an xsave% to each side for a goalie to perform around. Elite 0% Corsi Dmen like Languay, Stevens, Russell.
Their are hybrid forward/ Dmen ( Rovers) who abandon def of Homeplate to their defensive side to try to generate evg production by occupying forward space stealing forward pocession.
They generate evg/60 at a #11 to PB forward pace.
Only 6 each yr generate Evp/60 at a better than 4 th line forward pace.
They yeild a high% of free path attacks to their abandoned side of Homeplate.
As a result they yeild high% of high success density SH% open shots to their side.
they have very bad evga/60 rates to Rovers side.
Toronto runs a high % of 3F - 1R -1D -1G structure.
When I looked at years of playoff performance teams with high 3F -2D - 1G structure% make final 4 7 of every 8 years.
you can win a cup as a #28 GF team.
But are usually not final 4 if you are not a top GA team.
when you look at the top Orgs.
Competing for Championships ( final 4)
They are high% of one type of structure teams.
Since 2000; Ottawa is the best Cdn Org.
3 Conf finals and 1 Conf Championship.
It is funny though that TSN and Sportsnet, Considers making the playoffs and making the owners money multiple years is better than competing for and winning championships.
bad for the fans!
I feel for you!
Not Steve Dangke though!
I pointed out my 2 theories on his YouTube comments section,
He ignored the basis for all hockey analytics.
Toronto trained MSM presented an article calling the most Championship Competative Canadian Organization an embarrassment.
Re from the 70’s show needs to walk up to them and say something.
Right up their when Servelli said Toronto is good a GF but bad at GA.
Button Mocked him!
Understood right away why Button failed as a GM!
Toronto like Calgary runs a high rover based structure.
Have bottom 5 Open shot defence.
When you look at edm 4 season of heavy 3-2-1 structure seasons.
05-06 Conf Champ
06-07 no playoffs.
16-17 2 clear goalie interference non calls cost them a final 4.
19/20 Injuries are slowing their results.
They have 4 top 60 open HD shot reduction Dmen.
Larsson, Benning, Russell, Jones.
And
EVGA results are only being dragged down by bottom level Rovers Nurse, Bear, Klefbom.
Go onto a Analytic Calculator site like Nat Stat trick.
They are important for the fans. But.
“Guys who create calculators are not creating hockey analytics theory.”
Evga/60 is reflective of the path of puck from release count to outcome.
Look at def pairs and dmens evga/60.
Corsi - (blocks + forced misses + closed shots ( hit goalie)) = open shots.
Open shots = goalie saves + goals
GF and GA are not luck.
They are a reflection of the battle between Opp forwards and home 2D - 1G.
A sequence of events as early as Rover leaving Homeplate to attack are the direct generator ( quite often) Of small sequence of events around the net on rovers abandoned side leading to a goal.
A lot of the time the Rover is one of the 2 last skaters and often changes, forcing another Dmen to try to re establish 2D - 1G def of homeplate.
Noesens was in a better position on a Rover side cause of structure.
Not Luck!
Pure multivariable human machine action SOE ( sequence of event) operational science.
Last edited:
