Canucks Analytics

Not a huge fan of analytics, but found some player trends very interesting and wanted to share...

Fenwick % (above 50% indicates team was controlling play more often than not with player on the ice)
1. Leivo 57.1
2. Biega 52.5
3. Pettersson 50.9
4. Roussel 50.5
5. Stecher 49.6

Team Shooting % with player on ice
1. Boeser 13.3
2. Leivo 13.1
3. Petterson 12.9
4. Stecher 11.0
5. Beagle 10.7

Team Save % with player on ice: Best
1. Gaudette 92.6
2. Stecher 92.5
3. Leivo 92.4
4. Virtanen 92.4
5. Beagle 92.3
Worst
1. Sutter 88.2
2. Gudbranson 89.5
3. Boeser 89.7

Combined PDO (shot% + save%) (above 100% considered good)
1. Leivo 105.5
2. Pettersson 104.0
3. Stecher 103.5
4. Beagle 103.0
5. Boeser 103.0
6. Tanev 102.0

Biggest takeaways from analyzing advanced stats:
EP is excellent
Leivo is excellent
Stecher is excellent
Beagle is better than expected; Sutter is far worse than expected
Gudbranson is horrible
Based on analytics Biega & Gaudette should be in the line up

 

You need to add deployment stats for Fennwick to make any sense. And PDO is a stat that is mostly used to measure puck luck.

 

I dislike how PDO is always viewed as a luck stat. If a player in on the ice for more quality scoring chances for than against then his expected PDO should be greater than 100.

If EP had a 100 PDO, I’d say he’s having bad luck

 

I think you just contradicted your self with those two statements.

 

When it come's to luck there is no way to contradict oneself. It doesn't exist, it may be that quantum mechanics is or isn't random, but at human scale luck and even random chance are simply a result of our lack of knowledge of a given event or set of events. This fundamental of nature is why it's impossible to code for randomness. The best you can do is use a poorly understood and rapidly changing source of noise and an algorithm to make something we can't currently predict or reverse engineer in any meaningful way.

Thus, when it comes a star players we should expect high PDO. We pay them to consistently play well above the mean which PDO is predicted to regress towards. A very good team that wins in a way tracked by PDO (ie. Pretty much all of them) could have multiple lines and pairings playing above 100% PDO.

That is to say, that a player like Petersson should be expected to trend towards PDO rates of over 100% on a team that, over a season, plays a consistent style of play with a consistent output. Thus a rate below his current 104 might show a stretch of substandard play by him and his linemates or poor goaltending behinD them over that same span. AKA Bad Luck.

 

I am using the term "luck" in a way to predict the future. Sustainability would have been a better term. Wether the production is a result of repeatable eventa "controlled" by the player in question or not.

Also he absolutely contradicted him self.

He said:
"I dislike how PDO is always viewed as a luck stat."

And then proceeded to use PDO to measure luck:

"If EP had a 100 PDO, I’d say he’s having bad luck"

 

lol fair point, I didn't do the best job of wording that but my point was basically that I don't agree with the 100 baseline for every player.


Every player's expected PDO should not be 100 by default, you have to take into account the player's skill level and the quality of his most common line mates

 

Deployment stats are helpful as Fenwick is greatly affected by Ozone & Dzone starts, however it still provides a good idea of how a player is performing relative to teammates who play a similar role (Beagle/Sutter, Leivo/Baertschi, Pettersson/Boeser etc.) PDO is a very important advanced stat when looking at Fenwick or Corsi. If a player takes a lot of low quality shots his Corsi for will be high but his shot% low, when a player supresses harmless perimeter shots but gives up high danger scoring chances his Corsi against will be low, but so will the save %. Corsi numbers (Fenwick preferred as it excludes blocked shots) combined with PDO numbers gives a better indication of a players play. Players can rip shots on net after crossing the red line increasing corsi numbers but not PDO.

 

PDO as a teamstat its supposed to measure luck. On the individual level I would guess that all star players have pretty high PDO, except volume shooters like E.Kane.

 

As the saying goes, you have to be good to be lucky and lucky to be good. Over a large sample size PDO can indicate which players are offensively creating and defensively surpressing high scoring chances.

 

Absolutly, though I'm guessing that players that have high ozone deployment gets better PDO, than player that starts most of their shifts in the d-zone.

 

Yeah, but I don't buy that a term which has suh a nebulous meaning can be contradicted. Pedantic, as anything, but when luck can describe everything from getting a job, to shooting a puck, to winning the lottery, to dying of cancer all events with near enough to zero relationship to one another and without any common cause it's a meaningless term.

 

That doesn't follow. A player that gets high numbers of o-zone starts but who can't or won't back check is likely to lower the save percentage part of their PDO. On small data sets this could lead to a large spike or dip in PDO but over a sample size of hundreds of games one should be able to determine some level of skill using just PDO.

 

True

 

Well this gets in to metaphysics but yes, if we had all data available and a super computer able to calculate the data we could predict the future.

But we dont so we call a slighty failed shot, that finds the net because the goalie reacts as if the shot succeeded, a lucky goal.

Not because of metaphysics but because of the unpredictable nature of such random event. We percieve that the shooter was "less responsible" for his success in that instance than when he scores by releasing the puck as he intended.

 

Benning on Gudbranson’s poor analytics when acquiring him.

“To be quite honest, I don’t get it sometimes,” said the Canucks GM. “There’s a place for analytics. We use analytics. But you use analytics like vitamins to help you out, not as your staple.

“Decisions have to be made by hockey people who know what winning teams look like and how to build them.”

“I’ll be perfectly honest with you,” he says. “We won a Stanley Cup in Boston and we didn’t use analytics.”

 

I always love remembering that a grown man thinks vitamins are just those flintstones pills he eats in the morning.

 

That's old news. You actually hear Benning talk about analytics more. Given that Jonathan Wall appears to play a prominent role at the draft table, I think it's safe to assume that Benning hears from him in other areas.

 

A lot of grown men got advice from Hulk Hogan.

 

Lol All these Hulkamaniacs!

 

Probably not the best guy to be getting advice from...

 

You're just jealous because he has a vitamin product that kids can look up to and parents can trust.

 

Well obviously not enough, with the Gudbranson extension.

 

Even strength:

GA/60 (goals allowed per 60 mins)

Best Defensively:

1. Leivo 2.0
2. Biega 2.0
3. Edler 2.2
4. Stecher 2.2
5. Tanev 2.4
6. Beagle 2.4
7. Gaudette 2.4
8. Roussel 2.4
9. Virtanen 2.4

Worst Defensively:

1. Sutter 4.2
2. Gudbranson 3.9
3. Hutton 3.2
4. Boeser 3.0
5. Horvat 3.0

GF/60 (goals scored per 60 mins)

Best Offensively:

1. Leivo 4.5
2. Pettersson 3.9
3. Boeser 3.9
4. Stecher 3.2
5. Pouliot 3.0
6. Horvat 2.8
7. Edler 2.7
8. Goldobin 2.7

Worst Offensively:

1. Sutter 1.5
2. Gaudette 1.9
3. Granlund 2.0
4. Biega 2.0
5. Schaller 2.1
6. Motte 2.1
7. Gudbranson 2.2

Further highlights how bad Sutter and Gudbranson have been.

 

Uh no. This is getting off-topic, but to give this an accurate response: Hulk Hogan is a racist.