Defensive Stats

[Pyrophorus]

Where are you getting them?

Many posters are making claims about certain players defense.
I ask them to prove that, and they never have.

Is there a source for defensive stats?

Click to read more...

 

[Filthy Dangles]

It's basically just shots, chances, goals when a player is on the ice. Context is important though. A players usage, teammates, how they perform relative to their team and with/without certain players is important.

 

[Snippit]

The almighty CF%?

 

[DRW204]

It's hard to accurately quantify a player defensively imo. I think relative stats are helpful though, and with or without heat maps. not meant to hi jack your thread- but i think people use X player is great defensively sometimes as a blanket statement that is hard to validate one player being superior to the other (especially when their offensive stats are inefrior)

 

[GlitchMarner]

It's basically just shots, chances, goals when a player is on the ice. Context is important though. A players usage, teammates, how they perform relative to their team and with/without certain players is important.

And I guess takeaways, blocked shots (hits?) etc as well.

 

[GlitchMarner]

The almighty CF%?

That doesn't necessarily pertain to defense or at least in isolation. It's more of an indicator of how much the "ice tilts" when a player is on. CF% rel should be considered when using CF% as well.

A player can drive the play and help tilt the ice and not be very good in his own end. A player can also spend a lot of time in his own zone matching up against the best offensive players on the opposition and not be expected to do too much offensively and be competent in his own end.

 

[mitchthemitch]

CA/60 is useful. The lower the number, the better. On the Leafs, Marincin, Ozhiganov and Dermott obviously have the best since they have been getting easy minutes. From the top 4 Gardiner is the best, followed by Muzzin and then Zaitsev. Hainsey and Rielly are the worst on the Leafs.

 

[mitchthemitch]

CA/60 is useful. The lower the number, the better. On the Leafs, Marincin, Ozhiganov and Dermott obviously have the best since they have been getting easy minutes. From the top 4 Gardiner is the best, followed by Muzzin and then Zaitsev. Hainsey and Rielly are the worst on the Leafs.

If you're wondering who the league leaders are this year (relative to their team, minimum 600 minutes, top 4 d only) :
Hjalmarsson
Byfuglien
Ekholm
Ekman-Larsson
Klefbom

 

[mitchthemitch]

Context such as quality of opposition, quality of teammates, zone start %, is important as well

 

[wetcoast]

If you're wondering who the league leaders are this year (relative to their team, minimum 600 minutes, top 4 d only) :
Hjalmarsson
Byfuglien
Ekholm
Ekman-Larsson
Klefbom

Ekholm should be a finalist for the Norris he would be on my ballot.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

It's hard to accurately quantify a player defensively imo. I think relative stats are helpful though, and with or without heat maps. not meant to hi jack your thread- but i think people use X player is great defensively sometimes as a blanket statement that is hard to validate one player being superior to the other (especially when their offensive stats are inefrior)

My issue (or rather "concern" might be a better word) with relative stats is, wouldn't it benefit a good player playing with bad players more than a fantastic player playing with good players?

For instance, Player A is a 10/10 defensively, but plays on a team with a bunch of 6/10 defensively players. Player B is a 7/10 defensively, but plays on a team with a bunch of 1/10 defensively players. Player B's "relative" stats are probably going to be better than Player A's, and thus it would make them seem "better" defensively even though they're actually not.

 

[Just Linda]

For dmen I'll always favour heat maps. Adv stats are more carried by forwards, d you can literally tell by looking at maps of they played their positions well or not. I'll always factor situational maps over generalized ones (I'll typically exclude plays off the rush initially)

For forwards, WOWY is king for me. I'll still look at the centre's heat maps but WOWY is quick, easy, and pretty straightforward.

I suck at goalie stats so I typically don't argue them.

 

[Machinehead]

And I guess takeaways, blocked shots (hits?) etc as well.

They could be useful, but like any other micro stat, they're meaningless if the other team scores 65% of the goals when you're on the ice.

 

[JaegerDice]

There is no catch-all defensive stat. You can use several stats to put together a good picture though.

CF% and Rel.CF%
xGF% and Rel.xGF%


Over a large sample, GF% and rel.GF% can give you a good idea of performance, but very little predictive value

CA/60 and Rel
SA/60 and Rel
xGF/60 and Rel

Then you want to look at zone start percentage, QoT and QoC for the context of how they're used and against whom.

And I guess takeaways, blocked shots (hits?) etc as well.

Those aren't particularly useful for measuring impact. Typically they just mean the other team has the puck more when the defender in question is on the ice.

Contextually there are exceptions, like when defenders are getting dungeon dzone starts against top 6 competition game-after-game-after-game, but for the most part if you have a lot of blocked shots, that just means you're bad at puck retrieval and exiting the zone successfully.

 

[authentic]

My issue (or rather "concern" might be a better word) with relative stats is, wouldn't it benefit a good player playing with bad players more than a fantastic player playing with good players?

For instance, Player A is a 10/10 defensively, but plays on a team with a bunch of 6/10 defensively players. Player B is a 7/10 defensively, but plays on a team with a bunch of 1/10 defensively players. Player B's "relative" stats are probably going to be better than Player A's, and thus it would make them seem "better" defensively even though they're actually not.

In this case it would be obvious why a player would have much better relative stats then.

 

[authentic]

There is no catch-all defensive stat. You can use several stats to put together a good picture though.

CF% and Rel.CF%
xGF% and Rel.xGF%


Over a large sample, GF% and rel.GF% can give you a good idea of performance, but very little predictive value

CA/60 and Rel
SA/60 and Rel
xGF/60 and Rel

Then you want to look at zone start percentage, QoT and QoC for the context of how they're used and against whom.



Those aren't particularly useful for measuring impact. Typically they just mean the other team has the puck more when the defender in question is on the ice.

Contextually there are exceptions, like when defenders are getting dungeon dzone starts against top 6 competition game-after-game-after-game, but for the most part if you have a lot of blocked shots, that just means you're bad at puck retrieval and exiting the zone successfully.

Most of the best defensive forwards are high in takeaways and lower in giveaways, not sure how useful it is for defensemen though who are naturally going to have many giveaways due to the nature of the position, being relied upon heavily and logging a lot of ice time.

 

[Pyrophorus]

As a pure example what makes Bergeron or Barkov so great defensively?
Not saying they aren't, just what numbers bare that out.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

One of the advanced stats I really like despite not being a fan is shots against on ice vs off.

However, does it take into account that another player/players might be off at the same time ? Like a d partner ?

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

There are a lot of stats that can be used to assess how a player is compared to his teammates. I think they get harder to draw conclusions when you are looking from team to team, because teams play different styles and have different coaches. Case in point, look at NYI. They are 10th in SA/GP and 1st in GA/GP this year under Trotz. Last year under Weight et al, they were 31st in GA/GP and 31st in SA/GP.