Flyers Advanced Analysis Thread (2018-2019)

deadhead

Registered User
Feb 26, 2014
49,215
21,617
Right. I don't think it's a black and white issue, nor would I use something like that over a number of other metrics to illustrate overall Shot Quality. They've actually been generating a higher quality of Shots this year. Last time I looked, it was their biggest ES plus.

I'm not positive since it was ~6 weeks ago, but IIRC I did that because there was some discussion as to whether or not there were other teams that emphasized those types of Shots as much.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with Hakstol's scheme, since the Flyers do score at a good pace at ES.
And crediting it all to the first line ignores that the scheme hasn't suppressed their scoring.
Meanwhile, Flyer defensemen are at the top of D-men scoring, even some with limited talent like Manning and MacDonald and Hagg.
Like most schemes, it's a matter of how the scheme fits with the available personnel.

Flyers need players to go to the net, and the hands to make plays there, notice Voracek started doing that recently. Simmonds, JVR.
It also requires players who can get the puck in the corners on the forecheck, Raffl, Lindblom are good at this. TK is game as well.
They also need defensemen with good shots from the point, Gudas, Ghost, Myers when he comes up, and defensemen who know when to attack in the O-zone, Provorov, Sanheim, and have the shot to make it work.

I've also noticed too many Flyers making blind passes into the slot with their heads down, that's a recipe for odd man rushes the other way.

Some of the problem is simply that Hextall was focused on 2019-20 and 2020-21 and didn't expend resources to obtain players who were better fits, figuring his prospects would arrive and solve that problem. And eventually they will, I can see Ratcliffe and Allison playing the slot role, Sushko and NAK forecheckers, and so on.

It'll be interesting to see what coach, and scheme, replaces Hakstol.
 

Here4ThaLids

“Sunshine has always been our enemy.”
Sep 28, 2018
3,084
8,714
For the current season's iteration of this thread, I suggest we also keep track of publicly identified foot-in-mouth players, because I am extremely petty.

Local Boy Doesn't Understand When to Keep His Mouth Shut, Statistics:
 

Magua

Doer of Hoffific Things
Apr 25, 2016
37,157
154,047
Huron of the Lakes
Shooting % regression is about as fancy as KFC. If a GM isn’t questioning sustainability or inherent worth, he’s not doing his job. Doesn’t mean Strome hasn’t produced well to date.

In the end, players’ opinions are understandably worth little on the subject. It’s the evaluators who need to parse this info out. Hey, Tony, did you know those same stats showed you as one of the more underrated top 4 defensemen in the league last season? Maybe you could’ve gotten more money than the almost league minimum you received if such information were more commonplace. Whoops.
 

deadhead

Registered User
Feb 26, 2014
49,215
21,617
The purpose of advanced stats is primarily a check on "eyeballs," they can't replace eyeballs, but they can combat "framing" effects, where a narrative influences what people think they see.

There are no "reliable" advanced stats in the sense of perfect or good predictors, for one thing, if they were, you wouldn't see numerous players with metrics that vary by huge amounts year to year or in different circumstances. Did Braun go from one of the worst D-men in San Jose to one of the best in Philly (which his metrics would suggest)? Of course not. Different partners, different usage, different schemes. Rather, he probably wasn't as bad as his San Jose stats suggested, or as good as his Philly stats suggest - but the numbers consistently suggest he's a plus defender who's a cipher on offense. So they're not "wrong," they're just have limited information content.

On the other hand, Couts had great metrics the two seasons before he broke out, which is why a lot of us weren't surprised when he put up great "real" numbers with better linemates (and getting healthy and playing a full season).

This is a problem modeling any complex system, economists are notorious for predicting 17 of the last 9 recessions.
 

JojoTheWhale

CORN BOY
May 22, 2008
33,324
103,977
One thing I think the hockey community does an extremely poor job of articulating is degrees of certainty. To illustrate what I would like to see, here's an excerpt from Fangraphs' WAR primer written in 2010:

Fangraphs said:
WAR is not meant to be a perfectly precise indicator of a player’s contribution, but rather an estimate of their value to date. Given the imperfections of some of the available data and the assumptions made to calculate other components, WAR works best as an approximation. A 6 WAR player might be worth between 5.0 and 7.0 WAR, but it is pretty safe to say they are at least an All-Star level player and potentially an MVP.

I wish we talked more about scale and certainty. And definitely more about how "good" players will have "bad" years and vice versa.
 

deadhead

Registered User
Feb 26, 2014
49,215
21,617
One reason I tend to look at about 3 years for veterans, longer than that and you're getting into a different phase of career development (what a 29 year old player did at 23 is a bit irrelevant), shorter than that and you may have a one year anomaly.

When a player has a career year, looking at careers, it's often just that, a blip that doesn't get repeated.

Which is why career trends matter, if a player improves his defensive metrics over a 3-4 year period, then he's probably either being coached up and/or is focusing on improving that aspect of his game.

But there is so much "noise" humility is counseled, was the player injured, was he a bad fit with a scheme, did he have the right partner/linemates to maximize his production.

Which is why eyeballs are as important as metrics.
 

VladDrag

Registered User
Feb 6, 2018
5,831
14,736
One thing I think the hockey community does an extremely poor job of articulating is degrees of certainty. To illustrate what I would like to see, here's an excerpt from Fangraphs' WAR primer written in 2010:



I wish we talked more about scale and certainty. And definitely more about how "good" players will have "bad" years and vice versa.

Just filter, set in descending order.....that's how you evaluate.
 

Curufinwe

Registered User
Feb 28, 2013
55,501
42,237
Shooting % regression is about as fancy as KFC.

Looks fancy to me.

maxresdefault.jpg
 

Ruck Over

When the revolution comes, pants will do you no gd
Apr 19, 2016
4,197
3,323
Philadelphia, Pa
Looks fancy to me.

maxresdefault.jpg
The only thing that upsets me about this, is that I know that's going to be a better meal than the KFC I can find along North Broad St between 66th Ave and Girard Ave. I kind of want KFC now, but if I go to one, I know it's gonna suck.

Curu, you're a jerk.
 

Beef Invictus

Revolutionary Positivity
Dec 21, 2009
127,485
164,337
Armored Train
This isn't exactly "advanced." But does anyone happen to have average save percentages for starting goalies and backup goalies this year and last?

Or is this something I'd have to try to grind out myself?
 

Rebels57

Former Flyers fan
Sponsor
Sep 28, 2014
76,371
122,657
This isn't exactly "advanced." But does anyone happen to have average save percentages for starting goalies and backup goalies this year and last?

Or is this something I'd have to try to grind out myself?

I was just looking around for that and I think you are gonna have to grind it out..or look on some of the stat nerds on twitters feeds to see if they tweeted anything about it.
 

TB87

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
May 30, 2018
6,073
17,122
This made me laugh:

4375E336-671E-44B7-A0E9-4B08C707C1B4.jpeg



*Teams actually listen to, take suggestions from, implement said suggestions, & construct rosters with the help of their analytics departments*
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beef Invictus

Rebels57

Former Flyers fan
Sponsor
Sep 28, 2014
76,371
122,657
This made me laugh:

View attachment 286825


*Teams actually listen to, take suggestions from, implement said suggestions, & construct rosters with the help of their analytics departments*

I'm not a fan of Micah. I like some of his models but I don't like some of the statements he makes based on his models. He thinks his models are the end-all-be-all for player evaluation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LorneMalvo

deadhead

Registered User
Feb 26, 2014
49,215
21,617
Problem with lots of stats people is they get a MS in statistics, but have done little real world modeling other than run fancy regression and correlation models.
One reason "telling a story" is so important in modeling is it focuses you on causation, and provides questions that you can then turn to the statistics to try and answer. It's one thing to say the numbers suggests A causes B, but if you can't explain HOW A causes B, maybe what you're really observing is left out variable error, you haven't included C which is the driver behind the correlation between A and B.

Statistics are useful, but experienced modelers are humbled by the complexity of real world systems, those who think they have the answers should not be trusted.
 

TB87

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
May 30, 2018
6,073
17,122
I'm not a fan of Micah. I like some of his models but I don't like some of the statements he makes based on his models. He thinks his models are the end-all-be-all for player evaluation.

People are very upset about his tweet when Provorov signed his new deal in September. As far as shot attempts and shot attempt suppression performance by Provorov to date....he wasn’t wrong. There’s clearly more to a players total output than simply shot differential. Came across to me that Micah was only referring to Provorov’s shot attempt performance to date.


*My perception could be wrong though*
 

Beef Invictus

Revolutionary Positivity
Dec 21, 2009
127,485
164,337
Armored Train
Alright, the results are in. Last time I did this was many years ago, probably 2012 or 2013, and I didn't have Excel. So this was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY easier. These numbers are only from 2018-2019.

Starting goalies faced 51,846 shots, stopping 47,304. Average: .912

Backups faced 24,951 shots, stopping 22,624. Average: .906


Hurray, my guess on backup stats trending down to the .900 range was right. Last time I ran this, before the various rule changes, starting goalies averaged in the .920 range and backups in the .910 range. It's interesting that both dipped about a percentage point with the scoring increase.
 

Curufinwe

Registered User
Feb 28, 2013
55,501
42,237
Alright, the results are in. Last time I did this was many years ago, probably 2012 or 2013, and I didn't have Excel. So this was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY easier. These numbers are only from 2018-2019.

Starting goalies faced 51,846 shots, stopping 47,304. Average: .912

Backups faced 24,951 shots, stopping 22,624. Average: .906

Lower than I expected.
 

JojoTheWhale

CORN BOY
May 22, 2008
33,324
103,977
People are very upset about his tweet when Provorov signed his new deal in September. As far as shot attempts and shot attempt suppression performance by Provorov to date....he wasn’t wrong. There’s clearly more to a players total output than simply shot differential. Came across to me that Micah was only referring to Provorov’s shot attempt performance to date.


*My perception could be wrong though*

None of those people have any interest in what he was saying or when he said it. They exist only to try to dunk on people. I'm just happy they openly show it so I can avoid interacting with them whenever possible.
 

flyers0909

Nothing Matters
Jul 10, 2007
3,171
5,166
People are very upset about his tweet when Provorov signed his new deal in September. As far as shot attempts and shot attempt suppression performance by Provorov to date....he wasn’t wrong. There’s clearly more to a players total output than simply shot differential. Came across to me that Micah was only referring to Provorov’s shot attempt performance to date.


*My perception could be wrong though*
Provy's numbers by his shot charts are great this year. Shot attempts for is +3% against league average (team without him is -6%) and shots against is -16% (team is -3%).
 

deadhead

Registered User
Feb 26, 2014
49,215
21,617
I think the change in pad size was the biggest factor, a lot of big goalies could get by with below average quickness just by covering most of the goal with oversized pads, now I think you'd find a bigger premium for athleticism in goalies (and anticipation/hockey IQ) and less value in size. But that's the kind of thing you test with statistics!
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->