High danger scoring chances
- Thread starter irishock
- Start date
Hmm I'm not too sure about it per game, but I know that you can get per game by goaltender on http://war-on-ice.com/goalietable.html, but the thing is high danger scoring chance is skewed by absolute numbers. What I mean is it's much easier to face a high danger scoring chance that is visible and slow then it is a medium danger scoring chance while you're heavily screened.
with war-on-ice offline, does anyone know of a currently operating website with sortable hd sv%,md sv%, ld sv% ?
I'm hoping to add this to Corsica over the Summer. It's been the most common request since day one.
looking forward to it!
thanks for the suggestion-I'll definitely take a look.
oilerbear
Registered User
- Jun 2, 2008
- 3,168
- 199
As the guy who saw langes Shot quality curves in 2006.
I recognized importance of the Bubble in the curves near the net.
It is a shame he did not recognize the HSCA area.
I had been looking for work that related to a concept that stuck in my brain since I first saw the Flin Flon bombers of Clarke; Leach; Stoughton.
The violence was about :
go to the net
Defend the net.
I was never going to be able to Present the databases that we see now.
But anyone who's been on lowetide's site know's the concepts I have fought up river to defend for the last 10 years.
1. Situational expected performance ranges for
-Competition based on Even production
- Teamates
- ZS
Behind the net was what made me consider this approach.
to get expected range of
CF; SF; GF;
CA; SA; GA:
Cdiff; S diff; Gdiff
for any given player.
the 3 values are broken up into 864 groups:
on 3 axis graph.
not much long after Rob Vollman came up with a single basic 2 D graph
were you could
Pick you 2 axis
Comp; team; ZS
results were displayed as a color based on neg or positive results with increased bubble amplitude.
Most use Comp/ZS
And look at Corsi
Which excludes team affect.
it does not tell you what a players performance is compared to expected.
If you take the 96 groups.
1st;2nd; 3rd; 4th comp - 4variables
1st; 2nd; 3rd; 4th comp - 4 variables
Zone starts broken up by STnd devations - 6 variables.
4 X 4 X 6 = 96
you take all the Forawrd and Dman and can establish an average for a given situation.
Adam Larson;
1st comp; 1st team; 31% ZS
Expected GD -17
You can further break each group into a series of groups that forams a cube around the situational average.
Comp Upr; mid; lower - 3 variables
Team Upr; mid; Lower - 3 variables
3 X 3 = 9 groups
UPR C - UPR T; UPR C - MID T; UPR C - LWR T
MID C - UPR T; MID C - MID T; MID C - LWR T
LWR C - UPR T; LWR C - MID T; LWR C - LWR T
So we can take Larsson further situation
Upr 1st comp; LWR 1st team; 31% ZS
Datas average says
expected Goal diff is -24
Expected range for U1st C; lwr 1st T ; 30% ZS
is -17 to -24
Larsson was +15 Last year
32 to 41 Goal diff better than expected.
I would like to see the Corsi, Shot; Gola data further broken down into
Low scoring chance area shots.
High scoring chance Area shots.
Now to my point!
War on ice established there line in the sand. For HSCA shots.
I loved seeing there site.
But comparing their Database results to my Extensive years of manual stripping of data results.
I realized they used the wrong line in the sand.
I discussed this on lowetides site and 2 days later they changed it.
You want your low scoring chance area to be all shots that are below League average shooting %.
0.0 to 8.5%
You want your your High scoring chance area to be all shots above league average
shooting %. 8.5 to 20%
There is still the most important factor affecting GF and GA.
I have to continue to fight up river defending.
There are Posters on Lowetides site Woodguy/Gmoney that are breaking down players measure
for the levels of comp Faced based on Standard deviations and presenting them as expected Dangerous Fenwick.
understanding that HSCA is the critical area of the game.
it largely ignores teammates and ZS.
and grouping is different.
But does tell who is strong or weak against diffrent levels of comp.
Which takes it to a much more simplified presentation like Vollman's.
your site is amazing:
But your work was flawed the instant you took out shooting affect.
Players like eberle who have that flin flon bomber tough.
Stone to go to HSCA area.
deliver an elite shooting %
Your data needs that LSC area and HSC area separation.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, I'm really trying to understand what is is you're trying to say and I just can't. You say my work is flawed and I would like to understand how that is in a manner that is comprehensible.
oilerbear
Registered User
- Jun 2, 2008
- 3,168
- 199
the work no!
I refer everyone I talk with re Analytics to your site.
your data is correct.
the game is situational.
So your info will suggest some players to be better than others.
When they are not.
you present you data.
and
your site and data development is the best available.
desjardins first presented
Comp; teammates; ZS measures.
you can establish
96 combinations of comp (4); teammates (4); ZS by std deviation (6)
so you can get an expected avg result for the 96 situations.
in any of the data you share.
but it needs the situational average to be a measure versus performance.
to take it further.
there should be an expected range for each of those groups broken up into a more specialized combination.
comp and team needs to be Upr, Mid, Lower to establish a situation range for the more specialized case.
it allows you to measure players versus there situational pears.
otherwise you are saying a player who
faces
upr 1st comp
with
lower 3rd teammates
in a
36% ZS
has equal challenges to a
Player
who faces
bottom 4th comp
with
upr 2nd teamates
in a
57% zs
we know this not to be true.
you state you ignore these situational factors.
there are further factors that create LSCA and HSCA results
that most of the analytics community are not willing to accept at this point.
i struggle to convince lowetides site related to these factors.
1. just like situational results as a baseline.
2. D had an influence on shot results.
3. LSCA and HSCA
you are skilled enough to take your data base to the next level.
I did no such thing. That contextual factors are not included in raw xGF% does not mean I ignore usage effects altogether. Perhaps you missed my score and zone-start adjustment method? I wrote about it here.
My goals added metric K is pending review, but it accounts for all the factors you mentioned and more.
There isn't any that I am aware of and there shouldn't be to be honest. There simply isn't any data available that is accurate enough to be useful. I have tracked quality shots manually for the Blackhawks the last two seasons. The data coming from the NHL site is so wrong it is a joke.
Average shot locations from each stadium vary dramatically. Some sites put everything much closer to the net than others. Even different official scorers from the same stadium are radically different. Individual shots in the same game vary greatly as some shots are located from the beginning of the shot and some from the follow through.
And the overall accuracy itself is mostly random. Shots directly in front of the net are routinely measured in the 20 foot range. And something that shows up in the 30 foot range can be a shot from the point. Until there is tracking in uniforms, this data will produce random results.
JaegerDice
The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
- Dec 26, 2014
- 25,120
- 9,345
FYI, according to their twitter, naturalstattrick will also be adding scoring chance data to their site.
jc17
Registered User
- Jun 14, 2013
- 11,031
- 7,760
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
Love
Registered User
- Feb 29, 2012
- 15,036
- 12,288
Can you send me a link for this? Im trying to find it but can't seem to locate it on the site
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
Can you send me a link for this? Im trying to find it but can't seem to locate it on the site
Meant to split that up, sorry. My mistake.
They added L/M/H Sv% splits for goalies, and Scoring Chances stats to skaters.
Added GSAA for goalies as well.
You will have to scroll sideways to find it for both.
I finally found a stat for defense I like, thank you..
SCA/60 tells a pretty good story...
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Bushay
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2009
- 302
- 3
Bump
Anyone have anything new to add. I'm still struggling with finding data in a form easy to digest.
In other words.
I'd like to look at a chart that tells me how a team has been comparing to the opponent they are playing next to give me an idea who has been doing well in this area and who has not.
Natural Stat Trick has been the best or easiest to read and incorporate into what I'm trying to accomplish, but I have to believe there is better available in today's stat filled world.
Am I wrong to think if I look at a team's recent HDSC and they are meeting a team in the opposite direction, that team A just might be in slightly better form and are a pretty good bet to be more dangerous on this night?
Anyone have anything new to add. I'm still struggling with finding data in a form easy to digest.
In other words.
I'd like to look at a chart that tells me how a team has been comparing to the opponent they are playing next to give me an idea who has been doing well in this area and who has not.
Natural Stat Trick has been the best or easiest to read and incorporate into what I'm trying to accomplish, but I have to believe there is better available in today's stat filled world.
Am I wrong to think if I look at a team's recent HDSC and they are meeting a team in the opposite direction, that team A just might be in slightly better form and are a pretty good bet to be more dangerous on this night?
