Interesting Graphics on Forward Depth for Each NHL Team

[Callista Rhian]

http://www.pensburgh.com/2015/2/17/8044475/depth-scoring-from-forwards-across-the-nhl

Click to read more...

 

[IcedCapp]

I didn't read their methodology, but I'd be interested in knowing if, for example, all of Bennett/Spaling/Downie's goals count towards the 3rd line, or only the goals they scored while on the 3rd line.

I'm guessing it's the former, which is why the Pens look like they have more scoring depth than they do.

 

[Shady Machine]

I didn't read their methodology, but I'd be interested in knowing if, for example, all of Bennett/Spaling/Downie's goals count towards the 3rd line, or only the goals they scored while on the 3rd line.

I'm guessing it's the former, which is why the Pens look like they have more scoring depth than they do.

It's the former. They basically looked at who each player's top linemates were and put all of their 5 on 5 goals on that line. It's really biased with the Pens, because they put Hornqvist on line 2 and most of his goal production came with Crosby.

I mean, it's interesting, but it paints a more positive mix of goal scoring with the Pens than it should. I would suspect that's true for many other teams as well.

 

[WickedWrister]

From the article

The Penguins fourth line is still a problem, yes. I was honestly surprised to see the production levels from the third line, seeing as how it is a point that is always made saying how bad the Penguins bottom six is. Let's just hope that the depth can be bolstered to get the fourth line better. We've seen Zach Sill scratched as Blake Comeau made his way back to the lineup after injury. That's a start.

A heuristic look at other teams 4th lines seems that the average is around 2.5.

 

[TheSniper26]

It's the former. They basically looked at who each player's top linemates were and put all of their 5 on 5 goals on that line. It's really biased with the Pens, because they put Hornqvist on line 2 and most of his goal production came with Crosby.

I mean, it's interesting, but it paints a more positive mix of goal scoring with the Pens than it should. I would suspect that's true for many other teams as well.

If that's true then the article is essentially useless as an analysis of depth.

 

[Callista Rhian]

It's more of a general overview and admittedly, I was looking more at the 3rd and 4th lines.

 

[MtlPenFan]

I hate advanced stats so much. It's an excuse for guys who don't understand what they're watching to suddenly try and trick people into thinking they know what they're talking about.

 

[Shady Machine]

If that's true then the article is essentially useless as an analysis of depth.

That's exactly right

So the best way to put it, is he entered in all of the data, figured out the line combinations of who spends the most time on which line (sometimes easier to figure than others), and by using an average, it gives you a rough idea of how many goals, points, etc. that a first line, second line, third line, and fourth line player on any team averages.

 

[Winger for Hire]

I hate advanced stats so much. It's an excuse for guys who don't understand what they're watching to suddenly try and trick people into thinking they know what they're talking about.

I wouldn't exactly call this an advanced stat.

More like a flawed stat.

 

[IcedCapp]

It's more of a general overview and admittedly, I was looking more at the 3rd and 4th lines.

I'm interested in the 3rd and 4th lines, too, but:

Spaling has played with Sid and Geno, quite a bit.
Downie played with Sid for a few games.
Bennett played with Geno for a stretch.
Sutter played a TON with Malkin on his wing.

Adams and Sill haven't been on the 4th line exclusively.

Our 3rd and 4th lines, when they are our 3rd and 4th lines, don't score. When our 3rd and 4th line players play with Crosby and/or Malkin, they pick up points, as people who play with Crosby and/or Malkin tend to do.

 

[IcedCapp]

I hate advanced stats so much. It's an excuse for guys who don't understand what they're watching to suddenly try and trick people into thinking they know what they're talking about.

this place is getting ridiculous with the comments/attitudes towards "advanced stats." I don't know if you can go a page of any of the regularly-active threads without a prominent poster or two calling stats stupid.

As a fan of advanced stats/metrics, let me plainly state that not only is this not an advanced stat/metric, but it's a totally pointless stat/information.

The hatred/fear that people show towards stats is a bit annoying/hilarious. What are you afraid of?

"PEOPLE WHO JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE GAME AS WELL AS I DO ARE TRYING TO ANALYZE IT"

okay, get your shotgun and tell 'em to get off your lawn.

edit: or, just read this, Chuck: http://nyloncalculus.com/2015/02/11/open-letter-charles-barkley/

 

[Freeptop]

Not only the methodology extremely flawed, but so is the presentation. Using pie charts to compare raw numbers instead of percents leads to 1.7 in one graph being a bigger slice than 2.3 in another (look at the Arizona and Anaheim charts).

That's a very poor way to organize the data. Even if this were meaningful data, in order to compare one vs the other, you'd either want to convert those into percentage of whole if you wanted to use pie charts, or go with bar charts that use the same scale in order to compare the raw numbers.

This isn't "advanced stats" at all. It's the equivalent of someone trying to use +/- to compare players from different conferences.

 

[madinsomniac]

this place is getting ridiculous with the comments/attitudes towards "advanced stats." I don't know if you can go a page of any of the regularly-active threads without a prominent poster or two calling stats stupid.

As a fan of advanced stats/metrics, let me plainly state that not only is this not an advanced stat/metric, but it's a totally pointless stat/information.

The hatred/fear that people show towards stats is a bit annoying/hilarious. What are you afraid of?

"PEOPLE WHO JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE GAME AS WELL AS I DO ARE TRYING TO ANALYZE IT"

okay, get your shotgun and tell 'em to get off your lawn.

edit: or, just read this, Chuck: http://nyloncalculus.com/2015/02/11/open-letter-charles-barkley/

A decent sample size of stats, when analyzed correctly and combined with a slew of other factors can help paint a very clear picture of a player, system, or coach. As with anything, it isnt 100% accurate every time, and you do need to watch games to see why a stat leans one way or another and you absolutely have to take into account whom they are playing against and with, but to totally discount them is as foolish as to totally rely on them

 

[Freeptop]

edit: or, just read this, Chuck: http://nyloncalculus.com/2015/02/11/open-letter-charles-barkley/

Oh, man, this part is just so, so true:

In America, if you so much as say the word “math†people just start SCREAMING IN ANGER. It’s like a reflex test, where if when they hit your knee with a hammer and you kick it means you have working nerves, but instead if someones say math and immediately respond “GET THAT F*@%ING CALCULATOR OUT OF MY FACE YOU USELESS NERD†it means you’re American.

As a card-carrying nerd, I've definitely run into that attitude far too often. Even when it's just basic algebra that's involved.

 

[Callista Rhian]

... I honestly didn't mean for this to be anything but a quick read on break/the commute home...

 

[MtlPenFan]

this place is getting ridiculous with the comments/attitudes towards "advanced stats." I don't know if you can go a page of any of the regularly-active threads without a prominent poster or two calling stats stupid.

As a fan of advanced stats/metrics, let me plainly state that not only is this not an advanced stat/metric, but it's a totally pointless stat/information.

The hatred/fear that people show towards stats is a bit annoying/hilarious. What are you afraid of?

"PEOPLE WHO JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE GAME AS WELL AS I DO ARE TRYING TO ANALYZE IT"

okay, get your shotgun and tell 'em to get off your lawn.

edit: or, just read this, Chuck: http://nyloncalculus.com/2015/02/11/open-letter-charles-barkley/

You know what's funny to me? Thinking you can dig into someone's head and claim the reason why they dislike something is because they're "TERRIFIED/FEARFUL!"

Of what exactly? That I'll lose my job as a message board poster? I don't work for any NHL club as a scout, so I don't see where the night sweats are coming from at the prospect of some nerd coming in to steal the job that I don't have.

I don't need some graph to tell me that Brandon Sutter loses a lot of board battles and doesn't spend much time in the opposing team's zone. Nor do I need "math" to figure out that Bortuzzo and Scuderi don't create offense.

http://theleafsnation.com/2012/1/26/is-scott-gomez-hockeys-most-underrated-yes

 

[Winger for Hire]

You know what's funny to me? Thinking you can dig into someone's head and claim the reason why they dislike something is because they're "TERRIFIED/FEARFUL!"

Of what exactly? That I'll lose my job as a message board poster? I don't need some graph to tell me that Brandon Sutter loses a lot of board battles and doesn't spend much time in the opposing team's zone. Nor do I need "math" to figure out that Bortuzzo and Scuderi don't create offense.

I had no idea Charles Barkley was a hockey fan, let alone a Pens fan.

 

[MtlPenFan]

i had no idea charles barkley was a hockey fan, let alone a pens fan.

turrible!!!

 

[IcedCapp]

You know what's funny to me? Thinking you can dig into someone's head and claim the reason why they dislike something is because they're "TERRIFIED/FEARFUL!"

Of what exactly? That I'll lose my job as a message board poster? I don't work for any NHL club as a scout, so I don't see where the night sweats are coming from at the prospect of some nerd coming in to steal the job that I don't have.

I don't need some graph to tell me that Brandon Sutter loses a lot of board battles and doesn't spend much time in the opposing team's zone. Nor do I need "math" to figure out that Bortuzzo and Scuderi don't create offense.

http://theleafsnation.com/2012/1/26/is-scott-gomez-hockeys-most-underrated-yes

wow, you posted usage of stats that turned out to be incorrect. I wonder if I could dig up someone's "eye test" that's incorrect.

DO YA THINK? IS SUCH A THING EVEN POSSIBLE?

 

[Fordy]

apparently the definition of advanced stat is just anything that isn't listed on nhl.com or i guess more accurately anything that isn't printed in the newspaper

 

[Winger for Hire]

apparently the definition of advanced stat is just anything that isn't listed on nhl.com or i guess more accurately anything that isn't printed in the newspaper

Anything more than: Goals, Assists, PIMs, +/-, TOI, Shots, Hits, PPPs, SHPs, Saves, Shots Against, SV%, GAA, Wins, Shutouts

These "fantasy stats" are the gold standard stats. Counting stats and super basic math (Save/Shots=SV%) stats that can be found on every basic stat page. If you have to click on "Other/Advance Stats" to find it, it's advanced and considered Voodoo.

I think a lot of people find these stats comforting because they (the person) can tell you exactly what the stat/number means to a player/team. A goal means you scored, an assist means you helped set-up a goal, and so on. Once you get into Fenwick and Corsi and such people start getting jumpy because they can't exactly explain what they mean or how to apply them (even though 5 minutes of reading would clear it up nicely).

Also, advanced stats don't lead to great bar talk.

 

[sf expat71]

Anything more than: Goals, Assists, PIMs, +/-, TOI, Shots, Hits, PPPs, SHPs, Saves, Shots Against, SV%, GAA, Wins, Shutouts

These "fantasy stats" are the gold standard stats. Counting stats and super basic math (Save/Shots=SV%) stats that can be found on every basic stat page. If you have to click on "Other/Advance Stats" to find it, it's advanced and considered Voodoo.

I think a lot of people find these stats comforting because they (the person) can tell you exactly what the stat/number means to a player/team. A goal means you scored, an assist means you helped set-up a goal, and so on. Once you get into Fenwick and Corsi and such people start getting jumpy because they can't exactly explain what they mean or how to apply them (even though 5 minutes of reading would clear it up nicely).

Also, advanced stats don't lead to great bar talk.

Kinda OT, but the Nat Geo I got today's cover story is "The War on Science." Kinda goes with the whole theme, eh?

 

[Captain Hook]

I don't like advanced stats much. The graph basically shows the 4th line sucks. I can tell that by watching. There's always a player or two (Sill and/or Adams) dragging that line down. Get better players and that line will be better. Fixing it is not complicated except to the Pens since they can't seem to do it.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

I don't like advanced stats much. The graph basically shows the 4th line sucks. I can tell that by watching. There's always a player or two (Sill and/or Adams) dragging that line down. Get better players and that line will be better. Fixing it is not complicated except to the Pens since they can't seem to do it.

Advanced stats nor the eye test can help JR and the the org discover why that pesky fourth line can't score more goals.

It's a real mystery that even stats nerds and hockey junkies can't seem to unravel.

It's like solving Beal's conjecture with positive integers. It just can't be done.

 

[BillyOcean]

Things like this are really why I don't take Pensburgh seriously. They spend so much effort into making an article, but the relevance of all their hard work usually is 0.

These stats and figures probably took a lot of time to compile, but they mean relatively little.