Islanders shot differential, defense, goaltending and playoffs.

[OlTimeHockey]

Moulson and Vanek on LW line 1. Clutterbuck, Grabner, lots of guys on the left wall on defense. The defensemen get a solid shot in and the forward in the slot has easy pickings with the left D watching. The left D is the last in line before the goalie.

These stats don't say WHO was at fault.....just which one player was out there. Who shifted when they crossed over? Did JT move to LW while taking his cover? Did Bailey go back on D when Hamonic was doing his Doug Crossman impersonation one third of the year? Odd man rush due to bad forecheck? 3-1-1 instead of 2-1-2? So many factors....you'd be a fool to pinpoint a single player due to this Ouija board of a graph.

AMac had a partner on offense and wwas CLEARLY asked to contribute more offensively. There's a stat that won't show up. Moulson on point covering sure helped. Vanek as well....though some were thrilled with his game you coud count me out.

I'm just saying....you can have a stat page but unless you weigh all the goals scored...you're not gonna get a clear picture of WHY the goals went in.


But I see some say STATS ARE FLAWLESS. Sorry, but if a stat can answer if a winger didn't close in tight and a defenseman was willing to block a shot with his body, if a hit was laid to take the shooter out of contention for a quality shot.....if a goalie was screened by the opponent......so many things that make me call this stat BULLSHIVITZ.

But I like seeing the regularity of goals against a player ON ICE........alluding to a flaw in the overall team style of play contributing to a lacking or benefit in the game.

 

[LeapOnOver]

Moulson and Vanek on LW line 1. Clutterbuck, Grabner, lots of guys on the left wall on defense. The defensemen get a solid shot in and the forward in the slot has easy pickings with the left D watching. The left D is the last in line before the goalie.

These stats don't say WHO was at fault.....just which one player was out there. Who shifted when they crossed over? Did JT move to LW while taking his cover? Did Bailey go back on D when Hamonic was doing his Doug Crossman impersonation one third of the year? Odd man rush due to bad forecheck? 3-1-1 instead of 2-1-2? So many factors....you'd be a fool to pinpoint a single player due to this Ouija board of a graph.

AMac had a partner on offense and wwas CLEARLY asked to contribute more offensively. There's a stat that won't show up. Moulson on point covering sure helped. Vanek as well....though some were thrilled with his game you coud count me out.

I'm just saying....you can have a stat page but unless you weigh all the goals scored...you're not gonna get a clear picture of WHY the goals went in.


But I see some say STATS ARE FLAWLESS. Sorry, but if a stat can answer if a winger didn't close in tight and a defenseman was willing to block a shot with his body, if a hit was laid to take the shooter out of contention for a quality shot.....if a goalie was screened by the opponent......so many things that make me call this stat BULLSHIVITZ.

But I like seeing the regularity of goals against a player ON ICE........alluding to a flaw in the overall team style of play contributing to a lacking or benefit in the game.

I'm actually going to have to agree with OTH on some of what he said. especially what he said about this not proving who on the ice is the cause. It's a big leap of faith to go from this chart to actually blaming one player.

 

[LeapOnOver]

Do we have a chart that can compare Streit on the Isles with Streit on the Flyers? Also the same for AMAC. If they are similar that might help persuade me, if they are vastly different then I would have to say this does nothing to pinpoint an actual player's flaw, only a line....

 

[charlie1]

I think it's fair to say we should be cautious when drilling down to the player level with these data. Indeed, the author himself recommended that the primary use for these plots should be on the team level. But on the team level there are OBVIOUS differences, and we should pay attention to those (see NYI vs LAK).

Remember the OP is that our woes are due primarily to goaltending. My point with these plots is just to show that shot location is a problem for us as well.

So for us, what I think we can take away from these is that, in general, the Islanders were exploited on the left side last season. Both shots and shooting % were significantly elevated on the left. And especially noteworthy IMO is the high number of shots in R-2 area, which is just to the left of the high slot. This is a high scoring % area, and that is something that should be addressed.

Next the question becomes WHY? That is a more difficult question. But in some cases I think you can start to get at it.

Amac for example-- when he is on the ice his side is clearly being exploited. That much is obvious, and the sample size is robust (notice most of the hexagons on his plot are full sized = full sample).

CdH is another example-- the pattern of shot suppression while he is on the ice is incredibly clear.

In other cases, particularly with offensemen, I'm less comfortable drawing conclusions because they are typically paired up with certain d-men (e.g., Tavares & Amac).

 

[PK Cronin]

Do we have a chart that can compare Streit on the Isles with Streit on the Flyers? Also the same for AMAC. If they are similar that might help persuade me, if they are vastly different then I would have to say this does nothing to pinpoint an actual player's flaw, only a line....

Of course the chart doesn't take into consideration everything that's happening on the ice, but certain things are interesting. When Strait is out on the ice, we're really bad in completely different areas than the norm. No other defenseman has the same kind of poor stats as Strait, and especially not in the same areas. That would indicate that something negative is happening every time Strait is out on the ice. Whether it's his fault, meh, probably harder to say definitively, but we could take a guess that he's doing something very different from every other defender and that's what is causing the difference.

AMac and de Haan played the same spot/role. Yet, AMac is a mess down the left side and CdH is perfectly fine. Both played with Hamonic the most, and Hamonic is pretty much between them...that's an indication that something was happening when AMac was out there, and it wasn't replicated when he was replaced by de Haan (who also played mostly with the top line, though a banged up one).

Some of this could be coaching, and I've said in the past that I thought Hamonic and AMac were being utilized wrong when told to take offensive chances. Playing in a system that doesn't suit them could definitely exploit any player.

We could pull up the numbers for AMac here and in Philly, but I have to wait since the site seems to be on the fritz right now for me.

 

[Rehabguy]

Moulson and Vanek on LW line 1. Clutterbuck, Grabner, lots of guys on the left wall on defense. The defensemen get a solid shot in and the forward in the slot has easy pickings with the left D watching. The left D is the last in line before the goalie.

These stats don't say WHO was at fault.....just which one player was out there. Who shifted when they crossed over? Did JT move to LW while taking his cover? Did Bailey go back on D when Hamonic was doing his Doug Crossman impersonation one third of the year? Odd man rush due to bad forecheck? 3-1-1 instead of 2-1-2? So many factors....you'd be a fool to pinpoint a single player due to this Ouija board of a graph.

AMac had a partner on offense and wwas CLEARLY asked to contribute more offensively. There's a stat that won't show up. Moulson on point covering sure helped. Vanek as well....though some were thrilled with his game you coud count me out.

I'm just saying....you can have a stat page but unless you weigh all the goals scored...you're not gonna get a clear picture of WHY the goals went in.


But I see some say STATS ARE FLAWLESS. Sorry, but if a stat can answer if a winger didn't close in tight and a defenseman was willing to block a shot with his body, if a hit was laid to take the shooter out of contention for a quality shot.....if a goalie was screened by the opponent......so many things that make me call this stat BULLSHIVITZ.

But I like seeing the regularity of goals against a player ON ICE........alluding to a flaw in the overall team style of play contributing to a lacking or benefit in the game.

I agree.

 

[Rehabguy]

I think it's fair to say we should be cautious when drilling down to the player level with these data. Indeed, the author himself recommended that the primary use for these plots should be on the team level. But on the team level there are OBVIOUS differences, and we should pay attention to those (see NYI vs LAK).

Remember the OP is that our woes are due primarily to goaltending. My point with these plots is just to show that shot location is a problem for us as well.

So for us, what I think we can take away from these is that, in general, the Islanders were exploited on the left side last season. Both shots and shooting % were significantly elevated on the left. And especially noteworthy IMO is the high number of shots in R-2 area, which is just to the left of the high slot. This is a high scoring % area, and that is something that should be addressed.

Next the question becomes WHY? That is a more difficult question. But in some cases I think you can start to get at it.

Amac for example-- when he is on the ice his side is clearly being exploited. That much is obvious, and the sample size is robust (notice most of the hexagons on his plot are full sized = full sample).

CdH is another example-- the pattern of shot suppression while he is on the ice is incredibly clear.

In other cases, particularly with offensemen, I'm less comfortable drawing conclusions because they are typically paired up with certain d-men (e.g., Tavares & Amac).

Well, I think you still have to be careful with that inference. The only information we get from these graphs is where on the ice these shots on goal are taken from.

• It doesnt tell us if they actually went it (correct me if I am wrong Ilandher)
• It doesn't tell us if our defense was coached into allowing shots from that area rather than other areas on the ice as a strategy.
• It doesn't tell us if the opposing team was aware of tendencies/weaknesses of goaltenders (or defensemen) that made shooting from that area strategic
• It doesn't tell us which individual was at fault. For example, was the higher shot percentage when Strait was on the ice because he was a weak defender, or because he was put on the ice against some of the best players on the opposing team. Was it his fault at all. Same with AMAC

Sure we can make arguments and try to draw inferences, but we can never make those arguments with any certainly. You have to weigh the strength of the inferences taking all variables into account.

One of the first axioms you learn in Statistics 101 is that "correlation does not equal causation". If AMAC of Strait was on the ice when shots are taken, does not imply that they are bad defenders, though you can make some arguments and test them further.

In my OP I saw how a hockey writer saw a correlation between Stanley Cup success and a team's shots differential. That correlation seemed reasonable to me with the data that he supplied. (Sure no formal statistical analysis was done but the evidence appeared somewhat convincing). The Islanders had a shots differential that was right up there with the top within the Eastern Conference. All things being equal, the only significant variable that I saw which separated "us" from "them" was our goaltenders poor save percentage which was last in the league last year.

There is an "inverse correlation" between save percentage and goals against average. Ie. If a goaltenders save percentage was higher their goals against average would go lower. This is a fact that is irrefutable. If a goaltender makes a save a goal is not scored whatever the circumstances (unless of course if he is not on the ice at all). Ultimately the puck stops with the goaltender. However again you cannot assume that goaltending was strictly at fault, or possibly at fault at all. Bad defense can certainly lead to more goals against average, but our shots against overall was top 6 in the Eastern Conference and our shots differential was top 5. So our defenses ability to keep shots at bay was reasonable.

This being the case, and all things being equal it is a safe argument to say that goaltending may have been a problem and they were not making the saves that they should been able to make.

 

[charlie1]

Well, I think you still have to be careful with that inference. The only information we get from these graphs is where on the ice these shots on goal are taken from.

No, you can look at where they were shot, and you can look at where they went in, and you can plot that relative to league average rates for each location.

This being the case, and all things being equal it is a safe argument to say that goaltending may have been a problem and they were not making the saves that they should been able to make.

I think everyone agrees that goaltending was a problem. It's just that the defense was also weak, and that is evidenced by the high proportion of shots in the high-scoring areas of the ice.

 

[Jester9881]

Moulson and Vanek on LW line 1. Clutterbuck, Grabner, lots of guys on the left wall on defense. The defensemen get a solid shot in and the forward in the slot has easy pickings with the left D watching. The left D is the last in line before the goalie.

These stats don't say WHO was at fault.....just which one player was out there. Who shifted when they crossed over? Did JT move to LW while taking his cover? Did Bailey go back on D when Hamonic was doing his Doug Crossman impersonation one third of the year? Odd man rush due to bad forecheck? 3-1-1 instead of 2-1-2? So many factors....you'd be a fool to pinpoint a single player due to this Ouija board of a graph.

AMac had a partner on offense and wwas CLEARLY asked to contribute more offensively. There's a stat that won't show up. Moulson on point covering sure helped. Vanek as well....though some were thrilled with his game you coud count me out.

I'm just saying....you can have a stat page but unless you weigh all the goals scored...you're not gonna get a clear picture of WHY the goals went in.


But I see some say STATS ARE FLAWLESS. Sorry, but if a stat can answer if a winger didn't close in tight and a defenseman was willing to block a shot with his body, if a hit was laid to take the shooter out of contention for a quality shot.....if a goalie was screened by the opponent......so many things that make me call this stat BULLSHIVITZ.

But I like seeing the regularity of goals against a player ON ICE........alluding to a flaw in the overall team style of play contributing to a lacking or benefit in the game.

While all of what you said is 100 percent correct, by watching the games you can corroborate what the stats show. Go to youtube and search "Islanders highlights" and go game by game. AMac was constantly out of position and making poor defensive decisions.

 

[A Pointed Stick]

Well, I think you still have to be careful with that inference. The only information we get from these graphs is where on the ice these shots on goal are taken from.

• It doesnt tell us if they actually went it (correct me if I am wrong Ilandher)
• It doesn't tell us if our defense was coached into allowing shots from that area rather than other areas on the ice as a strategy.
• It doesn't tell us if the opposing team was aware of tendencies/weaknesses of goaltenders (or defensemen) that made shooting from that area strategic
• It doesn't tell us which individual was at fault. For example, was the higher shot percentage when Strait was on the ice because he was a weak defender, or because he was put on the ice against some of the best players on the opposing team. Was it his fault at all. Same with AMAC

Sure we can make arguments and try to draw inferences, but we can never make those arguments with any certainly. You have to weigh the strength of the inferences taking all variables into account.

One of the first axioms you learn in Statistics 101 is that "correlation does not equal causation". If AMAC of Strait was on the ice when shots are taken, does not imply that they are bad defenders, though you can make some arguments and test them further.

In my OP I saw how a hockey writer saw a correlation between Stanley Cup success and a team's shots differential. That correlation seemed reasonable to me with the data that he supplied. (Sure no formal statistical analysis was done but the evidence appeared somewhat convincing). The Islanders had a shots differential that was right up there with the top within the Eastern Conference. All things being equal, the only significant variable that I saw which separated "us" from "them" was our goaltenders poor save percentage which was last in the league last year.

There is an "inverse correlation" between save percentage and goals against average. Ie. If a goaltenders save percentage was higher their goals against average would go lower. This is a fact that is irrefutable. If a goaltender makes a save a goal is not scored whatever the circumstances (unless of course if he is not on the ice at all). Ultimately the puck stops with the goaltender. However again you cannot assume that goaltending was strictly at fault, or possibly at fault at all. Bad defense can certainly lead to more goals against average, but our shots against overall was top 6 in the Eastern Conference and our shots differential was top 5. So our defenses ability to keep shots at bay was reasonable.

This being the case, and all things being equal it is a safe argument to say that goaltending may have been a problem and they were not making the saves that they should been able to make.

How about our own experience? Does having a history shooting and scoring from various parts of the ice matter at all in here, or is this strictly a paper, pencil, and protractor discussion?

FWIW, I came to the conclusion that our defense was a problem based on first hand experience playing, and having seen the games. Too many prime scoring chances from dangerous parts of the ice.

 

[Rehabguy]

No, you can look at where they were shot, and you can look at where they went in, and you can plot that relative to league average rates for each location.



I think everyone agrees that goaltending was a problem. It's just that the defense was also weak, and that is evidenced by the high proportion of shots in the high-scoring areas of the ice.

Relative to the other teams in the league I'm just not seeing that. For sure teams like NJ, LA, Boston appeared to control the high-scoring areas, but compared to teams like TOR, CAR, BUFF, EDM, OTT, to name a few, the Isles appear to control the high scoring areas pretty well (the trapezoid i.e. slot/high slot).

If the relative shooting percentage for goal is to be taken as accurate it looks like the Isles were weak near the from the L post out to the L circle. I wouldn't call out the entire defense because of that and especially due to the fact that they were able to keep total shots against lower than the league average. Not saying the Isles defense was the best in the league, but not as glaring a weakness as our goaltending.

There are many factors that come into play that dictate where shots are being taken from and one of the biggest determinants is a team's particular defensive system.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Rehabguy]

How about our own experience? Does having a history shooting and scoring from various parts of the ice matter at all in here, or is this strictly a paper, pencil, and protractor discussion?

FWIW, I came to the conclusion that our defense was a problem based on first hand experience playing, and having seen the games. Too many prime scoring chances from dangerous parts of the ice.

Hey I've played EA Sports NHL hockey at a Holiday Inn Express too.

 

[PK Cronin]

[*]It doesnt tell us if they actually went it (correct me if I am wrong Ilandher)

There's a chart that shows where the shots were taken from and how that compares to the league average for those same areas.

There's also a chart that shows the shooting % from areas and how they compared to the league average for those same locations.

The Islanders consistently struggled on the left side of the defensive zone and were slightly less bad in the trapezoid area right in front of the net (but still higher than the league average) in terms of shots allowed.

The left side of the defensive zone is where we struggled with allowing goals as well. There was only one spot on the right side that was above the league average in shooting %, which was just to the right of the post and up to the faceoff dot. Oddly enough, even though we let a high amount of shots come from the slot area (more than league average), we allowed a lower shooting % from that location compare to the league average.





All of these stats need to be combined with other stats and visual evidence, so that they are given context and draw the right conclusions. Some things will likely always remain unknown, like what Fred is telling the team to do. Is he telling AMac to play like an idiot? Did he make an adjustment later in the season and is that why the numbers change for the later defenders? Does he want the first line to play a more risky style of play? We could do our best to answer these questions, and we'd probably be right, but some of our woes are definitely coming from the coaching staff and the system, and they likely aren't as noticeable as some of the aforementioned questions.

 

[A Pointed Stick]

Hey I've played EA Sports NHL hockey at a Holiday Inn Express too.

wow, unnecessary.

 

[13th Floor]

Just to follow up on this again-- These are basically maps of Fenwick events, which yes does correlate very highly with Corsi events.

Thanks for the answer and awesome follow up with the links you provided. I think Fenwick is suitable for these plots. As I said, I imagine Corsi, Fenwick, and shots for/against all have strong correlation. It's just nice to see it with more events (that are worthy) to better capture the randomness.

I might actually dig into that R script myself. Thanks for plugging that in. I have a few thoughts that I can manipulate in some visualization software.

 

[Rehabguy]

wow, unnecessary.

Dude, just kidding around. Yes, expert opinion like you said definitely counts.

 

[Rehabguy]

There's a chart that shows where the shots were taken from and how that compares to the league average for those same areas.

There's also a chart that shows the shooting % from areas and how they compared to the league average for those same locations.

The Islanders consistently struggled on the left side of the defensive zone and were slightly less bad in the trapezoid area right in front of the net (but still higher than the league average) in terms of shots allowed.

The left side of the defensive zone is where we struggled with allowing goals as well. There was only one spot on the right side that was above the league average in shooting %, which was just to the right of the post and up to the faceoff dot. Oddly enough, even though we let a high amount of shots come from the slot area (more than league average), we allowed a lower shooting % from that location compare to the league average.





All of these stats need to be combined with other stats and visual evidence, so that they are given context and draw the right conclusions. Some things will likely always remain unknown, like what Fred is telling the team to do. Is he telling AMac to play like an idiot? Did he make an adjustment later in the season and is that why the numbers change for the later defenders? Does he want the first line to play a more risky style of play? We could do our best to answer these questions, and we'd probably be right, but some of our woes are definitely coming from the coaching staff and the system, and they likely aren't as noticeable as some of the aforementioned questions.

Thanks and I agree with you, but these charts Charlie1 found were very informative. Great stuff!

 

[charlie1]

Thanks for the answer and awesome follow up with the links you provided. I think Fenwick is suitable for these plots. As I said, I imagine Corsi, Fenwick, and shots for/against all have strong correlation. It's just nice to see it with more events (that are worthy) to better capture the randomness.

I might actually dig into that R script myself. Thanks for plugging that in. I have a few thoughts that I can manipulate in some visualization software.

Great! Let me know if you do as I will likely do the same and we can try to help each other out. I use R quite a bit.