Islanders shot differential, defense, goaltending and playoffs.

[SLAPSHOT723]

I love this thread.

 

[original islander]

I hope our coaching staff looks at this. It's fantastic.

 

[Jester9881]

Glad people find this useful, I think it's super interesting.

And I just want to expand on the AMac vs CdH comparison. Here are Hextally plots for both of them (first AMac, then Cdh). In these plots, the TOP is WITH the player on the ice, the BOTTOM is WITHOUT the player on the ice.

Here it is for MacDonald:




You can see that when AMac is on the ice (TOP) the Islanders are giving up an incredible amount of shots on the left side (his side). I mean it is just bleeding red over there. Not good at all.


Now compare that to our golden boy, CdH:



Again, TOP of the figure is with CdH, BOTTOM is without CdH.

I mean that is night & day better than AMac. Now granted CdH wasn't seeing top pairing minutes all season, but he was also a rookie, and that performance is damn impressive. Also notice how much worse we were when CdH was off the ice.

Just goes to show how skewed the numbers are in the wrong direction because of how bad AMac was. I think the Islanders D doesn't get enough credit..... it's nowhere near as bad as many would have you believe.

 

[Jester9881]

However, look at what opponents do when Tavares is on the ice. This strongly suggests we need to shelter him/give him heavy o-zone starts and NOT use him when we're trying to protect a lead. We can lean on Grabovski and Nielsen for d-zone and lead protection situations.

I'm going to post a few other graphs in a few minutes.

The problem here is that when JT was on the ice.... more than likely AMac was right there with him, again skewing the numbers.

 

[charlie1]

The problem here is that when JT was on the ice.... more than likely AMac was right there with him, again skewing the numbers.

Yep, I was thinking the same thing. The invisible AMac-effect.

 

[Cavonnier]

The problem here is that when JT was on the ice.... more than likely AMac was right there with him, again skewing the numbers.

There isn't a chart for this, but Tavares' 5-on-5 close Corsi was 43% with MacDonald and 53% without MacDonald.

 

[rikker]

this is very interesting stuff. starting to understand better, how this type of info is becoming more mainstream.

we know that MacDonald did not help, but what about Moulson and Vanek? we spent most of the year with these two guys on the 1st unit, LW. i'm guessing that they didn't do a great job defensively either.

i might also add that Cappy, with or without these analytical charts, should have noticed and taken steps to correct the problem(s). he didn't...

 

[TeamKidd]

Love this thread. It really does show how terrible AMAC is. No disrespect he's a nice guy but he was grossly misused. I'm still not sure who im more disgusted with, AMAC for being so bad or the coaches for continuing to send him out there.

If i'm reading this thread right, yes the goalies were bad, but also the defense gave up some great chances too (mostly AMAC). It is possible, with the addition of HALAK and the subtraction of AMAC that this team could be vastly improved.

#CuptoClosetheColiseum

 

[PK Cronin]

Excellent analysis, something I was hoping was out there. Remember however, shots are one thing, a more useful stat would be from where the actual goals are scored. The plot could be nothing more than how the Islanders play defense ie. their defensive style. If their goaltenders were better at handling shots from that side, the Islanders might have been coached into covering all other angles as a priority and let their goaltenders see the shot from that angle.

Then again, I don't know if Cappy's that smart

Here's the chart for where the goals are actually being scored.

We get murdered from the point on the left side and down tight on the left side. Oddly enough, we're exceptional at preventing goals from right in front of the net.

On the penalty kill though, we get burned right in front to around the faceoff circles and on the right point.

The problem here is that when JT was on the ice.... more than likely AMac was right there with him, again skewing the numbers.

I don't think Tavares is horrendous defensively, but I definitely do not want him out there when we're protecting a lead.


The defensive lapses in our own end seem to indicate it was mostly our top and bottom line, with the addition of Clutterbuck, Regin, and PMB that were a big problem.

Defensively we had issues with Ness, Martinek, AMac, Strait, Hickey, Donovan, and Carkner (only on the left side). Hickey struggled on the edge of the zone, but didn't allow many shots from the middle of the ice. Donovan was bad on the left and directly in front of the net. Martinek, Ness, AMac, and Strait were just complete disasters with giving up shots.

 

[Rehabguy]

The problem here is that when JT was on the ice.... more than likely AMac was right there with him, again skewing the numbers.

Yes- excellent observation. As I review a few of these graphs you have to be careful how you interpret them. Just being on the ice does not make that particular player necessarily responsible for more shots against. There are 4 or 5 other players on the ice at the same time.

For example, just being a regular penalty killer would raise the number of shots against a player in the defensive zone as well.

Also defensive systems or particular styles may dictate where the opposing team shoots from.

Am I correct that these graphs only show where shots are taken from but not necessarily represent goals?

Is there an analysis online that shows where the actual goals against the Islanders are being scored from?

 

[Rehabguy]

Here's the chart for where the goals are actually being scored.

We get murdered from the point on the left side and down tight on the left side. Oddly enough, we're exceptional at preventing goals from right in front of the net.

On the penalty kill though, we get burned right in front to around the faceoff circles and on the right point.

I don't think Tavares is horrendous defensively, but I definitely do not want him out there when we're protecting a lead.


The defensive lapses in our own end seem to indicate it was mostly our top and bottom line, with the addition of Clutterbuck, Regin, and PMB that were a big problem.

Defensively we had issues with Ness, Martinek, AMac, Strait, Hickey, Donovan, and Carkner (only on the left side). Hickey struggled on the edge of the zone, but didn't allow many shots from the middle of the ice. Donovan was bad on the left and directly in front of the net. Martinek, Ness, AMac, and Strait were just complete disasters with giving up shots.

Oops sorry. I just got to your post now. Ignore the last thread. Good stuff. How do the Islanders compare to when they made the playoffs a couple of seasons ago?

Just remember guys, take those graphs in the proper context. Overall the Islanders are middle of the pack in overall shots against compared to other teams in the league. Where we do have a weakness is as islandher points out is from the left dot-circle. Overall our shots differential is pretty favorable compared to the rest of the Eastern Conference. So an appropriate way to maybe interpret this is that overall our defense is pretty good, but our weaknesses are on the left defensive side. The save percentage of our goaltenders has a more direct correlation to goals against average. If a goaltender misses a shot on net- whatever the circumstances our goals against average will always go up.

 

[PK Cronin]

Oops sorry. I just got to your post now. Ignore the last thread. Good stuff. How do the Islanders compare to when they made the playoffs a couple of seasons ago?

What we see is a drastic difference in where we're allowing the shots and goals from. Here are the shots against, which is really remarkable when compared to last season. Only the left point is above the league average.

Here is the shooting % for the opposition.

We were bad on both the left and right side of the point, and really weak in the high slot and high right circle. Really good down low though.

Just remember guys, take those graphs in the proper context. Overall the Islanders are middle of the pack in overall shots against compared to other teams in the league. Where we do have a weakness is as islandher points out is from the left dot-circle. Overall our shots differential is pretty favorable compared to the rest of the Eastern Conference. So an appropriate way to maybe interpret this is that overall our defense is pretty good, but our weaknesses are on the left defensive side. The save percentage of our goaltenders has a more direct correlation to goals against average. If a goaltender misses a shot on net- whatever the circumstances our goals against average will always go up.

Of course, but it's interesting when you view an entire line of players (Nielsen, Bailey, Grabner) and see how they fair as a unit. Those particular three do a really great job defensively. Defensively, we see that anyone who spent significant time with AMac was hurt by playing with him (and you can see that since the goals/shots allowed are from the left side). Also, the defenseman who only played the second half of the season did much better on these graphs, which would seem to indicate the mess of a defensive core we had for the first half was a major reason for the team floundering.

When we compare the graphs from the year before, when they made the playoffs, I begin to think about what players we lost/added and how that impacted the charts. I'd have to think about it some more and look at some other statistics to see how important the subtractions/additions were to each area. My initial thought is that we could have been worse on the right side and the slot area because of the presence of Boyes, Aucoin, and Reasoner. Defensively we were better and healthier then, with Streit, Vis, Hamonic, AMac (playing in his proper role), Strait and Hickey. Guys playing above their level and trying to fill those bottom defensive pairings with A.Ness and company was a nightmare this past season.

 

[A Pointed Stick]

The problem here is that when JT was on the ice.... more than likely AMac was right there with him, again skewing the numbers.

A different perspective - imagine how Tavares' numbers improve with AMac gone?

 

[A Pointed Stick]

What we see is a drastic difference in where we're allowing the shots and goals from. Here are the shots against, which is really remarkable when compared to last season. Only the left point is above the league average...

We were bad on both the left and right side of the point, and really weak in the high slot and high right circle. Really good down low though.

I would argue that this location is the sweetest spot on the ice for most goalscorers (and most everyone else). It is one of the reasons our defense blew.

BTW, I was arguing this with several posters all year and they just scoffed about the concept that shot location had anything to do with our horrendous GA number.

Charlie1 for President.

 

[PK Cronin]

I would argue that this location is the sweetest spot on the ice for most goalscorers (and most everyone else). It is one of the reasons our defense blew.

BTW, I was arguing this with several posters all year and they just scoffed about the concept that shot location had anything to do with our horrendous GA number.

Charlie1 for President.

I recall that argument, and I was there backing your case. Shot location definitely matters, however, the charts are showing how the Islanders fared against the rest the of the NHL. So we were worse than most teams in that prime scoring area in terms of shooting percentage against.

 

[Rehabguy]

What we see is a drastic difference in where we're allowing the shots and goals from. Here are the shots against, which is really remarkable when compared to last season. Only the left point is above the league average.

Here is the shooting % for the opposition.

We were bad on both the left and right side of the point, and really weak in the high slot and high right circle. Really good down low though.



Of course, but it's interesting when you view an entire line of players (Nielsen, Bailey, Grabner) and see how they fair as a unit. Those particular three do a really great job defensively. Defensively, we see that anyone who spent significant time with AMac was hurt by playing with him (and you can see that since the goals/shots allowed are from the left side). Also, the defenseman who only played the second half of the season did much better on these graphs, which would seem to indicate the mess of a defensive core we had for the first half was a major reason for the team floundering.

When we compare the graphs from the year before, when they made the playoffs, I begin to think about what players we lost/added and how that impacted the charts. I'd have to think about it some more and look at some other statistics to see how important the subtractions/additions were to each area. My initial thought is that we could have been worse on the right side and the slot area because of the presence of Boyes, Aucoin, and Reasoner. Defensively we were better and healthier then, with Streit, Vis, Hamonic, AMac (playing in his proper role), Strait and Hickey. Guys playing above their level and trying to fill those bottom defensive pairings with A.Ness and company was a nightmare this past season.

I could see that argument.

 

[charlie1]

Really enjoying the discussion here. Thanks iLandHer for summarizing all those players.

I think a lot of these shot issues will disappear this year if CdH can continue to progress and Reinhart can step in as a solid 2nd-pairing guy. Time will tell.

Yes- excellent observation. As I review a few of these graphs you have to be careful how you interpret them. Just being on the ice does not make that particular player necessarily responsible for more shots against. There are 4 or 5 other players on the ice at the same time.

For example, just being a regular penalty killer would raise the number of shots against a player in the defensive zone as well.

Also defensive systems or particular styles may dictate where the opposing team shoots from.

Am I correct that these graphs only show where shots are taken from but not necessarily represent goals?

Is there an analysis online that shows where the actual goals against the Islanders are being scored from?

Just to be clear, the default setting for these graphs are shots taken at even-strength. So the special teams effect is taken out.

 

[charlie1]

Oh and if you google "Hextally plots" this thread comes up in the top 4 results.

 

[Jester9881]

With the addition of Griff, and subtraction of AMac to go along with the improved goaltending, that left side should look a lot different in these charts this time next year.

 

[Jester9881]

On the penalty kill though, we get burned right in front to around the faceoff circles and on the right point.

There is a reason for this happening (on the PK and not 5v5), and it's called the diamond formation. All it does is guarantee that our defenders are outnumbered in front of the net. It absolutely killed our PK last year. And the morons behind the bench never fixed it.

The defensive lapses in our own end seem to indicate it was mostly our top and bottom line, with the addition of Clutterbuck, Regin, and PMB that were a big problem.

I don't see how you come to this conclusion at all, using this information anyway. Cal Clutterbuck in particular was an excellent defensive forward for us. I'd say, given this information.... you can infer that our problem was mostly on the left side and in net.

 

[13th Floor]

Just to clarify, this is for shots only, right? And not Corsi events?

Because, with all of the push for Corsi events being counted, I feel it would be nice to see it with those numbers. If someone streams down our left side and breaks AMac's ankles and clangs one off the post, it doesn't count on this plot. Which is the argument for tracking and looking at Corsi in the first place.

I imagine it would correlate strongly with these though.

 

[charlie1]

Just to clarify, this is for shots only, right? And not Corsi events?

Because, with all of the push for Corsi events being counted, I feel it would be nice to see it with those numbers. If someone streams down our left side and breaks AMac's ankles and clangs one off the post, it doesn't count on this plot. Which is the argument for tracking and looking at Corsi in the first place.

I imagine it would correlate strongly with these though.

Good question, 13th. I went through the methodology on the author's homepage (A.C. Thomas) and below is your answer.

From his website here:

GOAL and SHOT have both distance to the net and x-y coordinates.
MISS has distance, but no coordinates.
BLOCK has neither distance nor coordinates.
For the sake of these plots, we can impute x-y coordinates for MISS based on the SHOT distribution, but blocked shots have to be omitted from this plot.

So he uses misses and shots, where the x-y location for misses is inferred from a distribution built from shots (on which there is location data).

Also this guy A.C. Thomas is basically a saint. Not only does he make these plots and maintain war-on-ice.com but he also maintains the nhlscrapr R package which is what most people are using to scrape data off nhl.com.

 

[Kevin27NYI]

I love this stuff, very informative and cool guys!

 

[charlie1]

Just to clarify, this is for shots only, right? And not Corsi events?

Because, with all of the push for Corsi events being counted, I feel it would be nice to see it with those numbers. If someone streams down our left side and breaks AMac's ankles and clangs one off the post, it doesn't count on this plot. Which is the argument for tracking and looking at Corsi in the first place.

I imagine it would correlate strongly with these though.

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

 

[PK Cronin]

There is a reason for this happening (on the PK and not 5v5), and it's called the diamond formation. All it does is guarantee that our defenders are outnumbered in front of the net. It absolutely killed our PK last year. And the morons behind the bench never fixed it.



I don't see how you come to this conclusion at all, using this information anyway. Cal Clutterbuck in particular was an excellent defensive forward for us. I'd say, given this information.... you can infer that our problem was mostly on the left side and in net.

I just looked at who had the most red when it came to the forwards. Clutterbuck has a ton of it, granted, it's not in his area of defensive responsibility. So whoever he is matched up with on offense or defense is really making a clusterbuck (see what I did there?) in the corners and in front of the net.