Post-Game Talk: Jets @ Oilers • Wed Sep 23rd, 8PM • Rexall Place
- Thread starter YWGinYYZ
- Start date
- Status
CaptainChef
Registered User
Ok you've made a case for offensive vs defensive zones -- puzzling why Staff & Myers were used to that degree in the defensive zone but there is a large difference there. Next question for someone who knows, is there a strong correlation between that and the fact that these two guys also had by far the worse CF% on the team?
mcpw
WPG
- Jan 13, 2015
- 10,024
- 2,072
Nope, not at all. These are full season statistics. Including numbers in Buffalo, team which started in the DZone a lot. I'd show the split stats, but woi seems to be down right now, so maybe later.
Edit: seemed to be a glitch in my browser.
Myers was playing extremely tough zone starts in Buffalo. Stafford somewhat tough zone starts. Note relative (x-axis) vs absolute (y-axis).
In WPG, both had a negative relative OZone%, but as you can see, after the deadline, we were starting in the OZone a lot. Both had >50% OZone%. Nobody on our team had to play the extremely rough starts of the Gorges-Myers pairing, neither absolute nor relative.
Last edited:
- Jun 10, 2014
- 57,465
- 29,321
Saying that he doesn't fit the team might be an overstatement. I don't like where he is likely to be shoehorned into the team would be more accurate.
He came in and had an immediate hot streak. He hasn't had a 60 point season since high school. He had a 16.1 S% with the Jets. His career average is 11.1. He was below 9% in each of the 3 years prior to last year. He will bring some scoring but not at the rate he provided the Jets last year.
If he must be with Scheifele then Wheeler shouldn't be and Stafford should play on the RW. Maybe Burmi - Scheif - Staff would work. With Ladd, Perre and Burmi we have enough LWs in the top 9. No need to play Stafford on his off side.
So Wheeler goes back with LL, Ehlers on the 3rd line. I predict Ehlers will move up before the season is half over. How that will be accommodated depends on injuries. Stafford still could find himself on the 3rd line if we are healthy.
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
The biggest factor for a d-man is not zone starts or competition; it's their defensive partner. The gap
Myers had Enstrom, a defender that everyone tends to be at their best with. While Myers had it toughish on zone starts and QoC, he had the best in the largest factor: Enstrom.
One way I tried to put everyone on the same plain was isolating each RHD with Enstrom and the top line (Ladd-Little). When I did this, I got Byfuglien 58% Corsi, Trouba 56% Corsi, Myers 54% Corsi, Bogosian 51% Corsi. So by this measure Myers is an upgrade on Bogosian, but still not Buff or Trouba level.
Another way you can account for these factors is using dCorsi, which compares how a player performs vs the average player with the same OZS, QoC, and QoT deployments. dCorsi gives us the same rankings, Byfuglien, Trouba, Myers, and Bogosian, although Myers ends up far closer to Bogosian than in the example above.
Now, Myers was actually an analytical darling in his first two seasons in Buffalo. So, I think there is the possibility of psychological effects in Buffalo.
I wouldn't be surprised if Myers bounces back. I wouldn't cite deployment as an excuse for Myers though.
So summary of factors are:
1)QoT
--------- drop
Zone Starts
-------- massive drop
-------- still dropping
QoC
Last edited:
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
To expand...
Why Quality of Competition is overrated (but still has a role to play) in Corsi impact:
It's not that players do not play worse against tougher guys, but that people do not really see all that different deployments.
I always like to use this example:
What is tougher?
Myers seeing top-six lines <5 points higher as % of his TOI than Trouba?
or
Trouba seeing Stuart for ~80% of his TOI, Enstrom for ~5%, rest Jets D combined for ~15% vs Myers seeing Enstrom for ~79% of his TOI as a Jet, Chiarot for ~10%, rest Jets D combined for ~11%?
Why OZS% is overrated (but still has a role to play) in Corsi impact:
Here is the percentage of player shifts starts in each situation:
OZ: 12%
NZ: 18%
DZ: 11%
On The Fly: 59%
(Note DZ is lower due to icings causing OZS team to change but DZS team being trapped)
Only 23% of shifts are started in a non-neutral(ish) environment.
OZS% only look at what the OZ vs DZ starts look like. It ignores what the OTF starts are like. It also ignores what percentage of shifts are in the NZ.
Why Quality of Competition is overrated (but still has a role to play) in Corsi impact:
It's not that players do not play worse against tougher guys, but that people do not really see all that different deployments.
I always like to use this example:
What is tougher?
Myers seeing top-six lines <5 points higher as % of his TOI than Trouba?
or
Trouba seeing Stuart for ~80% of his TOI, Enstrom for ~5%, rest Jets D combined for ~15% vs Myers seeing Enstrom for ~79% of his TOI as a Jet, Chiarot for ~10%, rest Jets D combined for ~11%?
Why OZS% is overrated (but still has a role to play) in Corsi impact:
Here is the percentage of player shifts starts in each situation:
OZ: 12%
NZ: 18%
DZ: 11%
On The Fly: 59%
(Note DZ is lower due to icings causing OZS team to change but DZS team being trapped)
Only 23% of shifts are started in a non-neutral(ish) environment.
OZS% only look at what the OZ vs DZ starts look like. It ignores what the OTF starts are like. It also ignores what percentage of shifts are in the NZ.
Last edited:
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
They outscore their opponents significantly, but this was because of Sv% not Sh%.
They carried about a 0.975 sv% behind them during that time. That wasn't going to persist.
Their offense wasn't anything particularly special as a unit vs split apart.
mcpw
WPG
- Jan 13, 2015
- 10,024
- 2,072
Garret, is there a nice plot showing OZone% vs CF% (abs or rel) out on the interwebs somewhere?
While zone starts themselves as an indicator for tough/sheltered minutes are flawed to some extent due to the amount of starts on the fly, there is still a not yet quantified difference between OTF starts for DMen while in control in the OZone vs after a glass-and-out play from the DZone. I'm sure people are on it
BTW, is there a significant difference between the amount of OTF starts for F vs D?
While zone starts themselves as an indicator for tough/sheltered minutes are flawed to some extent due to the amount of starts on the fly, there is still a not yet quantified difference between OTF starts for DMen while in control in the OZone vs after a glass-and-out play from the DZone. I'm sure people are on it
BTW, is there a significant difference between the amount of OTF starts for F vs D?
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
It's fine in theory, the only issue is that coaches don't actually get their matchups as often as one would hope.
Now, from a coaching perspective, you still want to try. Every little gain counts and you want the best possible situation. However, this means don't construct your lines thinking the second line won't get eaten up by Getzlafs and Kopitars quite often.
![ke9lc2[1].png](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fnhlnumbers.com%2Fuploads%2FImage%2Fke9lc2%5B1%5D.png&hash=4b06804da5c3439e1b96b7ad920e8d96)
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
Garret, is there a nice plot showing OZone% vs CF% (abs or rel) out on the interwebs somewhere?
While zone starts themselves as an indicator for tough/sheltered minutes are flawed to some extent due to the amount of starts on the fly, there is still a not yet quantified difference between OTF starts for DMen while in control in the OZone vs after a glass-and-out play from the DZone. I'm sure people are on it
BTW, is there a significant difference between the amount of OTF starts for F vs D?
The best I can offer is this:
I can tell you that the average OTF start Corsi% is 50.9, vs 37.7 for for DZ or 59.8 for OZ (note not symmetrical for the icing reason I stated above few comments ago)
Also, doing a straight graph of OZS% vs Corsi% may end up with some coaching bias. This is why we used to overvalue deployment factors. When we were originally studying these numbers, we were not accounting for the fact that certain types of players tend to get certain types of deployments.
Last edited:
mcpw
WPG
- Jan 13, 2015
- 10,024
- 2,072
Yep, that's the reason I think the whole notion of "zone-start adjusted" is flawed. It assumes equally distributed talent (every player is as good offensively as he is defensively). Amongst the people who only look at bare numbers without eyetest and context, it seems to me, that a lot of players who have good Corsi numbers, but are playing very sheltered minutes by every measure, are overrated a lot (fun fact: top 5 WPG defensemen 2012-15 by bare CF%Rel without context: Redmond, Clitsome, Pardy, Postma, Trouba). Still, OZS/Corsi vs QOT/Corsi correlations should be interesting to at least get an impression what is the actual driving force.
Agreed with the bolded. IMO and as you mentioned CF% can be very misleading without looking at a wide range of other variables that impact it. And again IMO straight CF% is thrown around way too much as the best measure of a players worth. A few weeks back I was curious about CF% over a long period compared to the almost universally agreed upon value of a player.
An 8 year (2007-15) CF% ranking of NHL players comes with some pretty unexpected results. Screened for a min of 1000 mins to weed out players with less than 1 season.
Crosby the greatest player of our generation comes in at 114. Right between Colaiacovo and Trevor Lewis.
Well behind Johnathon Cheechoo (19), Zhedorov (28) and our good friend Poni (39).
What I found particularly interesting was one of our favorite whipping boys Adam Pardy was ranked 132 (a 314 game sample size). A former whipping boy Derek Meech was ranked 144 (140 game sample size). While 2 of the best d-man in the game Shea Weber ranked 384 and McDonagh ranked 395 were well behind them.
Some other notables including top Jets players:
Toews - 12 (my favorite non Jet from a team I like)
Doughty - 47 (my favorite non Jet from a team I hate)
Perreault - 91
Ladd - 96
Ovi - 98
Buff - 138
Wheeler 194
Giroux - 198
Malkin - 199
Getzlaf - 211
Perry - 223
Little - 309
Stamkos - 430
Iginla - 435
Selanne - 649
Info from Stats.HockeyAnalysis
CorgisPer60
Barking at the net
Well, yeah. No singular stat tells the whole story, which is why they all need to be examined in context with each other.
The biggest factor for a d-man is not zone starts or competition; it's their defensive partner. The gap
Myers had Enstrom, a defender that everyone tends to be at their best with. While Myers had it toughish on zone starts and QoC, he had the best in the largest factor: Enstrom.
One way I tried to put everyone on the same plain was isolating each RHD with Enstrom and the top line (Ladd-Little). When I did this, I got Byfuglien 58% Corsi, Trouba 56% Corsi, Myers 54% Corsi, Bogosian 51% Corsi. So by this measure Myers is an upgrade on Bogosian, but still not Buff or Trouba level.
Another way you can account for these factors is using dCorsi, which compares how a player performs vs the average player with the same OZS, QoC, and QoT deployments. dCorsi gives us the same rankings, Byfuglien, Trouba, Myers, and Bogosian, although Myers ends up far closer to Bogosian than in the example above.
Now, Myers was actually an analytical darling in his first two seasons in Buffalo. So, I think there is the possibility of psychological effects in Buffalo.
I wouldn't be surprised if Myers bounces back. I wouldn't cite deployment as an excuse for Myers though.
So summary of factors are:
1)QoT
--------- drop
Zone Starts
-------- massive drop
-------- still dropping
QoC
This type of work is a great start but is likely just starting to scratch the surface, yet we throw around short term raw corsi numbers like they are a true measure rather than a small piece of data in a very large puzzle. One day likely to be seen as a small step above giving players pluses and minus if they were on the ice when goals are scored. There was a day when that was seen as a big step forward in measuring a players value.
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
Well you shouldn't be that surprised. Corsi, like I say below, is not a holistic statistic. It never was one.
Future refinements in Corsi will tweak the above list, but do not be surprised if the best hockey player is not the top since Corsi - and its refinements - is not about who is the best player. Plus the whole no number will ever be perfect thing.
In the context of the current discussion above, it's not saying that "those two players having the worst Corsi = worst players". It's "those two players having the worst Corsi = an issue".
I mean it's not like we don't already know the reasons why those two suffered in shot differentials. I've already shown how they were both poor in zone transitions. Hopefully they will get better as they get more acquired to the system.
Yes and no.
Corsi will likely never become irrelevant, but rather be built upon and refined.
You will know better and earlier who is driving. There will be other factors added to this as well. We already have this in part with things like expected goals and WOI's scoring chances.
In terms of a puzzle, we always had that. Corsi was never designed as a holistic statistic and none of hockey statistical community used it as that. It was used much like baseball uses OBP and is a fairly similar statistic in concept. It was that shot drivers were under paid relative to sh% drivers in terms of impact on wins, just like how players getting on base used to be undervalued.
The puzzle picture is already are starting to be filled in with Goals Above Replacement. Shot driving is a huge part of WAR and will also always likely be a pretty large piece.
The reason why I can be confident in saying shot metrics will always remain a fairly large part of the picture is due to the relationships it has and testing with goals. The future is in refining shot metrics (like exG and SC) and also earlier detection with transitional statistics (aka knowing how and why so players can be coached better to improve their numbers).
Goals, as in differentials, have always been important and always will be, just like Corsi.
The only changes have been that now it's numbers people looking at numbers as opposed to hockey people looking at numbers.
GD is still important, we just know that it takes a certain sample to become significant, which is stats 101 not some knew knowledge in technology or hockey.
Corsi didn't make GD obsolete, but rather was a refinement of one shot metric to another.
Plus/minus though never would have been had statistically trained individuals ever were part of the process and never should have been. There is an inherent flaw in its stupid selections.
Ex:
Mark Stuart had the Jets worst ES GD (GF-GA) for dmen.
Mark Stuart had the Jets worst PK GD (GF-GA) for dmen.
Mark Stuart did not have the worst plus/minus ES+PK factors (ES GF - ES GA + PK GF) though because plus/minus arbitrarily ignores PK GA.
Plus/minus has become obsolete not because of new knowledge but just numbers being looked at and tested instead of being assumed as useful because it represents what a coach assumes is important. We still have problems like these today. Coaches always want me to split data into super refined situations where SSS makes things ridiculous.
Last edited:
It's fine in theory, the only issue is that coaches don't actually get their matchups as often as one would hope.
Now, from a coaching perspective, you still want to try. Every little gain counts and you want the best possible situation. However, this means don't construct your lines thinking the second line won't get eaten up by Getzlafs and Kopitars quite often.
It's not so much about match-ups per se, but that having 3 strong lines will result in some mismatches along the way.
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
Wouldn't that be an argument against Staff-Scheif-Wheel then?
The argument was that some are uncomfortable with that lines ability to take toughs just due to the combinations of the individual skill sets they have.
Is it not counter to this:
It is hard to judge some of the rookies when they are playing with other rookies for just a short time being unable to develop any chemistry, unlike playing with a line with two other pros who may be able to cover any of a rookies mistake or to guide the rookie on plays in which they would be able to make of a valid contribution based on their skill.
CaptainChef
Registered User
Thanks - why didn't I think of that! It just didn't make sense that several of their linemates had much better O-zone numbers but yes of course, their Buffalo connections explain the discreptancy
CaptainChef
Registered User
The biggest factor for a d-man is not zone starts or competition; it's their defensive partner. The gap
Myers had Enstrom, a defender that everyone tends to be at their best with. While Myers had it toughish on zone starts and QoC, he had the best in the largest factor: Enstrom.
One way I tried to put everyone on the same plain was isolating each RHD with Enstrom and the top line (Ladd-Little). When I did this, I got Byfuglien 58% Corsi, Trouba 56% Corsi, Myers 54% Corsi, Bogosian 51% Corsi. So by this measure Myers is an upgrade on Bogosian, but still not Buff or Trouba level.
Another way you can account for these factors is using dCorsi, which compares how a player performs vs the average player with the same OZS, QoC, and QoT deployments. dCorsi gives us the same rankings, Byfuglien, Trouba, Myers, and Bogosian, although Myers ends up far closer to Bogosian than in the example above.
Now, Myers was actually an analytical darling in his first two seasons in Buffalo. So, I think there is the possibility of psychological effects in Buffalo.
I wouldn't be surprised if Myers bounces back. I wouldn't cite deployment as an excuse for Myers though.
So summary of factors are:
1)QoT
--------- drop
Zone Starts
-------- massive drop
-------- still dropping
QoC
Thanks garret -- you've posted so many bad corsi stats for Myers, I'm encouraged to see that he is actually better than Bogo & has definite potential to be a positive Corsi defenceman with Wpg
I believe every line needs to strong possession guys. Which is why I like the idea of these as pairs:
Ladd - Little
Perrault - Scheifele
Burmie - Lowry
Mix and match the RWs
While Scheifele looks to have taken another step forward as an all around player, I feel it's too much responsibility to ask him to pick up the slack of two wingers who aren't great defensively.
Ladd - Little
Perrault - Scheifele
Burmie - Lowry
Mix and match the RWs
While Scheifele looks to have taken another step forward as an all around player, I feel it's too much responsibility to ask him to pick up the slack of two wingers who aren't great defensively.
It's fine in theory, the only issue is that coaches don't actually get their matchups as often as one would hope.
Now, from a coaching perspective, you still want to try. Every little gain counts and you want the best possible situation. However, this means don't construct your lines thinking the second line won't get eaten up by Getzlafs and Kopitars quite often.
I'm not sure I would care which of those players in the histogram had which matchups. How does the histogram look when you look at players like Kesler or Toews or Little?
CorgisPer60
Barking at the net
I think it's an argument for balancing the 3 lines - 4 if you can.
I don't like the SSW line because I think that Wheeler and Stafford are both weak defensively. I'd rather break them up and provide a bit more balance.... as I've reiterated:
Ladd-Little-Stafford
Perreault-Scheifele-Wheeler
Burmi-Lowry-Ehlers
I think any of those lines could hold their own. Scheifele's line could perhaps be used against weaker defensive lines / pairings if you can get your match-ups.
I'll probably post a GDT later on today, after I get done with this pesky work thing.
Someone should probably start a Pre-game thread in the meantime, if you want to discuss tonight's game in particular.- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 21Staked: $25,412.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 11Staked: $56,709.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Carolina Hurricanes @ NY Rangers - NYR leads 1-0Wagers: 7Staked: $18,125.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
-
