Lars Eller - The Adventure Continues...

[LastWordArmy]

[mod]

Even when reliable sites have stats that don't back up their opinions, they claim the site has the wrong stats.


And yes I watched plenty of playoff games, and I don't find it crazy. Why

1) Montreal as a team had more 0-zone face-offs than d.zone ones in the playoffs.
2) Torrey Mitchell and the fourth line took on a much bigger d-zone role than they had in the regular season during the playoffs.
3) The fact that DD was no longer with Patch for much of the playoffs (and Plekanec was there instead) meant that no one line was force fed O-zone starts in the same way that a Patch-DD line is force fed them when we have those two together.

So yeah, seeing his o-zone starts go up in a small sample size of 12 games? It really doesn't shock me.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

Thats why there are multiple sources that track this data, and when something seems off, you verify with another source.

Presuming you watched atleast 20 games, did you at no point question the validity of that stat based on what you saw?

There's no question hockey reference isn't throwing out bad data. It's just the criteria is different.

For example hockeyanalysis has Plekanec scoring 35 ESP this year. In reality, he scored 40. They removed some points from somewhere. Sorinth suggested they do not track points with empty nets like delayed penalties or ENG. That's a possibility.

The OZS % is based on 5 on 5 only.

Maybe on hockey reference they include 4 on 4 and other stuff that was omitted elsewhere.

I'm not sure but I doubt data is wrong. It's likely just not a criteria we're comfortable with.

 

[LastWordArmy]

There's no question hockey reference isn't throwing out bad data. It's just the criteria is different.

For example hockeyanalysis has Plekanec scoring 35 ESP this year. In reality, he scored 40. They removed some points from somewhere. Sorinth suggested they do not track points with empty nets like delayed penalties or ENG. That's a possibility.

The OZS % is based on 5 on 5 only.

Maybe on hockey reference they include 4 on 4 and other stuff that was omitted elsewhere.

I'm not sure but I doubt data is wrong. It's likely just not a criteria we're comfortable with.

Just one thing to point out here, his OZS % in other years (and in the regular season) is what we would expect. Its merely the 2015 playoffs, and that alone, that seems he got more ozone starts.

 

[Nynja*]

[mod]

Even when reliable sites have stats that don't back up their opinions, they claim the site has the wrong stats.


And yes I watched plenty of playoff games, and I don't find it crazy. Why

1) Montreal as a team had more 0-zone face-offs than d.zone ones in the playoffs.
2) Torrey Mitchell and the fourth line took on a much bigger d-zone role than they had in the regular season during the playoffs.
3) The fact that DD was no longer with Patch for much of the playoffs (and Plekanec was there instead) meant that no one line was force fed O-zone starts in the same way that a Patch-DD line is force fed them when we have those two together.

So yeah, seeing his o-zone starts go up in a small sample size of 12 games? It really doesn't shock me.

Meanwhile nhl.com, war on ice, stats.hockeyanalysis.com, etc etc all vastly disagree with your 57%...but "nope all those sources are wrong, mines right"

 

[Brainiac]

This is funny.

At least, I hope people will question the advanced 'data' a little more from now on.

These secondary websites are OK, but sometimes, it's a mess trying to figure out what they're actually doing with the raw data.

Just as an example: faceoffs should never be separated in offensive and defensive. Neutral zone faceoffs are important and count for a line's workload.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

This is funny.

At least, I hope people will question the advanced 'data' a little more from now on.

These secondary websites are OK, but sometimes, it's a mess trying to figure out what they're actually doing with the raw data.

The best part is "MY SOURCE IS RIGHT" nonsense when people don't even know the criteria in each website.

People fine tune data differently. Some reports are more relevant than others and that's fine but it's best to know what exactly you're looking at before saying it's inaccurate.

Just a different criteria is all. What that is? No clue.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

Meanwhile nhl.com, war on ice, stats.hockeyanalysis.com, etc etc all vastly disagree with your 57%...but "nope all those sources are wrong, mines right"

Does NHL.com even track OZS%?

 

[Nynja*]

war-on-ice says the following for the zones where Eller took draws in the 2015 playoffs:
Ozone 33
NZone 49
DZone 70
Total 152 (O and N zone combined came to 54%)

regular season:
O 223
N 339
D 372
T 934 (N+O = 60%)


NHL.com offensive zone start %
regular season 37.31
playoffs 32.04

Gonna question nhl.com's stats too?

Does NHL.com even track OZS%?

look up homie
Tracks Ozone and Dzone
Oh, and NHL.com said Eller had 33 Ozone and 70 Dzone in the playffs, like war-on-ice reported.

 

[Nynja*]

1) Montreal as a team had more 0-zone face-offs than d.zone ones in the playoffs.
2) Torrey Mitchell and the fourth line took on a much bigger d-zone role than they had in the regular season during the playoffs.
3) The fact that DD was no longer with Patch for much of the playoffs (and Plekanec was there instead) meant that no one line was force fed O-zone starts in the same way that a Patch-DD line is force fed them when we have those two together.

1-According to my excel sheet and math, adding up everyones Ozone and Dzone draws then dividing it by 5, because there are 5 players on the ice at 5v5 (duh), we had 203 Ozone draws and 211 Dzone draws. So your claims that "we had more Ozone than Dzone draws"...yeah, thats wrong.
2-Yes, Torrey Mitchell got saddled with even worse Dzone deployment than Eller. Torrey Mitchell also had a 30% Ozone deployment in the regular season (though I think that includes Buffalo as well), so its not like he had "a much bigger dzone role in the playoffs".
3-Davey had a ****ing 71.84% of Ozone deployment lol

 

[LyricalLyricist]

war-on-ice says the following for the zones where Eller took draws in the 2015 playoffs:
Ozone 33
NZone 49
DZone 70
Total 152 (O and N zone combined came to 54%)

regular season:
O 223
N 339
D 372
T 934 (N+O = 60%)


NHL.com offensive zone start %
regular season 37.31
playoffs 32.04

Gonna question nhl.com's stats too?



look up homie
Tracks Ozone and Dzone
Oh, and NHL.com said Eller had 33 Ozone and 70 Dzone in the playffs, like war-on-ice reported.

Strange, I did it by hand from each faceoff summary sheet.

I got different numbers.

I got 34-58 as O and D zone draws 4 on 4 and 5 on 5 combined.

I guess I added wrong.

 

[Nynja*]

NHL said it only tracks 5v5.

 

[Brainiac]

1-According to my excel sheet and math, adding up everyones Ozone and Dzone draws then dividing it by 5, because there are 5 players on the ice at 5v5 (duh), we had 203 Ozone draws and 211 Dzone draws. So your claims that "we had more Ozone than Dzone draws"...yeah, thats wrong.

And... are you sure about that data?

 

[LyricalLyricist]

NHL does 5v5 alone

Yes, 4 on 4 wasn't much though. Thing is, with both combined I got 58 DZS. NHL has 70 for 5 on 5 alone.

Did I really miss 12? I'm not sure.

 

[Nynja*]

And... are you sure about that data?

like I said

Gonna question nhl.com's stats too?

as for my math, yeah, I trust it, you're more than welcome to do it yourself though.



81 79
76 72
74 47
74 29
73 67
69 35
68 50
68 51
63 96
61 95
47 48
43 42
39 27
33 70
32 15
31 61
25 14
24 58
23 79
11 20

=SUM(Q1:Q61)/5 (if you're going to question why 60 lines, there were gaps in pasting since it goes player rank *new line* player name *new line* stat line, I removed the gaps)

 

[LyricalLyricist]

It's weird, I did a check on the data for NHL.com.

I did the numbers by hand through each faceoff summary report.

5on5 4on4
O D N O D N
Game 1 1 10 5 0 0 1
Game 2 3 2 2 0 0 0
Game 3 0 4 4 0 0 0
Game 4 0 6 1 0 0 0
Game 5 4 4 6 0 0 0
Game 6 4 4 2 0 0 0
Game 7 4 10 4 0 0 0
Game 8 4 1 5 1 0 1
Game 9 3 6 3 0 0 0
Game 10 5 5 3 1 0 0
Game 11 2 3 7 0 0 0
Game 12 2 3 5 0 0 0
Totals 32 58 47 2 0 2

 

[Brainiac]

like I said

Even then, is comparing Ozone vs. Dzone without neutral zone data the right way to go?

Example:

Line 1:

10 Ozone starts, 10 Dzone starts, 50 neutral zone starts. Result = 50% OZ starts.

Line 2:

20 Ozone starts, 20 Dzone starts, 30 neutral zone starts. Result = 50% OZ starts.

Which line got more chances?

Data says they're equal.

 

[Nynja*]

http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20142015/FC030111.HTM

Game 1 vs sens
but it doesnt track 4v4 or 5v5? Unless you went through each game log?

 

[Nynja*]

Even then, is comparing Ozone vs. Dzone without neutral zone data the right way to go?

Example:

Line 1:

10 Ozone starts, 10 Dzone starts, 50 neutral zone starts. Result = 50% OZ starts.

Line 2:

20 Ozone starts, 20 Dzone starts, 30 neutral zone starts. Result = 50% OZ starts.

Which line got more chances?

Data says they're equal.

I'm pretty sure ZSO%Rel tracks compared to the rest of the team.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20142015/FC030111.HTM

Game 1 vs sens
but it doesnt track 4v4 or 5v5?

Use "Faceoff Summary Report"

http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20142015/FS030111.HTM



Then again, I figured out my problem! Did Eller play wing at any point this playoff run? Maybe he got kicked out of some draws too. They happen to be all defensive zone draws I guess.

 

[Nynja*]

Use "Faceoff Summary Report"

http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20142015/FS030111.HTM

I found every link except for that one lol

 

[Brainiac]

I'm pretty sure ZSO%Rel tracks compared to the rest of the team.

Sorry dude, but I'm not sure what 'ZSO%Rel' really means or how it's calculated.

And that's a huge problem with the advanced stats community. Dishing out fancy terms doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. And believe me, I know about stats.

That's why I love NHL.com approach. All these 'possession stats' became Shooting Attempt Stats, or SAT. Clear, precise and straight to the point. You read the acronym and you immediatly understand what it means.

SAT = pretty clear and everybody understands.

ZSO%Rel = sorry, but I'm not sure I want to get into that.

 

[DAChampion]

Sorry dude, but I'm not sure what 'ZSO%Rel' really means or how it's calculated.

And that's a huge problem with the advanced stats community. Dishing out fancy terms doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. And believe me, I know about stats.

That's why I love NHL.com approach. All these 'possession stats' became Shooting Attempt Stats, or SAT. Clear, precise and straight to the point. You read the acronym and you immediatly understand what it means.

SAT = pretty clear and everybody understands.

ZSO%Rel = sorry, but I'm not sure I want to get into that.

Agreed: names matter and should be meaningful.

It's also a marketing issue. "Shot attempts" sounds as pedestrian as it is, whereas "Fenwick" sounds like the coded language of a secretive, superior community.