Post-Game Talk: Player Performance Tracking: Contributing to Goals For/Against

[CapitalsCupReality]

Yes Tex, my position is clear.

Crystal.

Since no one has told me that Green and Brouwer are the PR dept for the Capitals AND coach the power play, I see no benefit of them addressing the media about what I consider a private matter.

How many mistakes do you think were made in the game? Collectively, from Holts on out. 10? 100?

Yet the goals were the mistakes fellow players called each other out for, in his first game? Have you ever heard of such a thing, ever? Let me know the last time you heard players find faults on goals. Their own!

Oates may want to run a tight ship, but we are far away from needing to address problems with positive plays to the media in game 1. In fact, I think it may create more problems than it helps.

You're pretty spun up over a tweet from Gormley with ZERO real quotes. Paraphrasing to rile up the readers works I guess...

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

When the reporters brought it up in Oates' interview, he came right out and said that that's how he wants Grabovski to play in those situations. So one of three things is happening:

1.) (most likely?) Everyone's comments are much more nuanced than we're getting, and the breakdown is really a more minor one or not a breakdown at all, just a new look players are getting used to

2.) There's a miscommunication between Oates and not-Grabo, and their comments are meaningless

3.) Their comments are true and Oates is covering for Grabo to the press

You're free to decide which of them is likely true. I believe that new look was a sensible one, so I would think it was something Oates (or Forsythe) intended. And I haven't seen the actual quotes from Brouwer and Green (has anyone, or are we all just getting our knickers in a twist over a secondhand retelling from Chuck Gormley of all people?) so I have no idea how serious or troubled they were by the situation.

Agreed, pretty sure this is a few fans getting spun up over the Leader of Men and Chuck freakin Gormley.

 

[malyk]

I like the quoted format, and would embrace a thread rename. I would also embrace keeping running season totals (perhaps per poster).

So here's what I propose: For each poster who wants to post their analysis in this format, I'll keep a spreadsheet tallying season-to-date results. We can then, at certain points, get some insight as to general consensus, individual bias, and other things that may not have been so apparent without tracking.

If you want to do this, I'll edit the OP to reflect it and fire up Excel.

I'm going to try to do this for every game. I'll watch the NHL.com game recaps the morning after and do a quick write up like the first one. Format might change slightly, but that's the basic idea.

 

[RandyHolt]

I am not sure even Gormley or anyone else could make up such a thing.

If its something to ignore, why didn't Oates?

 

[ChibiPooky]

I'm going to try to do this for every game. I'll watch the NHL.com game recaps the morning after and do a quick write up like the first one. Format might change slightly, but that's the basic idea.

Spreadsheet fired up, then. If anyone else wants to do it, I'm tracking on a per-game basis.

 

[Ajax1995]

I like the quoted format, and would embrace a thread rename. I would also embrace keeping running season totals (perhaps per poster).

So here's what I propose: For each poster who wants to post their analysis in this format, I'll keep a spreadsheet tallying season-to-date results. We can then, at certain points, get some insight as to general consensus, individual bias, and other things that may not have been so apparent without tracking.

If you want to do this, I'll edit the OP to reflect it and fire up Excel.

Works for me.

 

[Hivemind]

Spreadsheet fired up, then. If anyone else wants to do it, I'm tracking on a per-game basis.

Going to track per-user as well? I'll try and do my best to keep up with this, though some of it will have to be done via replays.

 

[ChibiPooky]

Going to track per-user as well? I'll try and do my best to keep up with this, though some of it will have to be done via replays.

Yes. Per-game, per-user, with totals and averages tracked.

Edit: If you tell me which game it was, I can also enter these retroactively.

 

[Langway]

I'll try to contribute as well. Apportioning blame on multiple breakdowns will be tough, though. (And credit for goals for that matter...)

It would be interesting if we could split up other duties like zone entries, individual on/off ice quality chances for/against and the like but obviously those are tougher to track throughout games.

 

[ChibiPooky]

Awesome; I hope we can get a lot of people in on this. I know everybody likes to play armchair analyst so this ought to be pretty cool by season's end (the more people participating, the cooler!).

 

[Langway]

I'm going to do mine a little different, which may make standardization somewhat difficult. It should line up proportionately for the most part.

Game 1, 10/1/13 @ CHI:

Bollig ESG: -0.8 Carrick, -0.2 Hillen
Ovechkin PPG: +0.8 Ovechkin, +0.1 Grabovski, +0.1 Backstrom
Kane ESG: -0.6 Fehr, -0.4 Green
Grabovski ESG: +0.75 Grabovski, +0.25 Ward
Seabrook PPG: -0.6 Fehr, -0.4 Erskine
Grabovski PPG: +0.55 Grabovski, +0.35 Green, +0.1 Backstrom
Grabovski PPG: +0.7 Grabovski, +0.2 Green, +0.1 Backstrom
Saad ESG: Carrick -0.55, Erskine -0.45
Oduya ESG: Holtby -1
Hoosa EN-ESG: Green -0.5

ES totals (disgarding the EN):
Grabovski +0.75
Ward +0.25
Hillen -0.2
Green -0.4
Erskine -0.45
Fehr -0.6
Holtby -1
Carrick -1.35

PPG totals:
Grabovski +1.35
Ovechkin +0.8
Green +0.55
Backstrom +0.3

PK totals:
Erskine -0.4
Fehr -0.6

 

[Stewie G]

Might as well make your own thread if you're not going to do it the same way. The masses picked Bluray. Get your HD-DVD out of here.

 

[ChibiPooky]

I'm going to do mine a little different, which may make standardization somewhat difficult. It should line up proportionately for the most part.

Game 1, 10/1/13 @ CHI:

Bollig ESG: -0.8 Carrick, -0.2 Hillen
Ovechkin PPG: +0.8 Ovechkin, +0.1 Grabovski, +0.1 Backstrom
Kane ESG: -0.6 Fehr, -0.4 Green
Grabovski ESG: +0.75 Grabovski, +0.25 Ward
Seabrook PPG: -0.6 Fehr, -0.4 Erskine
Grabovski PPG: +0.55 Grabovski, +0.35 Green, +0.1 Backstrom
Grabovski PPG: +0.7 Grabovski, +0.2 Green, +0.1 Backstrom
Saad ESG: Carrick -0.55, Erskine -0.45
Oduya ESG: Holtby -1
Hoosa EN-ESG: Green -0.5

ES totals (disgarding the EN):
Grabovski +0.75
Ward +0.25
Hillen -0.2
Green -0.4
Erskine -0.45
Fehr -0.6
Holtby -1
Carrick -1.35

PPG totals:
Grabovski +1.35
Ovechkin +0.8
Green +0.55
Backstrom +0.3

PK totals:
Erskine -0.4
Fehr -0.6

Might as well make your own thread if you're not going to do it the same way. The masses picked Bluray. Get your HD-DVD out of here.

I can still track his individually (and include as part of the overall totals, though because his is on a different (smaller) scale, it won't be weighted as heavily). Proportionally, I'm hoping to see more or less similar results to the others. It's only the averages that would be thrown off if I include it.

 

[Stewie G]

If it is directly proportional, just do it the same way to start with or come up with a weighting factor (which I think you'd have to do for each goal). If it isn't, it will drag the numbers down at uneven rates. As a scientist, I actually like his way better. Everyone's contribution isn't going to be equal on each play, but it doesn't make sense to me to include them if they are done differently. Just my two pennies. I think the idea is a good one overall, but would have the most value if done in a standard fashion.

Maybe a hybrid approach would work better? Each player can get a 1, 1/2, -1/2, or -1 on each scoring play. Breaking it down by PP, ES, or PK I think is a nice addition.

 

[ChibiPooky]

If it is directly proportional, just do it the same way to start with or come up with a weighting factor (which I think you'd have to do for each goal). If it isn't, it will drag the numbers down at uneven rates. As a scientist, I actually like his way better. Everyone's contribution isn't going to be equal on each play, but it doesn't make sense to me to include them if they are done differently. Just my two pennies. I think the idea is a good one overall, but would have the most value if done in a standard fashion.

Maybe a hybrid approach would work better? Each player can get a 1, 1/2, -1/2, or -1 on each scoring play. Breaking it down by PP, ES, or PK I think is a nice addition.

As long as each person stays consistent to his/her own scoring system, it should be fine. I'd like a standard, but don't think we're likely to get one (unless I convert these myself, which I don't know if I have time to do).

Let me see if I can fix the spreadsheet to do PP/ES/PK.

 

[ChibiPooky]

Spreadsheet altered to include PP/ES/PK.

Do we like the idea of forcing total responsibility for each goal to add to 1?

 

[Langway]

I just think if we're really going to break down each scoring sequence then (for me at least) there needs to be more of a spectrum of possibilities than just giving out one point (or even half a point). Doing something noteworthy, like Backstrom winning a face-off on the PP, is important enough to get some credit but not as important as the eventual goal scorer. It does add another subjective quantifying layer but I think it's more useful in weighting it accurately.

It won't end up being proportional because the other method seems likely to inflate secondary GF contributions, which to me shouldn't be the case unless the pass/play was incredible. Mine will end up rewarding the goal scorer most of all in GF situations but, then again, without finishing there's no scoring sequence. Boiling down player performance to just these scoring sequences alone is another matter in itself...

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

This seems way too substantial an analysis for a once-through viewing of a game. It's film-room stuff.

 

[ChibiPooky]

Eh, watch the goal (rewind if necessary), decide who you think was responsible, write it down. Doesn't seem too crazy.

The tracking is just me thinking it'd be interesting to see accumulated data.

 

[HunterSThompson]

When the reporters brought it up in Oates' interview, he came right out and said that that's how he wants Grabovski to play in those situations. So one of three things is happening:

1.) (most likely?) Everyone's comments are much more nuanced than we're getting, and the breakdown is really a more minor one or not a breakdown at all, just a new look players are getting used to

2.) There's a miscommunication between Oates and not-Grabo, and their comments are meaningless

3.) Their comments are true and Oates is covering for Grabo to the press

You're free to decide which of them is likely true. I believe that new look was a sensible one, so I would think it was something Oates (or Forsythe) intended. And I haven't seen the actual quotes from Brouwer and Green (has anyone, or are we all just getting our knickers in a twist over a secondhand retelling from Chuck Gormley of all people?) so I have no idea how serious or troubled they were by the situation.

Brouwer Interview

Pretty sure the Brouwer "quote" came from this. Question from Chuck at 1:52.

 

[ChibiPooky]

So personally I'm fine with each person doing either the "Malyk" way or the "Langway" way as they see fit ("Malyk" being assign 1 point to each 'contributor', and "Langway" being force all contributions to total 1 for each goal), as well as break down ES/PP/PK or not as they see fit. I can make it work.

 

[Hivemind]

Torrents/GCL makes doing this after the game (aka in a "film room" way) rather easy. That's what I'll be doing, probably sometime on Saturday, for games 1 and 2.

 

[Stewie G]

I just think if we're really going to break down each scoring sequence then (for me at least) there needs to be more of a spectrum of possibilities than just giving out one point (or even half a point). Doing something noteworthy, like Backstrom winning a face-off on the PP, is important enough to get some credit but not as important as the eventual goal scorer. It does add another subjective quantifying layer but I think it's more useful in weighting it accurately.

It won't end up being proportional because the other method seems likely to inflate secondary GF contributions, which to me shouldn't be the case unless the pass/play was incredible. Mine will end up rewarding the goal scorer most of all in GF situations but, then again, without finishing there's no scoring sequence. Boiling down player performance to just these scoring sequences alone is another matter in itself...

Not disagreeing with any of that.

Let's take 2 plays.

First play, Backstrom feeds perfect pass through the seam to an unguarded Laich who just taps in a goal.

Second play, Backstrom makes the exact pass but Laich has to stickhandle around a defenseman and then roofs a backhander against a goalie who is facing him and ready to make a stop.

Backstrom makes the exact same pass in both plays but gets less credit since Laich did more on his end.

Yes, I know both methods have their drawbacks, but from a practical perspective it just seems simpler to do the malyk way and if there's one thing I've found, people are more likely to stick with something that is simpler over a long period of time.

 

[malyk]

Not disagreeing with any of that.

Let's take 2 plays.

First play, Backstrom feeds perfect pass through the seam to an unguarded Laich who just taps in a goal.

Second play, Backstrom makes the exact pass but Laich has to stickhandle around a defenseman and then roofs a backhander against a goalie who is facing him and ready to make a stop.

Backstrom makes the exact same pass in both plays but gets less credit since Laich did more on his end.

Yes, I know both methods have their drawbacks, but from a practical perspective it just seems simpler to do the malyk way and if there's one thing I've found, people are more likely to stick with something that is simpler over a long period of time.

I agree with both of you two, and my intention at least was to give players credit not just immediately preceding the goal, but for plays that end up causing the goal. For instance, Johansson with a poor drop pass at the top of the offensive zone leads to a goal 20 seconds later? Big fat minus for him.

For now I'm going to keep giving only 1 point per "instance", but let's see how it goes.

 

[malyk]

Game 2: Calgary at Washington

Calgary Goals

Jones from Monahan
1 - Chimera floats by the puck as it's in the air instead of stopping
2 - Hillen doesn't play the body at the blueline


Stempniak from Giordano and Backlund
1 - Green doesn't tie up the guy in front
2 - Neither does alzner


Hudler from Brodie and Giordano
not sure if i can place blame here.


Bouma from McGrattan and Street
1 - Neuvirth...ouch.



Washington Goals

Carrick from Johansson and Alzner
1 - Johansson with a nice home run pass
2 - Carrick...almost lost it at the top of the circles, but finished strong


Ovechkin from Green and Johansson
1 - Johansson gaining the zone
2 - Green for a nice quick pass for a perfect one-timer
3 - Ovechkin's blast


Ovechkin from backstrom and Johansson
1 - Backstrom for the faceoff win
2 - Johansson for beating his man to the puck
3 - Ovechkin getting the shot off


Backstrom from Grabovski and Ovechkin
1 - Backstrom with a sweet pass to ovi
2 - Grabovski sneaking in to find the puck and dishing to backstrom
3 - backstrom's shot

Totals

Pro
3 - Johansson
1 - Carrick
1 - Green
2 - Ovechkin
3 - Backstrom
1 - Grabovski


Con
1 - Chimera
1 - Hillen
1 - Green
1 - Alzner
1 - Neuvirth

Totals

3 - Johansson
3 - Backstrom
2 - Ovechkin
1 - Carrick
1 - Grabovski
0 - Green
-1 - Chimera
-1 - Hillen
-1 - Alzner
-1 - Neuvirth