Stat nerds, tell me this...

[schenneuf]

If a player has possession of the puck 60% of the time, that stat is misleading because it doesn't say how effective they are at defending in their own zone. When a defense pairing or forward line is hemmed in in their own zone, how good are they are breaking up cycles and fore-checking and corner battles?

Example:

Player A - 60% possession rate. But when he's defending in his own one, he is losing battles along the wall, not clearing the crease, losing his man and can't break up a cycle.

Player B - 45% possession rate. But when he's defending in his own zone, he's good at winning corner battles, stopping a cycle, keeping track of his man and clearing the crease.

Player A - gets scored on 15% of the time he doesn't have the puck. 15% of 40 = negative 6

Player B - gets scored on 5% of the time he doesn't have the puck. 5% of 55 = negative 2.75

Player A - scores 5% of the time he has the puck. 5% of 60 = positive 3

Player B – scores 2% of the time he has the puck. 2% of 45 = positive 0.9

Player A – total of negative 3

Player B – total of negative 1.85

Despite the possession numbers, Player A is a larger net negative than Player B is, therefore Player B is the better and more valuable player.

Click to read more...

 

[holden57]

Manny Perry will surely be tweeting your thread out so congrats!

 

[mcpw]

What

 

[stl76]

This belongs in the By The Numbers section...

 

[hohosaregood]

There are other stats too. Like Scoring Chances For/Against, and High Danger Scoring Chances For/Against that would probably reconcile this.

 

[Kakko]

If player A is **** at everything he's not gonna have a 60%CF, unless he's being completely carried by the rest of the team (which stats would show)

 

[MVP of West Hollywd]

I think the assumption is that not having the puck is what causes teams to get hemmed in their own zone. Having possession in your own zone puts players in a position to get it out of their zone.

 

[777]

Individual possession numbers don't tell the full story. Advance stats are just a tool, you need a lot more to properly judge a player.

For some reason though people act like they're all knowing and throw out one of those stupid hero charts and act like that's the only way to judge who's a better player.

See Shea Weber vs PK Subban (worst trade in Habs history lol)

 

[aufheben]

Individual possession numbers don't tell the full story. Advance stats are just a tool, you need a lot more to properly judge a player.

For some reason though people act like they're all knowing and throw out one of those stupid hero charts and act like that's the only way to judge who's a better player.

See Shea Weber vs PK Subban (worst trade in Habs history lol)

We're fans not scouts. I don't disagree though.

 

[Nizdizzle]

The entire premise is flawed. No player will have a 60% possession rate (over a meaningful number of games) if they can't win battles along the wall, clear the crease, can't break up a cycle, or frequently lose their man.

 

[projexns]

If a player has possession of the puck 60% of the time, that stat is misleading because it doesn't say how effective they are at defending in their own zone. When a defense pairing or forward line is hemmed in in their own zone, how good are they are breaking up cycles and fore-checking and corner battles?

Example:

Player A - 60% possession rate. But when he's defending in his own one, he is losing battles along the wall, not clearing the crease, losing his man and can't break up a cycle.

Player B - 45% possession rate. But when he's defending in his own zone, he's good at winning corner battles, stopping a cycle, keeping track of his man and clearing the crease.

Player A - gets scored on 15% of the time he doesn't have the puck. 15% of 40 = negative 6

Player B - gets scored on 5% of the time he doesn't have the puck. 5% of 55 = negative 2.75

Player A - scores 5% of the time he has the puck. 5% of 60 = positive 3

Player B – scores 2% of the time he has the puck. 2% of 45 = positive 0.9

Player A – total of negative 3

Player B – total of negative 1.85

Despite the possession numbers, Player A is a larger net negative than Player B is, therefore Player B is the better and more valuable player.

Who are the real-life NHL players that have real-life numbers like these?

 

[Brainiac]

And here we see a clear problem with some of these advanced stats. i.e. misleading names.

Possession stats are not real possession stats. They are shooting attempts stats. NHL.com actually got it right. We shouldn't be talking about esoteric names like Corsi and Fenwick and whatever is called possession stats. Because it leaves the impression that having possession of the puck in your zone counts towards your possession stats. It doesn't.

What we're talking about is SAT (or SAT%). Shooting attempts.

In your exemple, the player with 60% SAT for is simply not hemmed in his own zone. He spends 60% of his time in the opponent's zone, generating shots. So he could hardly be a net negative.

 

[Stuzchuk]

Who are the real-life NHL players that have real-life numbers like these?

my guess, player B is Kadri or Bozak

and no I'm not gonna check cuz I dont give **** about advanced stats

 

[Ole Gil]

Comparing an inneffective offensive dman with an effective defensive dman with extreme usage might get something like these stats.

But outside of very extreme usage, it seems pretty unlikely.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

The entire premise is flawed. No player will have a 60% possession rate (over a meaningful number of games) if they can't win battles along the wall, clear the crease, can't break up a cycle, or frequently lose their man.

Just what I came here to say.

People will come up with anything to dismiss advanced stats because they're convinced that they're biased evaluations are superior to raw, unbiased numbers. It boils down to people not wanting to be wrong.

 

[The Thin White Duke]

Oh no, he found the stat nerds Achilles heel! This is it, game over, someone tell NHL.com to take down their advanced stats page.

RIP Advanced Stats 2011-2016, you will be missed.

 

[x Tame Impala]

This belongs in the By The Numbers section...

This belongs in the Thread Locked garbage can.

 

[member 151739]

This thread already seems to be going nowhere. We have an advanced stats thread (http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2141861), and it would be in your best interest to not include insults in a thread title.

Closed.