Proposal: Statistical Analysis

[Stand Witness]

This is very interesting (and surprising):

http://hockey-graphs.com/2015/12/01/rebounds-extended-zone-time-and-the-quest-for-more-offense/

I suggest reading the whole article; I only posted the conclusion.

Is it ultimately suggesting something along the lines that from a goalies POV sustained offensive zone pressure does not generate higher scoring chances? Would make sense to me considering a goalie is likely not wearing down in the same sense that the forwards are.

Maybe more shots against but I wouldn't expect more rebounds simply because from the goalies POV a shot 5 seconds into zone entry vs a shot 35 seconds into zone entry doesn't really equate to a higher % chance.

 

[LaPlante94]

This is what I was saying about his production.

He shot the puck just over once per game. Like 76 shots in 70 games. You aren't going to score like that and it really isn't even enough to provide a sample size on his SH% too. With a 5.2 SH% (with only 76 shots) you can expect that to go up to around 10-11% which would double his goal production with the same amount of shots. Next you would expect with more development/confidence/new system he will be given chances to or told to shoot more.

A player of his caliber/potential should be shooting the puck somewhere between 150-200 times a season, minimum. That will be the ultimate solution to his goal scoring. A bit more luck and a lot more chances.

He has already been a positive possession player in his NHL career too which supports that his shot totals should and can increase.

The kid is going to be a star. He just needs to be given the chances.

Hes still young. Ive always noticed(ive been guilty of this too when i played) that when you are new to a team and havent played with them a lot you tend to pass instead of shooting. Just a mental thing i think where youre afraid team mates will think youre a puck hog. Maybe thats just me.

 

[Stand Witness]

Hes still young. Ive always noticed(ive been guilty of this too when i played) that when you are new to a team and havent played with them a lot you tend to pass instead of shooting. Just a mental thing i think where youre afraid team mates will think youre a puck hog. Maybe thats just me.

I agree 100% because no one likes to join a team and be that 'entitled' or 'selfish' guy from the get go. You always want to earn the trust from your teammates and coaches before you truly play your game. It also doesn't help that Drouin is know for his playmaking ability and he probably feels as if he needs to be a successful playmaker before he starts shooting the puck more.

 

[91Kadri91*]

Is it ultimately suggesting something along the lines that from a goalies POV sustained offensive zone pressure does not generate higher scoring chances? Would make sense to me considering a goalie is likely not wearing down in the same sense that the forwards are.

Maybe more shots against but I wouldn't expect more rebounds simply because from the goalies POV a shot 5 seconds into zone entry vs a shot 35 seconds into zone entry doesn't really equate to a higher % chance.

I can see it from a goalie perspective, but I assumed sustained zone-time would decrease the effectiveness of the opposition (as this five second rolling shift time chart somewhat indicates), thus increasing the conversion rate. Even if the goalie was unfazed by the prolonged possession (which I'm unsure of, since pre-shot movement increases success rates dramatically), the opposing players are unlikely to be, and their ability to regain possession after a rebound should (theoretically) be hindered. Also, sustained entry/possession time without a shot could (theoretically) indicate that the team's preference is to create a scoring chance (which would increase the conversion rate), but that doesn't seem to be the case (as there's no increased conversion rate).

 

[91Kadri91*]

 

[91Kadri91*]

 

[91Kadri91*]

https://public.tableau.com/profile/sean.tierney#!/vizhome/OHLPlayerCards/Dashboard1

 

[91Kadri91*]

https://public.tableau.com/profile/sean.tierney#!/vizhome/Mercad60/Dashboard1

 

[TheCLAM]

https://public.tableau.com/profile/sean.tierney#!/vizhome/Mercad60/Dashboard1

I have issues with a lot of the math in this thread especially the very first post with high R^2 numbers that prompt a White's, Wald's and Bruesch Pagan check. There's value in hockey analytics, but graphing these number mean very little if the STATA output isn't available. I have a hunch that a lot of this data is statistically insignificant.

 

[Jjmac]

Great thread.

I actually love threads like this because I know it would make those analytic's detractors heads explode(largely because they don't understand them).

I love these threads because we see exactly how limited most advanced stats are. Although interesting, most are pretty useless when it comes time to apply, and many adv stats proponents continue to not have a strong enough graap on the game of hockey itself to properly apply their findings

 

[champs*]

I love these threads because we see exactly how limited most advanced stats are. Although interesting, most are pretty useless when it comes time to apply, and many adv stats proponents continue to not have a strong enough graap on the game of hockey itself to properly apply their findings

good post ...

 

[Stand Witness]

I love these threads because we see exactly how limited most advanced stats are. Although interesting, most are pretty useless when it comes time to apply, and many adv stats proponents continue to not have a strong enough graap on the game of hockey itself to properly apply their findings

good post ...

You didn't even give any examples of people who apply advanced stats or situations where they don't work... How could anyone take you seriously?

 

[X66]

You didn't even give any examples of people who apply advanced stats or situations where they don't work... How could anyone take you seriously?

And this is an actual good post.

 

[champs*]

91Kadri91 ...who is the better d-man...Gardner or Doughty? .... now sit back and watch.

 

[Stand Witness]

91Kadri91 ...who is the better d-man...Gardner or Doughty? .... now sit back and watch.

Considering Doughty has been on the ice for 248 more shots for then against this season and Gardiner has been on the ice for 87 more shots for than against this season I think even the most basic forms of statistics will point you in the right direction here

To add to that, also simply looking at p/60 suggests that Doughty out produces Gardiner as well.

Just because Gardiner does good and people argue for him doesn't mean he is the best D man in the league. It means he is a damn good d man.

 

[X66]

91Kadri91 ...who is the better d-man...Gardner or Doughty? .... now sit back and watch.

Stop trying to derail this thread.

Many people here value this thread, go participate elsewhere.

 

[91Kadri91*]

91Kadri91 ...who is the better d-man...Gardner or Doughty? .... now sit back and watch.

Doughty; I've never made any suggestion to the contrary. I said, and was arguing, that Gardiner is better than Hunwick (which is true). I said that I prefer Karlsson to Doughty, and I've said Doughty is overrated (only because I don't think Doughty is the best defenseman in the NHL, like some suggest), but I've never, at any point, said that Gardiner is better than Doughty.

 

[Purity*]

91Kadri91 ...who is the better d-man...Gardner or Doughty? .... now sit back and watch.

Gardiner easily. Jake Muzzin is the real #1D on LA because of his corsi.


Seriously though, nobody says "x player has better corsi than y player, that means x player is the better player." I wish this false generalization would die already.

Also, Gardiner was posting very respectable possession numbers even in Carlyle's black-hole possession style game. The numbers correlate to what he does in the ice.

 

[champs*]

Gardiner easily. Jake Muzzin is the real #1D on LA because of his corsi.


Seriously though, nobody says "x player has better corsi than y player, that means x player is the better player." I wish this false generalization would die already.

Also, Gardiner was posting very respectable possession numbers even in Carlyle's black-hole possession style game. The numbers correlate to what he does in the ice.

gardner is a great possession player, knew it the first time i seen him

 

[Stand Witness]

gardner is a great possession player, knew it the first time i seen him

Congratulations, can you quantify that please? What does your opinion mean? How does he compare relative to his teammates, his age group, other NHL players? How do we know you aren't bias? What does it mean to be a great possession player? What trends can you expect from Gardiner?

 

[champs*]

Congratulations, can you quantify that please? What does your opinion mean? How does he compare relative to his teammates, his age group, other NHL players? How do we know you aren't bias? What does it mean to be a great possession player? What trends can you expect from Gardiner?

pretty amusing post

 

[WillNytheSwedishGuy]

pretty amusing post

Think there are plenty of posters laughing along with you, just not for same reason you are.

 

[91Kadri91*]

 

[91Kadri91*]

 

[91Kadri91*]