Very good point.Getting Brown and losing Ceci has been worth taking on Zaitzev, for now at least.
Using goals in a sample of 65 minutes is literally useless. I would never isolate either way, but people here were making a QoC argument. Don't focus on that. I don't care about that. I care way more about the aggregate numbers.
I posted the aggregate 5 v 5 numbers. I am not trying to hide anything. In that sample, Zaitsev is a positive ZS% player. He is not getting buried. In fact, DeMelo has more unfavourable zone starts than Zaitsev, and DeMelo has sparkly numbers. ZS% and QoC doesn't really matter, at least how we measure it now, in the aggregate, so there is no excuse for poor numbers, especially compared to DeMelo. What I mean by saying it does not matter is the effect size is, essentially, non-existent.
Here are the ZS%.
DeMelo OZS%: 44.27
Zaitsev OZS%: 51.22
Also, I don't really know what you are saying about xGF%. You don't create xGF%. It is a regression model. I'll tell you right now the people in hockey did not invent regressions models. Actually, I think I know what you are trying to say, but you are doing a very poor job. Anyway, public studies are available that show expected goals predict future goals better than things like Corsi and actual goals, and we know NHL teams use expected goal models. I am not saying that means anything, but it is far from the "worst stat ever".
I'm curious, can we assume it even required Ceci going the other way? Did he even hold any value at that point?
Brown was the sweetener for taking on Zaitsev's contract and I wonder if that would have been on the table for anything without Ceci included.
The studies I have found depending who’s study state both and or either depending who studied it.
And non are really predictive, players use corsi and advanced metrics to barter on contracts and throw junk at the net that is never going in these days.
Zone starts and QOC don’t matter now...because the stats are garbage and don’t predict anything anyway, someone will post a model that shows a guy having +1 % per 60 and that’s like what 2 shots a game at most? Yet zone starts wouldn’t be enough to add 1 shot for and take one shot against away? It’s fan interaction nonsense
Sure, some people find that xGF% out predicts Corsi at both the skater and team level. Other people might find it only out predicts Corsi at one level. Others might find that Corsi out predicts expected goal models. Different authors will use different models. Every team in the NHL probably has a different model. I'm not really interested in arguing the validity of expected goal models, and I am not interested in arguing about if the correlation coefficient is large enough for you. You made a hyperbolic statement that was incorrect. Some expected goal models do out predict Corsi, and some NHL teams do use expected goal models. It is not even close to the worst statistic.
That could be an explanation for why zone starts and QoC don't matter in terms of effect size. It is certainly conceivable that we are not adequately measuring QoC. Theoretically, getting a precise QoC metric will be impossible.
Lastly, you say players care about advanced metrics, but the players disagree with you. The athletic just did a player poll, and they found 86% of players do not pay attention to advanced metrics. Either way, throwing junk on the net does not give you good numbers. This argument is 10 years old, and no one uses it anymore because everyone knows it is crap.
How do these numbers account for D partners, FO% when on ice and home vs away splits, zone starts. I’m just asking because DJ deploys so differently at home than road.
Lol ya 86% of players have no idea a few more shots on net is going to get them more money, I highly doubt that, I guess every city they play in they love to.
What’s crap is Expected goals for, it’s like saying all of Canada has averaged 365 inches of rain a year for the last 5 years then expecting 1 inch of rain in Calgary every day never mind expecting exactly 365 inches of rain for the year...
it does not account for who the goalie is/was it does not account for who was shooting or what events actually led to the goal going in. It’s just fun with averages...
The chances of Everyone being average is nil, averages go up and down people are at the far end on each side of the average.
Good question!
Unfortunately, I don't think I can see who Zaitsev is paired with in each individual sample. All I can see is a "with or without you" for Zaitsev and all the other defenders over the entire year. The pattern is very clear. He drags everyone down. That could be because of QoC, but the individual matchups suggest that is not the case.
FO% probably has little effect. The individual samples are super small, but I guess it is possible it could be impactful, but you'd have to say that Zaitsev is generally getting terrible face-off numbers all the time, which seems really unlikely.
Home and away is an interesting variable. Some statistical models do take that into account when evaluating players, but those models are not fans of Zaitsev.
I think I can check all the zone starts, but overall, Zaitsev is a positive zone start player at 5v5. DeMelo has a lower offensive zone start percentage than Zaitsev. DeMelo still puts up good numbers because he actually is a top-four defender.
This is not really directed at you, but more to any Zaitsev supporters (anyone that considers him a top-four defender) Compare any top-four defender on any team to Zaitsev, and you will see massive differences in the on-ice metrics. That is not because Zaitsev is getting the hardest usage in the league. It is because he is not a top-four defender. It really is that simple.
You have no idea what you are talking about. We are done here.
Chabot gets lit up goals for/against worse than z, what’s that say? Is he a number 7 dman? Or is there some random stat that means more than actual results?
No, he does not.
T.C
GF% 46.07
N.Z
GF% 41.18
If we look at a wowy, you can clearly see Zaitsev drags Chabot down. Chabot has top-pairing metrics away from Zaitsev. You could have brought up Hainsey! That would have really put me in a pickle!
Look, I am happy to discuss analytics, and what my views are on them, and how I use them. My name is more about philosophy than stats, so I am not a stats nerd, but you clearly have an agenda, don't really know what you are talking about, and you are now trying to play a "gotcha" game, so hopefully, we are actually done now.
Player | Actual Goals | Expected Goals | Difference |
---|---|---|---|
Rickard Rakell | 32 | 16.60 | -15.40 |
T.J Oshie | 33 | 18.25 | -14.75 |
Mark Scheifele | 31 | 18.55 | -12.45 |
Michael Grabner | 26 | 14.59 | -11.41 |
Mikael Granlund | 25 | 14.06 | -10.94 |
Anders Lee | 31 | 20.31 | -10.87 |
Nazem Kadri | 32 | 21.38 | -10.62 |
Marian Hossa | 26 | 15.58 | -10.42 |
Eric Staal | 26 | 17.36 | -9.64 |
Patrick Maroon | 27 | 17.46 | -9.54 |
Sidney Crosby | 43 | 33.87 | -9.13 |
Cam Atkinson | 34 | 24.91 | -9.09 |
Marcus Johansson | 23 | 14.56 | -8.44 |
Artem Anisimov | 22 | 13.91 | -8.09 |
Evander Kane | 27 | 19.09 | -7.91 |
Paul Byron | 22 | 14.28 | -7.72 |
Patrik Berglund | 22 | 14.34 | -7.66 |
You have no idea what you are talking about. We are done here.
Both those lists are from the same year.. and nhl.com says a different GF% than you posted
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
With chabot and z
Chabot 42.6%
Z 44.1%
I am only responding to clear up data differences to anyone reading this conversation. I know what a regression model is. Your graphs are doing nothing but wasting space in the thread. Please do not respond to this post as I do not want to derail this thread anymore. Again, I am only responding to you to clear up the data differences.
NHL.com is using EV GF%, and I am using 5 v 5 GF%.
Sure, some people find that xGF% out predicts Corsi at both the skater and team level. Other people might find it only out predicts Corsi at one level. Others might find that Corsi out predicts expected goal models. Different authors will use different models. Every team in the NHL probably has a different model. I'm not really interested in arguing the validity of expected goal models, and I am not interested in arguing about if the correlation coefficient is large enough for you. You made a hyperbolic statement that was incorrect. Some expected goal models do out predict Corsi, and some NHL teams do use expected goal models. It is not even close to the worst statistic.
That could be an explanation for why zone starts and QoC don't matter in terms of effect size. It is certainly conceivable that we are not adequately measuring QoC. Theoretically, getting a precise QoC metric will be impossible.
Lastly, you say players care about advanced metrics, but the players disagree with you. The athletic just did a player poll, and they found 86% of players do not pay attention to advanced metrics. Either way, throwing junk on the net does not give you good numbers. This argument is 10 years old, and no one uses it anymore because everyone knows it is crap.
Good question!
Unfortunately, I don't think I can see who Zaitsev is paired with in each individual sample. All I can see is a "with or without you" for Zaitsev and all the other defenders over the entire year. The pattern is very clear. He drags everyone down. That could be because of QoC, but the individual matchups suggest that is not the case.
FO% probably has little effect. The individual samples are super small, but I guess it is possible it could be impactful, but you'd have to say that Zaitsev is generally getting terrible face-off numbers all the time, which seems really unlikely.
Home and away is an interesting variable. Some statistical models do take that into account when evaluating players, but those models are not fans of Zaitsev.
I think I can check all the zone starts, but overall, Zaitsev is a positive zone start player at 5v5. DeMelo has a lower offensive zone start percentage than Zaitsev. DeMelo still puts up good numbers because he actually is a top-four defender.
This is not really directed at you, but more to any Zaitsev supporters (anyone that considers him a top-four defender) Compare any top-four defender on any team to Zaitsev, and you will see massive differences in the on-ice metrics. That is not because Zaitsev is getting the hardest usage in the league. It is because he is not a top-four defender. It really is that simple.
Tank at the All Star break is going amazing, two top 10 picks, 2 All Stars for the 2nd worse team in the NHL, traceable assets Demelo, Pageau, Hainsey, Ennis, Tierney, Boro all performing well and holding or increasing their value - Norris, L. Brown, Formenton, Batherson, Brannstrom looking elite in the AHL, prospects JBD, Pinto, Lassi and others performing well in junior, coach has the players ear and they seem to love him despite the losing.
This tank couldn’t go any better, so much depends on the lottery balls falling our way, but you gotta give this tank and A+ so far.
we are getting it right. Sucking ain’t easy, but when you embrace it instead of fight it, so much better for everyone
Thanks I appreciate the work. This is one of those players where my eyes and the analytics disagree. I watch him and I see him as pretty steady who doesn’t really seem to make the glaring mistakes that I see from the Ceci’s or players of that ilk.Good question!
Unfortunately, I don't think I can see who Zaitsev is paired with in each individual sample. All I can see is a "with or without you" for Zaitsev and all the other defenders over the entire year. The pattern is very clear. He drags everyone down. That could be because of QoC, but the individual matchups suggest that is not the case.
FO% probably has little effect. The individual samples are super small, but I guess it is possible it could be impactful, but you'd have to say that Zaitsev is generally getting terrible face-off numbers all the time, which seems really unlikely.
Home and away is an interesting variable. Some statistical models do take that into account when evaluating players, but those models are not fans of Zaitsev.
I think I can check all the zone starts, but overall, Zaitsev is a positive zone start player at 5v5. DeMelo has a lower offensive zone start percentage than Zaitsev. DeMelo still puts up good numbers because he actually is a top-four defender.
This is not really directed at you, but more to any Zaitsev supporters (anyone that considers him a top-four defender) Compare any top-four defender on any team to Zaitsev, and you will see massive differences in the on-ice metrics. That is not because Zaitsev is getting the hardest usage in the league. It is because he is not a top-four defender. It really is that simple.
Interesting little discussion you guys are having.
The Athletic poll comment was funny. 86% of players don't pay attention. You know what they care deeply about? +/-. Go figure. The stats guys versus the players. I wonder who understands the game better?