Toronto Maple Leafs: Team Analytics

[CDN24]

Possession is the best predictor of future success.

The trick is to use a sample size more than just half a season - like maybe look at the last few years.

Look at it for the last few years for any team or league wide- generally he with the most shots wins 54-55% of the games. he with the first goal is closer to 70%

http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.ht...=winPctOppScoreFirst&viewName=scoreTrailFirst

 

[glue]

Look at it for the last few years for any team or league wide- generally he with the most shots wins 54-55% of the games. he with the first goal is closer to 70%

http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.ht...=winPctOppScoreFirst&viewName=scoreTrailFirst

Interesting, thanks for sharing. Would be even more interesting to see the possession stats of the teams that scored 1st

 

[The Legend]

Leafs winning percentage when they outshoot the opposition 58.3% (7-3-2) oTL is still a loss. they are essentially 7 wins in 12
Leafs winning percentage when they get outshot 50% or 15-14-1
Leafs winning percentage when they score first 80% or 16-4 (only mtl Nashville and Washington are better.
Leafs winning percentage when the get scored on first 26% or 6-14-3

First goal is way more important than who wins the shot or posession battle.

The winner of the game is the team with the most goals, so it's very difficult to use any type of goals stat as any sort of underlying statistic.

What's the Leafs winning percentage when they score the first two goals? Or the first three goals? I'll assume it's much, much higher than 80%. Ergo, scoring the first three goals is way more important than winning the possession statistics, I guess?

 

[Alerion]

The winner of the game is the team with the most goals, so it's very difficult to use any type of goals stat as any sort of underlying statistic.

What's the Leafs winning percentage when they score the first two goals? Or the first three goals? I'll assume it's much, much higher than 80%. Ergo, scoring the first three goals is way more important than winning the possession statistics, I guess?

Good argument. I'd like to add that strong possession statistics SHOULD increase the likelihood of us scoring the first goal, which has been shown to be very important.

 

[Snow Dog]

It would be interesting to see a stat involving the first goal league wide.If the first goal is of the upmost importance maybe that is what should be a teams target.

 

[Alerion]

It would be interesting to see a stat involving the first goal league wide.If the first goal is of the upmost importance maybe that is what should be a teams target.

Here it is from NHL.com.

Some notes:

-Toronto is 4th in the league in winning percentage when scoring first at .800.
-Toronto is 22nd in the league in winning percentage when trailing first at .261.
-Only 3 teams are below .500 when scoring first: NJ, Edmonton, and Ottawa.
-Historically, teams that score first a lot are playoff teams.

 

[Snow Dog]

Here it is from NHL.com.

Some notes:

-Toronto is 4th in the league in winning percentage when scoring first at .800.
-Toronto is 22nd in the league in winning percentage when trailing first at .261.
-Only 3 teams are below .500 when scoring first: NJ, Edmonton, and Ottawa.
-Historically, teams that score first a lot are playoff teams.

After looking at those numbers I think the best way of having a winning team is scoring first.Only 3 teams have winning records when not scoring first Nashville,Detriot and Islanders.Something to look into.

 

[zeke]

Mathematically, the first goal isn't actually as important as those stats make it sound.

Better teams outscore worse teams. Thus, better teams score first more often than worse teams.

If you run the numbers, you'll be surprised that scoring the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th goal turns out to be just as important to winning as the first.

 

[Teeder9]

Mathematically, the first goal isn't actually as important as those stats make it sound.

Better teams outscore worse teams. Thus, better teams score first more often than worse teams.

If you run the numbers, you'll be surprised that scoring the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th goal turns out to be just as important to winning as the first.

Especially if, after giving up the first, you score the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th goals. Scoring first matters. Only 3 teams have losing percentages when they score first. We're an .800 team when we do it.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.htm?fetchKey=20152ALLSAAAll&sort=winPctScoreFirst&viewName=summary

Not sure what the prerequisites are for the 4th goal. It sure isn't being down 3-0 and scoring.

 

[zeke]

You're not following what I'm saying.

Let someone else explain it for me:

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2013/10/22/4830198/nhl-stats-first-goal-value

Teams that score the first goal win 67 percent of the time. So that first goal really sets the tone, huh?

But here's the catch: teams that score the second goal win 68 percent of the time. And teams that score third win 68 percent of the time. So, uh, about that super-important first goal...

How is this possible? Well, it turns out that the team that wins usually scores more goals than the team that loses. (This is the kind of sophisticated analysis that you can only get at Outnumbered.)

Suppose a team wins a game 4-2. They scored 67 percent of the goals. If no goal is any more important than any other, the odds that they scored the first goal will be 67 percent. The odds that they scored the second goal will be 67 percent. And the odds that they scored the third goal will be 67 percent.

So you know why teams that score first win two-thirds of the games? Because winning teams score about two-thirds of the goals.

 

[Teeder9]

You're not following what I'm saying.

Let someone else explain it for me:

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2013/10/22/4830198/nhl-stats-first-goal-value

I get it. Sarcasm

 

[zeke]

Not sarcasm. Math.

 

[Bluejaysfan*]

I hated math in school but I love it when it comes to hockey and analytics ...figures

 

[Teeder9]

Not sarcasm. Math.

Should have been sarcasm. The premise of the article author is that, because teams who score more win more, (what an absolutely awesome proclamation, ballsy) that all goals are worth the exact same. That is true, after the game has been played, of course. Before the game starts however, the team who scores first wins more, which isn't at the level of awesomeness he displayed, but "math" all the same.

 

[zeke]

It's not a premise.

The winning percentage of the team that scores the first goal is the same as the team that scores the second and third goals.

I.e. about 2/3 of the time, the winning team happens to score.

 

[The Legend]

It's not a premise.

The winning percentage of the team that scores the first goal is the same as the team that scores the second and third goals.

I.e. about 2/3 of the time, the winning team happens to score.

Or put a different way, since each goal counts for the same number of points (that would be 1), the conclusion is that scoring correlates to winning. Which isn't exactly anything groundbreaking.

 

[Mess]

Team defense by Coach

Carlyle 122 goals against in 40 games = 3.05 goals against per game.

Horachek 14 goals against in 4 games = 3.50 goals against per game.

Differential +.45 goal against /g = (winner Carlyle)

Team offense by Coach

Carlyle 140 goals for in 40 games = 3.5 GF/g
verses
Horachek 7 goals for in 4 games = 1.75 GF/g

Differential = -1.75 GF/g (winner Carlyle)

Since Horachek has taken over Leafs goals for rate has been cut by 50% (or 1/2) and their goals against has increased by almost 1/2 a goal against per game on average. Offense has gone down and the defense also down under the new coach.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Team defense by Coach

Carlyle 122 goals against in 40 games = 3.05 goals against per game.

Horachek 14 goals against in 4 games = 3.50 goals against per game.

Differential +.45 goal against /g = (winner Carlyle)

Team offense by Coach

Carlyle 140 goals for in 40 games = 3.5 GF/g
verses
Horachek 7 goals for in 4 games = 1.75 GF/g

Differential = -1.75 GF/g (winner Carlyle)

Since Horachek has taken over Leafs goals for rate has been cut by 50% (or 1/2) and their goals against has increased by almost 1/2 a goal against per game on average. Offense has gone down and the defense also down under the new coach.

I think we're going to need a little more than a handful of games to evaluate this..

 

[Mess]

I think we're going to need a little more than a handful of games to evaluate this..

Absolutely, this is only early days trending.

Shots against Down, Goals against UP and Goals For Down.

2 of those 3 are negative after the coaching change so far.

Meatloaf sings 2 out of 3 ain't bad, but were not there yet.

 

[leafstilldeath*]

Team defense by Coach

Carlyle 122 goals against in 40 games = 3.05 goals against per game.

Horachek 14 goals against in 4 games = 3.50 goals against per game.

Differential +.45 goal against /g = (winner Carlyle)

Team offense by Coach

Carlyle 140 goals for in 40 games = 3.5 GF/g
verses
Horachek 7 goals for in 4 games = 1.75 GF/g

Differential = -1.75 GF/g (winner Carlyle)

Since Horachek has taken over Leafs goals for rate has been cut by 50% (or 1/2) and their goals against has increased by almost 1/2 a goal against per game on average. Offense has gone down and the defense also down under the new coach.

In how many games Horachek has had Lupul and Holland on the roster?

Also, need a good sample size before Horachek's coaching is questioned. Furthermore, Nonis had signed players like Clarkson and had bought in Bolland for Carlyle. Now Carlyle is gone and his players (Clarkson) remain.

 

[Pyromaniac3]

Team defense by Coach

Carlyle 122 goals against in 40 games = 3.05 goals against per game.

Horachek 14 goals against in 4 games = 3.50 goals against per game.

Differential +.45 goal against /g = (winner Carlyle)

Team offense by Coach

Carlyle 140 goals for in 40 games = 3.5 GF/g
verses
Horachek 7 goals for in 4 games = 1.75 GF/g

Differential = -1.75 GF/g (winner Carlyle)

Since Horachek has taken over Leafs goals for rate has been cut by 50% (or 1/2) and their goals against has increased by almost 1/2 a goal against per game on average. Offense has gone down and the defense also down under the new coach.

How about we take a look at Carlyle's last 4 games:
Offense: 7 goals in 4 games = 1.75 GF/G
Same as Horachek
Defence: 14 goals in 4 games = 3.50 GA/G
Same as Horachek

The team was trending down in both GF and GA under Carlyle, and has continued under Horachek.

Here is a PDO chart that illustrates Leafs luck:

It is clear to see that our offense has been unlucky. We are also missing Lupul and Holland to injuries. Ask anyone in the league where a team that fields Bozak, Kadri, Smith, Carrick as thier centre depth is going to win games against LA, Anaheim and SJ in 4 nights and the answer will be resounding NO. Under Carlyle, we would have lost embarrassingly. But we held our own against LA and SJ.

 

[080]

Team defense by Coach

Carlyle 122 goals against in 40 games = 3.05 goals against per game.

Horachek 14 goals against in 4 games = 3.50 goals against per game.

Differential +.45 goal against /g = (winner Carlyle)

Team offense by Coach

Carlyle 140 goals for in 40 games = 3.5 GF/g
verses
Horachek 7 goals for in 4 games = 1.75 GF/g

Differential = -1.75 GF/g (winner Carlyle)

Since Horachek has taken over Leafs goals for rate has been cut by 50% (or 1/2) and their goals against has increased by almost 1/2 a goal against per game on average. Offense has gone down and the defense also down under the new coach.

Carlyle didn't play 10 games against Anaheim, 10 against San Jose, 10 against LA, etc. Pretty hard to get an accurate prediction with only a few games and all of those games (except 1) against the best teams in the entire league.

Not to mention Carlyle wasn't without Lupul, Holland and Komarov for all of his games -- unlike Horachek.

 

[leafstilldeath*]

Dubas talking analytics in Boston.

"Does playing in the world juniors at 17 make you a better prospect than someone that doesn't?" Dubas said during his presentation of "How Analytics has Limited the Impact of Cognitive Bias on Personnel Decisions" at the 2015 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference. "I don't think so. I think we know that from years of going through and measuring at different points."

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=755645

The summer of analytics has turned into the winter of discontent. Several NHL teams hired data-oriented people in the off-season and some have struggled so far. The list includes the Carolina Hurricanes, Edmonton Oilers, New Jersey Devils and Toronto Maple Leafs – four of the bottom seven teams in the league standings.

“Those teams haven’t magically transformed overnight into good teams, and people will jump on and say, ‘I told you that analytics [stuff] didn’t work. Those teams are no good,’ ” said Toronto assistant general manager Kyle Dubas, the summer’s highest-profile hire. “You go on my Twitter timeline after any game the Maple Leafs lose and see that firsthand.”

Here's the thing, though.

“It’s not magic,” Dubas said. “It’s not really magic. It’s a process, and it’s hard work, and it’s difficult, and you have to push your way through it.”

To have the best chance of success, no matter the philosophy, you need buy-in throughout the organization and time for the parts to align. You need management to draft, develop and acquire players that fit. You need the coaches to use the players in a way that fits.

Some teams have been using analytics for years, like the Chicago Blackhawks and Los Angeles Kings – winners of four of the last five Stanley Cups. Other teams are just getting started. There are different levels of buy-in from team to team.

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/to...analytics---it-s-not-magic-232145028-nhl.html

 

[cookie]

I would not mind seeing the type of performance players out up after a coach specifically gets his GM to acquire the guy. Though not a coaching assessment in the traditional wins and losses sense, a big part of coaching is player assessment, at the end of the day.

 

[Pookie]

I understand Dubas defending himself.

Reality is though that stats record events. So logically, as performance improves so too do the stats.

The numbers should be used to help make decisions while considering a variety of inputs. Dubas can't stand on a platform of "if we just improve here" we will win. That's ludicrous and sets himself up for failure.

I bet the frustrating thing for him is that he is likely using metrics that aren't published. His insight into the team performance has to be well beyond the "toy" stats of Fenwick and Corsi. And due to the competitive nature of the nhl, I bet his numbers will never be made public. As he takes shots from all corners, I'll bet that is very frustrating.