Tracking the Blues’ Stanley Cup Quest—LOL

[Stupendous Yappi]

The Blues need either an 8 game win streak or an 8 game losing streak. They haven’t managed many loser points in games where they outplayed the opponent but lost, which has hurt them.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Games Remaining: 42
Home Games Remaining: 17 [current record at home: 10-12-2]
Road Games Remaining: 25 [current record on road: 7-7-2]
Last 10 Games: 5-5-0 [LWLWWLLWLW]
Current Points Out of Playoff Spot: 8 [7 behind Minnesota + 1 for ROW tiebreak]
Estimated Points Needed to get a Playoff Spot: 92
Sample Record that would get us to target: 26-14-2

Next 9 Games [to the All-Star Break]
1/8 - vs. Dallas [22-17-4, 1st WC Western Conference; 6-3-1 in last 10]
1/10 - vs. Montreal [22-16-5, 9th in Eastern Conference; 5-5-0 in last 10]
1/12 - at Dallas
1/14 - at Washington [25-12-4, 1st in Metropolitan Division; 6-3-1 in last 10]
1/15 - at NY Islanders [23-13-4, 1st Wild Card in Eastern Conference; 8-2-0 in last 10]
1/17 - at Boston [24-14-4, 3rd in Northeast Division; 7-3-0 in last 10]
1/19 - vs. Ottawa [15-23-5, 16th in Eastern Conference; 1-8-1 in last 10]
1/21 - at Los Angeles [17-24-3, 15th in Western Conference; 6-4-0 in last 10]
1/23 - at Anaheim [19-17-7, 9th in Western Conference; 2-6-2 in last 10]

The bad news out of last night is that for those gunning for a certain top-5 pick, those chances took a hit as we pushed the Flyers toward that. The good news is that for those banking on a late-season run, we made up a couple points right before we get into the "23 of the next 30 on the road" part of the schedule.

The next 6 games will be rough, with Dallas twice and Washington eager to atone for that loss here. Get through that at 3-3-0 and you have to feel good about the final 3 games going into break with where everyone sits and/or how they're playing. For kicks, though, I thought about what we'd need if our goalies split the remaining games.
-- If they both can go 13-7-1, we get to 92.
-- If Allen goes .500 [say, 10-10-1] then Binnington would have to put up 16-4-1 for us to get to 92. If this starts to play out, I'd expect Binnington to get the reins down the stretch.
-- If Binnington instead goes .500, ... well, Allen would have to repeat his '16-17 late season surge into the playoffs.

Kind of goes without saying on a lot of these games, but especially tonight it would be huge to get 2 points.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Wild lose. So do we, so we blow that "game in hand" chance.

26-13-2 needed for 92 points. If there's a tie on points, we might need another point to avoid losing on the 1st tiebreak.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Games Remaining: 40
Home Games Remaining: 15 [current record at home: 11-13-2]
Road Games Remaining: 25 [current record on road: 7-7-2]
Last 10 Games: 5-5-0 [LWWLLWLWLW]
Current Points Out of Playoff Spot: 8 [7 behind Minnesota + 1 for ROW tiebreak]
Estimated Points Needed to get a Playoff Spot: 92
Sample Record that would get us to target: 25-13-2

Next 7 Games [to the All-Star Break]
1/12 - at Dallas [23-18-4, 3rd in Central Division; 6-3-1 in last 10]
1/14 - at Washington [27-12-4, 1st in Metropolitan Division; 7-2-1 in last 10]
1/15 - at NY Islanders [24-14-4, 1st Wild Card in Eastern Conference; 8-2-0 in last 10]
1/17 - at Boston [25-15-4, 3rd in Northeast Division; 7-3-0 in last 10]
1/19 - vs. Ottawa [16-23-5, 16th in Eastern Conference; 2-7-1 in last 10]
1/21 - at Los Angeles [17-24-3, 15th in Western Conference; 6-4-0 in last 10]
1/23 - at Anaheim [19-17-8, 9th in Western Conference; 1-6-3 in last 10]

Well, it would be good news that we got 2 points against Montreal tonight - except that Minnesota also got 2 points and climbs into the 2nd wild card spot over Anaheim, so we still stay 7 [really 8] out of a playoff spot. Plus, in the "tank for Hughes" race while we seemingly damaged our chances the Flyers incredibly beat Dallas to grab 2 points and not let us drift too far out of the pit [and even more incredibly, Ottawa won in Anaheim without Duchene to take 2 points - meaning the Flyers handed the basement back over to the Senators]. Meanwhile, New Jersey has now drifted to -4 and seems to want to plumb the league depths.

So ... play Binnington at home, Allen on the road [where he's much better] and try to make the late-season surge into a playoff spot? Play Allen exclusively, see if he craps the bed and gets us officially into tank mode? So far, we're not making progress either way. Well, maybe the Road Trip from Hell will bring clarity - or, just cloud things even more.

 

[Brian39]

I get why the projection is 92 points, but at this point I would take the under on an over/under bet on whether the 2nd Wild Card in the West will have 91.5 points at the end of the season. The bottom two thirds of this conference are flat out not good hockey teams. Several of them have a strength or two, but each has a major weakness. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this is one of those years where the worst playoff team in the West is 3 or 4 points behind a couple teams who miss the playoffs in the East.

For as terrible as this team has looked, I have some hope. The team's underlying numbers have gotten pretty good over the last few weeks and we have a legit competition in net. I don't know how starts are going to get allocated, but I think the combination of Binny/Allen will provide better overall goaltending than we got through the first half of the season. We'd be dead in the water if the West was as good as it has been any other year this decade, but holy cow all but 5 or 6 teams in this Conference are not good.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Games Remaining: 39
Home Games Remaining: 15 [current record at home: 11-13-2]
Road Games Remaining: 24 [current record on road: 8-7-2; first time this season over .500]
Last 10 Games: 6-4-0 [WWLLWLWLWW]
Current Points Out of Playoff Spot: 6 [5 behind Minnesota + 1 for ROW tiebreak]
Estimated Points Needed to get a Playoff Spot: 92
Sample Record that would get us to target: 24-13-2

Next 6 Games [to the All-Star Break]
1/14 - at Washington [27-12-5, 1st in Metropolitan Division; 6-2-2 in last 10]
1/15 - at NY Islanders [24-15-4, 2nd Wild Card in Eastern Conference; 7-3-0 in last 10]
1/17 - at Boston [26-15-4, 3rd in Northeast Division; 7-3-0 in last 10]
1/19 - vs. Ottawa [17-23-5, 15th in Eastern Conference; 2-7-1 in last 10]
1/21 - at Los Angeles [17-25-3, 15th in Western Conference; 5-5-0 in last 10]
1/23 - at Anaheim [19-18-8, 9th in Western Conference; 0-7-3 in last 10]

Tonight couldn't have gone any better for the Blues; we win, everyone else loses. [I'm counting Edmonton as a loss to Arizona - though even if the Oilers come back to win, it doesn't change much other than we're higher than 13th in the West for the first time in a long time.]

Might we be finally turning the corner? Maybe. I will point out that people will talk about how we're 5 points out of a playoff spot. No, we're really 6 - because at this point, we trail Minnesota on ROWs even after accounting for the game in hand we have. So, keep that in mind; it may become important. Certainly this team is in better shape for the playoff chase than it was even a couple weeks ago, but 5 points is still 3 games and we've yet to see this team win 3 in a row or even go 7-3-0 in any 10-game stretch. [Which, if they do it now, would mean a 5-game winning streak.]

Finally, to the question of why I'm still pointing at 92 points for the 2nd wild card spot: yes, I'm aware that everyone from Dallas on down is currently on pace for fewer than 90 points. That does not mean that it's necessarily going to stay that way. As recently as 2016-17, at this point in the season Los Angeles was the 8th place team in the West and they were only on pace for 88 points; the final cutoff was 94. The year prior, Nashville was 8th [and actually out of the playoffs because of the wild card setup] with 45 points in 42 games, or on pace for 87.86; while the cutoff ended up being 87, the Predators surged to 96 while the Wild [who were 22-12-8 and on pace for 101.5] collapsed in the 2nd half going 16-21-3 ... so 87 would have been correct, but not for the reasons you might have expected. I still expect someone to step up and get on a hot streak and put some points on the board, and push the threshold toward 92 or more, and I'd rather point high and back off later than shoot low and then say "well, we really really need to step up." Again, take care of your business, don't get into a position where you didn't do it and need others to bail your ass out.

 

[TruBlu]

We are past the middle point of the season and have yet to win three games in a row. It's going to take a complete turnaround, and probably a little bit of luck to not be eliminated by early March.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

We are past the middle point of the season and have yet to win three games in a row. It's going to take a complete turnaround, and probably a little bit of luck to not be eliminated by early March.

The Blues are playing winning hockey right now. There are several teams ahead of them in the standings that look awful. The Blues will pass Anaheim and Colorado soon, who are both in free fall. They are tied with Arizona and Vancouver and one win behind Edmonton. Passing those 5 teams on 1/2 a season doesn’t look so impossible, amd that puts them in the wildcard spot.

Passing Minnesota or Dallas is going to be tougher, but conceivable.

Arizona may go on a run here and be competition for the Blues.

 

[TruBlu]

The Blues are playing winning hockey right now. There are several teams ahead of them in the standings that look awful. The Blues will pass Anaheim and Colorado soon, who are both in free fall. They are tied with Arizona and Vancouver and one win behind Edmonton. Passing those 5 teams on 1/2 a season doesn’t look so impossible, amd that puts them in the wildcard spot.

Passing Minnesota or Dallas is going to be tougher, but conceivable.

Arizona may go on a run here and be competition for the Blues.

Just as it was unlikely that we'd play as bad as we have, it is unlikely those teams will continue to free fall. Colorado is no doubt having tough times right now, but they will most likely right the ship. The real question is whether we are just going through better times or if this is the start of the turn around. I've said to myself that "maybe this is it" every time they win a couple of games, only to see it back fire, that I'm going to have to see a sustained press of 20 games winning at least .700 to start to believe. When you break down IB's sample record to get in from up above, we are mathematically eliminated after only 14 more losses. We have 39 games left. That is an almost insurmountable feat considering it isn't even mid January. We lost half that many games last month alone.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Just as it was unlikely that we'd play as bad as we have, it is unlikely those teams will continue to free fall. Colorado is no doubt having tough times right now, but they will most likely right the ship. The real question is whether we are just going through better times or if this is the start of the turn around. I've said to myself that "maybe this is it" every time they win a couple of games, only to see it back fire, that I'm going to have to see a sustained press of 20 games winning at least .700 to start to believe. When you break down IB's sample record to get in from up above, we are mathematically eliminated after only 14 more losses. We have 39 games left. That is an almost insurmountable feat considering it isn't even mid January. We lost half that many games last month alone.

I don’t see it as a big turnaround for the Blues. They’ve just gradually been playing better hockey since Berube took over. Injuries haven’t derailed it. And they looked like the better team in both games vs the Stars this week, who are a playoff team they’re chasing.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I thought I'd put a little more context into what "getting to 92" means for the rest of the WC teams that are in the mix.

Dallas: currently 23-19-4. Sample record needed to get to 92: 19-13-4 [95.7 points/82]
-- Why the Stars could do it: the remaining schedule is slightly tilted toward home games, where Dallas is 14-6-2 this year.
-- Why the Stars won't do it: depth is thin [they're basically a 1-line team at the moment], and no one else seems ready to step up and take pressure off those guys. An injury to Bishop could sink the Stars.

Colorado: currently 20-17-8. Sample record needed to get to 92: 18-11-8 [97.5 points/82]
-- Why the Avalanche could do it: as bad as the Avs have been recently, they've shown the ability to peel off this kind of a run. Plus, 21 of the final 35 are at home.
-- Why the Avalanche won't do it: the offense has slowed, which means the defensive problems on this team are now getting highlighted. That goes beyond not having Zadorov in the lineup, and it's not clear Bednar knows how to fix that.

Minnesota: currently 22-19-3. Sample record needed to get to 92: 21-14-3 [99.7 points/82]
-- Why the Wild could do it: the Wild still have pretty decent depth and the ability to reel off a hot streak at any time.
-- Why the Wild won't do it: the Wild also have the ability to be inconsistent as hell. With Matt Dumba out until late in the season, losing anyone else in the top-4 on defense could be a death blow.

Anaheim: currently 19-18-8. Sample record needed to get to 92: 19-10-8 [101.9 points/82]
-- Why the Ducks could do it: this entire team has chronically underachieved. It can't go on all season, can it? Plus, Corey Perry comes back in March; that will surely spark something, right?
-- Why the Ducks won't do it: Randy Carlyle is the head coach. The longer he stays, the more likely the Ducks flail.

Edmonton: currently 21-21-3. Sample record needed to get to 92: 22-12-3 [104.2 points/82]
-- Why the Oilers could do it: Connor McDavid picks this team up and drags it to the playoffs with a historic scoring run.
-- Why the Oilers won't do it: it's the Oilers. That should be enough. Without anyone capable of carrying the play other than McDavid and with a massive lack of depth at forward, the Oilers may be lucky to avoid falling into the bottom-5 in the league. [Again.]

St. Louis: currently 19-20-4. Sample record needed to get to 92: 23-12-4 [105.1 points/82]
-- Why the Blues could do it: the Blues may have finally found a reliable goaltender in Binnington. Plus, this roster can't be terrible all season long, right?
-- Why the Blues won't do it: Binnington cools a bit, Allen still gets called upon to be the #1 guy, 22 of the next 29 on the road, and enough blowouts every 3rd or 4th game to keep this team just out.

Arizona: currently 20-21-3. Sample record needed to get to 92 points: 23-12-3 [105.7 points/82]
-- Why the Coyotes could do it: Analytics.
-- Why the Coyotes won't do it: also analytics. Plus, it's the Coyotes, which should be more than enough - but they're injury-riddled right now. Making the playoffs would be as likely as the Blues making that '09 playoff run with all the guys that were missing off that roster and the youth that had to suddenly step up.

Vancouver: currently 20-21-5. Sample record needed to get to 92: 21-10-5 [107.0 points/82]
-- Why the Canucks could do it: the Canucks have put together losing streaks of L4 and L8, but haven't won more than 3 in a row. At some point, they're due for a hot streak - right?
-- Why the Canucks won't do it: as Elias Pettersson goes, the Canucks seem to go - and with Pettersson out for January, that's going to make getting 21 wins in 36 games even more difficult.



Chicago and Los Angeles are out in "they'd need to go at a 120-point pace" land and aren't even worth discussing.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Just as it was unlikely that we'd play as bad as we have, it is unlikely those teams will continue to free fall. Colorado is no doubt having tough times right now, but they will most likely right the ship. The real question is whether we are just going through better times or if this is the start of the turn around. I've said to myself that "maybe this is it" every time they win a couple of games, only to see it back fire, that I'm going to have to see a sustained press of 20 games winning at least .700 to start to believe. When you break down IB's sample record to get in from up above, we are mathematically eliminated after only 14 more losses. We have 39 games left. That is an almost insurmountable feat considering it isn't even mid January. We lost half that many games last month alone.

Anaheim has been winning with smoke and mirrors all year. I would argue their recent play is more of a regression to the mean.

Minnesota misses Dumba a lot, and he’s not coming back any time soon. I think the age of that core is showing.

Colorado is harder to figure. There is no doubt the Blues are going to have to earn it and play better than some good teams to get in. But I don’t think the hill is as steep as it looked a month ago.

 

[EastonBlues22]

We are past the middle point of the season and have yet to win three games in a row. It's going to take a complete turnaround, and probably a little bit of luck to not be eliminated by early March.

As an aside, I'm desperately hoping that the Blues win their third game in a row tomorrow with Binnington starting and Dunn getting the game winner, simply so I can kiss that lousy streak goodbye with a "Binn there, Dunn that" post.

 

[WeWentBlues]

As an aside, I'm desperately hoping that the Blues win their third game in a row tomorrow with Binnington starting and Dunn getting the game winner, simply so I can kiss that lousy streak goodbye with a "Binn there, Dunn that" post.

That pun deserves way more likes

 

[Spektre]

The Blues are definitely playing a tighter game as of late. December was really the month to make up ground and they pretty much pissed it away. Their schedule in the next few weeks is pretty brutal.

@ Capitals
@ Islanders
@ Boston
Ottawa
@ LA
@ Anaheim
@ Columbus
@ Florida
@ Tampa Bay
Nashville
@ Nashville

 

[TruBlu]

The Blues are definitely playing a tighter game as of late. December was really the month to make up ground and they pretty much pissed it away. Their schedule in the next few weeks is pretty brutal.

@ Capitals
@ Islanders
@ Boston
Ottawa
@ LA
@ Anaheim
@ Columbus
@ Florida
@ Tampa Bay
Nashville
@ Nashville

How many of those games do you think we'll win? I'm going with 4-7.

 

[Spektre]

How many of those games do you think we'll win? I'm going with 4-7.

Who knows? So far this year the Blues have been more successful vs the better teams but there’s no guarantee that’s going to dictate this road trip. I won’t be shocked if they win 2/3 on the first trip and then lose to Ottawa at home.

 

[ScratchCatFever]

I feel good about this team getting on the road for an extended period of time. Hopefully it will allow them to loosen up a bit mentally yet continue to be tough to play against. If they can take the game they played against Dallas and notch it up as they go I like the position they could be in by the middle of February.

 

[542365]

The Blues are definitely playing a tighter game as of late. December was really the month to make up ground and they pretty much pissed it away. Their schedule in the next few weeks is pretty brutal.

@ Capitals
@ Islanders
@ Boston
Ottawa
@ LA
@ Anaheim
@ Columbus
@ Florida
@ Tampa Bay
Nashville
@ Nashville

I see three losses followed by 4 wins and renewed hope, followed by three straight losses to effectively end the season.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Anaheim has been winning with smoke and mirrors all year. I would argue their recent play is more of a regression to the mean.

I should drag this elsewhere, but I'll hit it here since it grates on me like fingernails across nylon.

I see people constantly use "regression to the mean" to explain away really good/bad performance. Really? What the f*** is "mean" in that instance? How the hell is anyone supposed to know? Maybe Anaheim should be really good, and they're chronically underperforming; in that case, they're really regressing to an extreme. Or, maybe Anaheim should be really bad and now they're really regressing back to normal. However, we have no idea which it is.

Kind of like when shooters are really good/bad, and people say oh, he'll regress back to the mean. Because ... what the guy has done historically is what his mean really is today? [This is especially excruciating when talking about guys with limited experience, for which no one has any clue what the guy's "mean" performance is.] Maybe he will ... or, maybe his performance has improved/degraded and WYSIWYG and so what's going on now is his actual "mean" performance - or, maybe he's playing like crap but in reality he should be even worse and so he's really overachieving where he should be.

Sorry, but I f***ing hate that phrase. It's a total throwaway comment that is a lazy excuse for explaining something and really means nothing at all.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I should drag this elsewhere, but I'll hit it here since it grates on me like fingernails across nylon.

I see people constantly use "regression to the mean" to explain away really good/bad performance. Really? What the **** is "mean" in that instance? How the hell is anyone supposed to know? Maybe Anaheim should be really good, and they're chronically underperforming; in that case, they're really regressing to an extreme. Or, maybe Anaheim should be really bad and now they're really regressing back to normal. However, we have no idea which it is.

Kind of like when shooters are really good/bad, and people say oh, he'll regress back to the mean. Because ... what the guy has done historically is what his mean really is today? [This is especially excruciating when talking about guys with limited experience, for which no one has any clue what the guy's "mean" performance is.] Maybe he will ... or, maybe his performance has improved/degraded and WYSIWYG and so what's going on now is his actual "mean" performance - or, maybe he's playing like crap but in reality he should be even worse and so he's really overachieving where he should be.

Sorry, but I ****ing hate that phrase. It's a total throwaway comment that is a lazy excuse for explaining something and really means nothing at all.

It’s not that profound. I’m just saying that Anaheim has outperformed their predicted results looking at their metrics. They’ve won more points than the on-ice performance would predict, by a lot.

“The mean” is just shorthand for saying they are performing closer to their expected result.

It’s true ‘the mean’ can’t be known, but that’s all any of this is:predictions and projections. I’m puzzled why this phrase would bug you. I’m using it in a general sense and not with regard to an individual specific number. In this case its an abstract.

 

[Default]

The Blues are definitely playing a tighter game as of late. December was really the month to make up ground and they pretty much pissed it away. Their schedule in the next few weeks is pretty brutal.

@ Capitals
@ Islanders
@ Boston
Ottawa
@ LA
@ Anaheim
@ Columbus
@ Florida
@ Tampa Bay
Nashville
@ Nashville

What’re you talking about? This stretch is a cakewalk. 9-2.

 

[TruBlu]

I'm definitely putting vcash on Ottawa when we play them. That just seems like the right way to go.

 

[Brian39]

Finally, to the question of why I'm still pointing at 92 points for the 2nd wild card spot: yes, I'm aware that everyone from Dallas on down is currently on pace for fewer than 90 points. That does not mean that it's necessarily going to stay that way. As recently as 2016-17, at this point in the season Los Angeles was the 8th place team in the West and they were only on pace for 88 points; the final cutoff was 94. The year prior, Nashville was 8th [and actually out of the playoffs because of the wild card setup] with 45 points in 42 games, or on pace for 87.86; while the cutoff ended up being 87, the Predators surged to 96 while the Wild [who were 22-12-8 and on pace for 101.5] collapsed in the 2nd half going 16-21-3 ... so 87 would have been correct, but not for the reasons you might have expected. I still expect someone to step up and get on a hot streak and put some points on the board, and push the threshold toward 92 or more, and I'd rather point high and back off later than shoot low and then say "well, we really really need to step up." Again, take care of your business, don't get into a position where you didn't do it and need others to bail your ass out.

I totally get that and was not advocating that you lower your estimated number. My point was more that I don't view 92 as the bare-minimum it's going to take, but is the conservative 'this should do it' threshold.

My rationale for taking the under is that we aren't just looking at the final playoff spot being on pace for less than 90 points. At this point, C3 and both Wild Card teams are on pace for less than 90 points (with the WC spots being on pace for 88). One or 2 teams can get hot and there is still a playoff spot available at the 90 point mark.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I’m puzzled why this phrase would bug you.

Because my job deals with statistics.

I’m using it in a general sense and not with regard to an individual specific number. In this case its an abstract.

I get that. And know that I'm not attacking you personally. I'm attacking the entire lazy notion that underlies that statement.

“The mean” is just shorthand for saying they are performing closer to their expected result.

Except no one has any idea what the "expected result" really is. Well, unless you're going with "gut feel" or "current advanced stats suggest ________" which (A) have an error range that no one has ever bothered to quantify, and (B) tend to get extrapolated to future seasons based on what some team or individual did the past season(s) as if that's really the expected value. [I'll come back to this shortly.]

It’s not that profound. I’m just saying that Anaheim has outperformed their predicted results looking at their metrics. They’ve won more points than the on-ice performance would predict, by a lot.

I'm going to give away a multi-million dollar idea here. Whoever takes this and turns it into something actionable, remember where you got your brilliant idea from.

Spoiler

People like to talk about stats and expected results, and treat it like "oh, this stat is predictive of the result." Well, yes and no. Statistically, A and B may be correlated but that doesn't necessarily mean A has predictive value when trying to estimate B. A could be correlated with B because there's other items C, D, and E that you can't measure that are encapsulated in A. If you can capture those other items, then perhaps you can find what really helps predict B. Or, maybe you're getting correlation because you've found enough data to get something to fit by pure chance. Correlation is nice, but it's not necessarily sufficient.

It seems intuitive that oh, well the more shots you take then the more possession you probably have and so the better chance of winning a game. And yes, statistically there's a correlation between the two. It's not a perfect one, but it's a relatively modest positive correlation. However, it's missing something really, really critical. It's missing the efficiency of puck possession and of shooting, and I've discussed this on a handful of occasions. I don't care if Team A has 77 shots and Team B has 22; yeah, it tells me that A fired 250% more shots, but it doesn't tell me if they were good shots or shit shots. If Team A had 70 shots from the point or bad angles and Team B had 20 shots from between the faceoff dots, then pure shots don't tell me who should be expected to win. Where those shots were taken, however, ... that's where the story lies, and I'll bet on Team B to win every time and be correct much more often than not.

It also doesn't tell me who was doing what when they did have the puck. Did Team B have 22 shots but sat on the puck for 40 minutes waiting for the right shots? Did Team A simply grab the puck and race down the ice and fire away on net as soon as it crossed the blue line? I don't know, and neither does anyone else. How about passing accuracy compared to turnovers and odd-man rushes against? Don't know, because we don't have that information. I can go on and on with ideas that I'd bet are much more predictive of winning than just shots taken, but that information isn't gathered as of yet so there's no way to know.

We're only recently getting to high-percentage [high-danger] vs. low-percentage [low-danger] shots in a measurable way ... which is great, but it's like 15 years after I made arguments about how those things were much more likely predictive of a number of items. And that topic has only recently been scratched; we've gotten to situational save% and positional save% relative to position on the ice, but we're still really lacking save% relative to the goalie. Who's most vulnerable where? Where does Tarasenko, Ovechkin, Crosby, McDavid, et. al. tend to shoot on a goalie - and which goalie should you put in to maximize your chances of winning as a result? Good luck finding that data; it's sparse to non-existent. How about PP efficiency in terms of "shots/goal" and "minutes of PP time/goal" or maybe even PK efficiency in terms of don't let XXXXXX sit in the box, the PK suffers greatly without them out to kill the penalty? *crickets* The first two are out there, but are underutilized; the last one is a question begging to get answered because it has tremendous implications for game planning [both for and against].

So ... about those expected results? Without getting overly technical, a team's expected result is the sum of the individual expected results plus some "chemistry" factor, plus some factor for randomness. Do you know what any individual's expected results are? Don't worry, no one else does either and guesses for how it looks across a career are based on "average" which can be [and is] inaccurate for a number of players - and no one else has any idea how chemistry with other players [both positive and negative] works, beyond oh, look - those two or three guys play really well together, they've got chemistry! and failing to understand how much impact that has on each guy's individual expected stats. Understand how to predict randomness? Don't worry, everyone pretty much ignores that and uses "regression to the mean" to explain it away, failing to understand that it's real and can be meaningful especially when it incorporates variables that should be getting picked up but aren't. And most critically, all of that is only accurate if the past is predictive of the future; if it's not, ... well, then your guess on what "expected value" is probably is just as good as rolling a pair of dice. [If you can predict how changes impact the future, though, ... well, you're on your way to making a shitton of money for someone.]

There are questions which are low-hanging fruit waiting to be plucked with high reward value, and then there's other information that needs data to provide answers to create actionable results. And while I think there's progress being made to get us there, I'm pretty positive that a number of the above items as well as some others floating around in my head won't be thought of for 7-10 more years, and it will be even longer before someone tries to build tools to capture that data. Someone who jumps the line on that and starts planning now, though, ... well, they've got a massive paycheck waiting for them.

And yeah - I've thought about how to get at all of that and more. As my current plans stand, it's on my "list of things to do" once I have free time a couple years out.