Turnover watch

[MakeTheIronSing]

I have had some discussion with people the last couple of days over the merit of turnovers/giveaways and the credibility of them in general.

Some believe they are a flawed stat and based on interpretation and should therefore not be weighed too heavily.

Others say that they are a credible stat that needs to be examined because they are a big tell tale sign of defensive success.

People have made it clear that they don't understand how they are calculated and that NHL in particular is not consistent with the scoring of them.

So I've gone ahead and attempted to do this, because quite frankly I am just as curious.

The Method:

For every opportunity, whether it be in the offensive, defensive or neutral zone there is certain criteria that needs to be met in my eyes.

1. Unforced play. Is the change in possession due to someone giving up the puck without anybody from the opposing team in their immediate zone of play.

2. Timing. When a player has possession of the puck, do they have it for a long enough time to make a decision that is not instantaneous? For example, if a player retrieves the puck along the boards along with or immediately before an opposing player then that play should be considered a 50/50 play and not warranting a possession. Furthermore, if a player receives a pass and is being covered or has someone in their immediate zone of play, then this should not be considered a turnover.

3. Clearing a zone. With sustained pressure in the defensive zone, if a player clears the puck without time to make another play then this is not considered for calculation.

4. Rushes. If an offensive zone play towards the net involves a cross ice pass that is deflected, broken up in any way or misses a stick and changes possession as a result, this is not considered, in my eyes, a turnover.

5. Checking. If a player has possession of the puck and has no recourse but to try and retain possession along the boards then this should result in a 50/50 scenario and should not be counted.

This basically makes a turnover the equivalent to an unforced error in baseball, an uncovered free shot in basketball or the result of a poor decision with the puck.

With these stipulations in place I went ahead and recorded the Leafs turnovers in tonight's game against the Rangers.

I recorded 24 turnovers tonight against the Leafs.

JvR - 3
Ranger - 1
Kessel - 4
Franson - 2
Gunnarsson - 3
Gardiner - 1
Phaneuf - 3
Clarkson - 2
Raymond - 2
Lupul - 1
Kadri - 1
Holland - 1

I will continue to do this and see, based on the stats that NHL provides whether this is somewhat accurate or not. We can then see if there is an obvious disparity between these stipulations and that of the NHL.

If there are any suggestions or other factors to include in the tallying then please post.

I'm interested to see what people think.

Click to read more...

 

[FifthLine]

Thanks for this, should be interesting to compare the beginning of the season to the rest of the season and see if they are the same or not.

 

[Quares27]

Sounds good.... interested to see it for home games specifically. I bet there will be a massive difference in numbers, but I wonder by how much.

 

[Marcel Cousineau]

I too, recorded 24 turnovers myself.

However, they have all been eaten.

Cherry, apple, blueberry, so many tasty ones!

 

[Joey Hoser]

I have had some discussion with people the last couple of days over the merit of turnovers/giveaways and the credibility of them in general.

Some believe they are a flawed stat and based on interpretation and should therefore not be weighed too heavily.

Others say that they are a credible stat that needs to be examined because they are a big tell tale sign of defensive success.

People have made it clear that they don't understand how they are calculated and that NHL in particular is not consistent with the scoring of them.

So I've gone ahead and attempted to do this, because quite frankly I am just as curious.

The Method:

For every opportunity, whether it be in the offensive, defensive or neutral zone there is certain criteria that needs to be met in my eyes.

1. Unforced play. Is the change in possession due to someone giving up the puck without anybody from the opposing team in their immediate zone of play.

2. Timing. When a player has possession of the puck, do they have it for a long enough time to make a decision that is not instantaneous? For example, if a player retrieves the puck along the boards along with or immediately before an opposing player then that play should be considered a 50/50 play and not warranting a possession. Furthermore, if a player receives a pass and is being covered or has someone in their immediate zone of play, then this should not be considered a turnover.

3. Clearing a zone. With sustained pressure in the defensive zone, if a player clears the puck without time to make another play then this is not considered for calculation.

4. Rushes. If an offensive zone play towards the net involves a cross ice pass that is deflected, broken up in any way or misses a stick and changes possession as a result, this is not considered, in my eyes, a turnover.

5. Checking. If a player has possession of the puck and has no recourse but to try and retain possession along the boards then this should result in a 50/50 scenario and should not be counted.

This basically makes a turnover the equivalent to an unforced error in baseball, an uncovered free shot in basketball or the result of a poor decision with the puck.

With these stipulations in place I went ahead and recorded the Leafs turnovers in tonight's game against the Rangers.

I recorded 24 turnovers tonight against the Leafs.

JvR - 3
Ranger - 1
Kessel - 4
Franson - 2
Gunnarsson - 3
Gardiner - 1
Phaneuf - 3
Clarkson - 2
Raymond - 2
Lupul - 1
Kadri - 1
Holland - 1

I will continue to do this and see, based on the stats that NHL provides whether this is somewhat accurate or not. We can then see if there is an obvious disparity between these stipulations and that of the NHL.

If there are any suggestions or other factors to include in the tallying then please post.

I'm interested to see what people think.

An obvious problem with this is that your interpretation is just as subjective as the guys who record the stats. Why would your counts be considered the true ones?

We could all do this by the same criteria and we'd come out with different answers. That's basically what the criticism is in the first place.

 

[Patty Lee]

An obvious problem with this is that your interpretation is just as subjective as the guys who record the stats. Why would your counts be considered the true ones?

We could all do this by the same criteria and we'd come out with different answers. That's basically what the criticism is in the first place.

exactly what I was going to say Joey Hoser

 

[ACC1224]

An obvious problem with this is that your interpretation is just as subjective as the guys who record the stats. Why would your counts be considered the true ones?

We could all do this by the same criteria and we'd come out with different answers. That's basically what the criticism is in the first place.

This....

exactly what I was going to say Joey Hoser

and this

 

[Duke Silver]

The problem is that one guy counts way more giveaways than the other 29 guys averaged out. By a magnitude of approximately 2.5 times.

Giveaways or Hits would be a fine stat to use IF THE SAME STANDARD WAS APPLIED ACROSS ALL ARENAS. It's not, and that's why people have a tough time giving them much credence.

The OP is the only person that I have encountered on these boards who can't seem to grasp this.

 

[egd27]

The problem is that one guy counts way more giveaways than the other 29 guys averaged out. By a magnitude of approximately 2.5 times.

Giveaways or Hits would be a fine stat to use IF THE SAME STANDARD WAS APPLIED ACROSS ALL ARENAS. It's not, and that's why people have a tough time giving them much credence.

The OP is the only person that I have encountered on these boards who can't seem to grasp this.

The OP should to see this for himself if he applies his standard for the remaining games and then compares the totals for home vs away games.

 

[MakeTheIronSing]

The problem is that one guy counts way more giveaways than the other 29 guys averaged out. By a magnitude of approximately 2.5 times.

Giveaways or Hits would be a fine stat to use IF THE SAME STANDARD WAS APPLIED ACROSS ALL ARENAS. It's not, and that's why people have a tough time giving them much credence.

The OP is the only person that I have encountered on these boards who can't seem to grasp this.

You know this for fact or based on your lack of knowledge on the subject?

I just want to state that not knowing or not having the information available is not the same as actually being aware of the situation.

So answer this, are you aware of the discrepancy or are you assuming there is one based on actual information or from your own work?

 

[MakeTheIronSing]

An obvious problem with this is that your interpretation is just as subjective as the guys who record the stats. Why would your counts be considered the true ones?

We could all do this by the same criteria and we'd come out with different answers. That's basically what the criticism is in the first place.

The point is not to prove who is right and who is wrong, its to see if the standards are relatively the same as those who make the official records.

Its an experiment not a declaration of "my way is right".

 

[MakeTheIronSing]

The problem is that one guy counts way more giveaways than the other 29 guys averaged out. By a magnitude of approximately 2.5 times.

Giveaways or Hits would be a fine stat to use IF THE SAME STANDARD WAS APPLIED ACROSS ALL ARENAS. It's not, and that's why people have a tough time giving them much credence.

The OP is the only person that I have encountered on these boards who can't seem to grasp this.

I dont think that comment is really needed. I'm trying to understand, shouldn't this be to your benefit?

 

[diceman934]

I have had some discussion with people the last couple of days over the merit of turnovers/giveaways and the credibility of them in general.

Some believe they are a flawed stat and based on interpretation and should therefore not be weighed too heavily.

Others say that they are a credible stat that needs to be examined because they are a big tell tale sign of defensive success.

People have made it clear that they don't understand how they are calculated and that NHL in particular is not consistent with the scoring of them.

So I've gone ahead and attempted to do this, because quite frankly I am just as curious.

The Method:

For every opportunity, whether it be in the offensive, defensive or neutral zone there is certain criteria that needs to be met in my eyes.

1. Unforced play. Is the change in possession due to someone giving up the puck without anybody from the opposing team in their immediate zone of play.

2. Timing. When a player has possession of the puck, do they have it for a long enough time to make a decision that is not instantaneous? For example, if a player retrieves the puck along the boards along with or immediately before an opposing player then that play should be considered a 50/50 play and not warranting a possession. Furthermore, if a player receives a pass and is being covered or has someone in their immediate zone of play, then this should not be considered a turnover.

3. Clearing a zone. With sustained pressure in the defensive zone, if a player clears the puck without time to make another play then this is not considered for calculation.

4. Rushes. If an offensive zone play towards the net involves a cross ice pass that is deflected, broken up in any way or misses a stick and changes possession as a result, this is not considered, in my eyes, a turnover.

5. Checking. If a player has possession of the puck and has no recourse but to try and retain possession along the boards then this should result in a 50/50 scenario and should not be counted.

This basically makes a turnover the equivalent to an unforced error in baseball, an uncovered free shot in basketball or the result of a poor decision with the puck.

With these stipulations in place I went ahead and recorded the Leafs turnovers in tonight's game against the Rangers.

I recorded 24 turnovers tonight against the Leafs.

JvR - 3
Ranger - 1
Kessel - 4
Franson - 2
Gunnarsson - 3
Gardiner - 1
Phaneuf - 3
Clarkson - 2
Raymond - 2
Lupul - 1
Kadri - 1
Holland - 1

I will continue to do this and see, based on the stats that NHL provides whether this is somewhat accurate or not. We can then see if there is an obvious disparity between these stipulations and that of the NHL.

If there are any suggestions or other factors to include in the tallying then please post.

I'm interested to see what people think.

I have been tracking them all year because people on here questioned the validity of the stats when it shed a negative light last year on Dion.

For the NHL it is the home team that supplies the stats to the NHL and as such most home teams stats are concentrated on the home team.

As I have did mine all year, I have only a difference of 8 when the Leafs play at home. I caulk that up to TV angles. On the road I have way more giveaways recorded then the NHL has against us.

Like I stated above the home teams generally track the give away stats against their team better then they do the visitors. We do give the puck away more at home then we do on the road as seen by my stats this year.

Just for your information I tracked the same amount of giveaways .....to the same players.

 

[MakeTheIronSing]

I have been tracking them all year because people on here questioned the validity of the stats when it shed a negative light last year on Dion.

For the NHL it is the home team that supplies the stats to the NHL and as such most home teams stats are concentrated on the home team.

As I have did mine all year, I have only a difference of 8 when the Leafs play at home. I caulk that up to TV angles. On the road I have way more giveaways recorded then the NHL has against us.

Like I stated above the home teams generally track the give away stats against their team better then they do the visitors. We do give the puck away more at home then we do on the road as seen by my stats this year.

Just for your information I tracked the same amount of giveaways .....to the same players.

Good to know. Some collaboration would be helpful no?

Quick pointer btw.

NHL has given 0 turnovers to Franson, Phaneuf and Gunnarsson.

Also worth mentioning, Franson gave the puck away in his own end on the PP for the Rangers 1st goal.

 

[Joey Hoser]

Like I stated above the home teams generally track the give away stats against their team better then they do the visitors.

Except for Columbus, at least.

 

[MakeTheIronSing]

Still curious though as to whether I am missing any criteria that really needs to be considered?

 

[Joey Hoser]

I have been tracking them all year because people on here questioned the validity of the stats when it shed a negative light last year on Dion.

Just for the record, I don't question the validity of these stats because of any negative light they shine on Dion(I'm not even sure which stats you're referring to). I question them because of the wild and massive discrepencies between different teams and home vs. away stats, as well as the fact that we always seem to have the league leader in hits on our team, whether it be Schenn, Komarov, or Franson.

 

[Trapper]

I have had some discussion with people the last couple of days over the merit of turnovers/giveaways and the credibility of them in general.

Some believe they are a flawed stat and based on interpretation and should therefore not be weighed too heavily.

Others say that they are a credible stat that needs to be examined because they are a big tell tale sign of defensive success.

People have made it clear that they don't understand how they are calculated and that NHL in particular is not consistent with the scoring of them.

So I've gone ahead and attempted to do this, because quite frankly I am just as curious.

The Method:

For every opportunity, whether it be in the offensive, defensive or neutral zone there is certain criteria that needs to be met in my eyes.

1. Unforced play. Is the change in possession due to someone giving up the puck without anybody from the opposing team in their immediate zone of play.

2. Timing. When a player has possession of the puck, do they have it for a long enough time to make a decision that is not instantaneous? For example, if a player retrieves the puck along the boards along with or immediately before an opposing player then that play should be considered a 50/50 play and not warranting a possession. Furthermore, if a player receives a pass and is being covered or has someone in their immediate zone of play, then this should not be considered a turnover.

3. Clearing a zone. With sustained pressure in the defensive zone, if a player clears the puck without time to make another play then this is not considered for calculation.

4. Rushes. If an offensive zone play towards the net involves a cross ice pass that is deflected, broken up in any way or misses a stick and changes possession as a result, this is not considered, in my eyes, a turnover.

5. Checking. If a player has possession of the puck and has no recourse but to try and retain possession along the boards then this should result in a 50/50 scenario and should not be counted.

This basically makes a turnover the equivalent to an unforced error in baseball, an uncovered free shot in basketball or the result of a poor decision with the puck.

With these stipulations in place I went ahead and recorded the Leafs turnovers in tonight's game against the Rangers.

I recorded 24 turnovers tonight against the Leafs.

JvR - 3
Ranger - 1
Kessel - 4
Franson - 2
Gunnarsson - 3
Gardiner - 1
Phaneuf - 3
Clarkson - 2
Raymond - 2
Lupul - 1
Kadri - 1
Holland - 1

I will continue to do this and see, based on the stats that NHL provides whether this is somewhat accurate or not. We can then see if there is an obvious disparity between these stipulations and that of the NHL.

If there are any suggestions or other factors to include in the tallying then please post.

I'm interested to see what people think.

What is the % of turnovers might be a better indication. Obviously Kessel had the puck a lot as well as the D. If Raymond had the puck 4 times and turned it over twice, and Kessel had the puck 14 times and turned it over 4 times, it means something different. Also where did you turn it over and what was the result. An offside or a 2 on 1?

 

[Joey Hoser]

What is the % of turnovers might be a better indication. Obviously Kessel had the puck a lot as well as the D. If Raymond had the puck 4 times and turned it over twice, and Kessel had the puck 14 times and turned it over 4 times, it means something different. Also where did you turn it over and what was the result. An offside or a 2 on 1?

That's true but this thread is about whether or not the numbers recorded by the NHL are even accurate. We're not judging players out of this.

 

[MakeTheIronSing]

What is the % of turnovers might be a better indication. Obviously Kessel had the puck a lot as well as the D. If Raymond had the puck 4 times and turned it over twice, and Kessel had the puck 14 times and turned it over 4 times, it means something different. Also where did you turn it over and what was the result. An offside or a 2 on 1?

I don't really think the player's situation is all that relevent from my eyes. There shouldn't be a good time to turn the puck over when you consider the requirements that are being presented.

I think those things return to the zone of proximity and timing factors tbh.

Its true that ratio is important, but you could most likely make those assumptions based on their role over a whole season. If Raymond plays less minutes but turns the puck over as much then yes, he is more likely to turn the puck over. If Phaneuf turns the puck over a lot however it is bad because he plays the most minutes. Either way, turnover = not good for offensive possession.

 

[Duke Silver]

You know this for fact or based on your lack of knowledge on the subject?

I just want to state that not knowing or not having the information available is not the same as actually being aware of the situation.

So answer this, are you aware of the discrepancy or are you assuming there is one based on actual information or from your own work?

Well I have 9 years of these stats since the lockout, would you like to see them?

Season | Home | Away
2005-06 | 553 | 361
2006-07 | 582 | 388
2007-08 | 580 | 303
2008-09 | 553 | 305
2009-10 | 450 | 317
2010-11 | 608 | 294
2011-12 | 623 | 281
2012-13 | 405 | 149
2013-14 | 517 | 202
TOTAL | 4,871 | 2,600
AVG | 541 | 289

The last three years have been particularly egregious, must have been a change in personnel.

So your explanation for this is that for the last 9 years we have consistently been twice as bad when it comes to giveaways at home vs. the road.

What we have here is a failure to recognize patterns and a severe case of confirmation bias.

 

[Drew311]

I dont think that comment is really needed. I'm trying to understand, shouldn't this be to your benefit?

Welcome to HF Boards cynicism.

 

[Duke Silver]

I dont think that comment is really needed. I'm trying to understand, shouldn't this be to your benefit?

If you were trying to understand, you would have understood by now. I am not the only person to try to explain this to you. You are simply too stubborn.

 

[MakeTheIronSing]

If you were trying to understand, you would have understood by now. I am not the only person to try to explain this to you. You are simply too stubborn.

Ok can you please either not come and post here or imput something construtive.

Do you see anything on this board concerning, home vs. away stats or anything of that nature?

This is about the legitimacy of stats AS A WHOLE.

Take off bud, you obviously don't understand the premise as a whole.

Look at the OP and contribute constructively for **** off.

 

[mikebel111*]

Great job by the OP. Very keen on this as well.
Will be interesting.