Injury Report: Vanek out week-to-week | no call ups planned

[BinCookin]

Waiving Ott or miller is in fact a no brainer. That is the worse line in all of the NHL and the statistics prove it. There was an article on TSN on this very line today.


http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/a...cary-a-look-at-the-nhl-s-best-and-worst-lines

With all due respect... NOT a TSN article. They have much better writers.

The Article is basically a 10 game Corsi evaluation (Sample size).

Garbage.

 

[BinCookin]

The universal problem I have with advanced stats as they relate to hockey is that it is almost impossible to weed out statistical noise because of the nature of hockey compared to other sports.

Baseball has definable, individual moments. Football and Basketball have defined and repeatable sequences of competition where the same group is out for long stretches and can have a much greater and certainly more identifiable impact on the flow of the game.

Hockey is wildly more diffuse. Line changes happen in all sorts of different situations, in different sequences, and the shifts are so (relatively) short that a shift which begins on poor (or positive) bias due to puck position, game flow, etc is highly unlikely to have a huge impact.

Pretty much every hockey stat is barely relevant because of this. We can roll up a bunch of them and get a decent idea of general trends, but as predictive or strategic tools they're almost useless beyond some very very simple applications.

I understand what you are saying. But we can I think with my 3 measurements at least be able to have some data that would

1) somewhat support the Corsi people

2) somewhat support the "they arnt letting in goals though 'i think' " people

Obviously your point is no stat is the be-all , end-all in hockey. And that wasnt the point.
Bench's point was "how should we TRY" to measure them.

 

[SirloinUB]

Is there a stat that tracks minutes in the defensive zone you don't get scored on? Like maybe it takes 3 minutes for this line to get scored on whereas it takes another like 2, even if the shot differential seems better for the other line?

I guess the idea is if you have a line that stalls out their scoring line longer than their team can stall yours... you win?

Of course that falls apart entirely if you don't spend equal time in the opponent's zone...



The grind line made it an institution.



Alright, but how do we know that? How do we determine they are better than any other 4th line?

If you'd like a tangible (yet imperfect) statistic they have a positive goal differential despite playing the difficult matches on 70% dzone starts.

Combined they are a +5 this season.

I know +/- has its limitations so let's expand the sample size. Since the 14-15 season, Miller and Glendening are a combined +4. Over the last 2.15 seasons they have maintained a positive goal differential under difficult matchups and predominantly dzone starts; I believe they are effective in their role.

 

[Flowah]

Can't be shots/shots against at ES, at least not if you want it to be favorable for OMG. Every stat points to them spending gobs of time defending in their own zone, generating little offense of their own. Yeah, they don't get scored on a lot,but that much time in your own zone is mentally and physically tiring.

They don't get scored on a lot because the team, and them in particular, has benefited from an abnormally high SV% which will come down sooner or later or we're guaranteed the Jennings trophy.

 

[BinCookin]

This is a very good question Bench. It really is. Because there are issues with some of the ways we have been doing this:

1) If our 4th line is used at the end of games more often, and thus get empty net goals more often... this will skew their +/- Values.

2) Corsi/Fenwick measure shot attempts, but if our defensive line is allowing more "perimeter / non-dangerous" shots .... who cares?
We really need to know about scoring chances. Or shots from a certain area (high scoring area).

I would say these are my ways i would "evaluate" the 4th line

1) Straight up Goals For and Goals Against over time on ice. Or G/60; GA/60. BUT this would have to be at even strength, and also when at least 2/3rds of that line is on the ice. Not Glendenning filling in on the 3rd line etc. Basically we need someone to ACTUALLY COUNT?! how many goals are scored against our 4th line. (Not just the players on the ice)

Basically this:



2) I would like to see NOT how many shots they give up. But how many SCORING CHANCES our 4th line allows. Can this be counted??

3) I think Penalties drawn vs Penalties taken should be accounted for here. If we have a strong PP and our 4th line draws penalties... That helps us a lot!! If they take penalties and we get scored on...They might not be on the ice, but if they are in the box, its still partially their fault. So i dont know the results of this analysis, but penalties could be a big factor in 4th line effectiveness

These 3 measurements would tell us a lot more than "Corsi" or "+/-"

Can these 3 measurements ACTUALLY be done? I would assume yes.

 

[jkutswings]

I would agree that no single stat tells the entire story, but I wonder if something could at least give an approximation.

Bear with me, but what if you defined certain parameters for an opponent meeting a certain threshold of probability of scoring. Things like position on the ice, direction of movement, relative numbers and positions of the players, etc. Not just outright scoring chances, but offensive pressure in general (or whatever other term you like).

Now calculate the total time your opponent is generating offensive pressure, and separately calculate total time the puck is in your own zone.

I would think, relatively speaking, that better defensive lines would have a lower faction of offensive pressure to total zone time than those defensive lines that are less effective. It also removes the factor of goaltending (unless you happen to have a goalie that is at either extreme of things like turnovers, I guess). Because you can be good defensively, but have a lousy goalie that pulls down your stats, or vice versa, getting bailed out by an elite netminder on a regular basis.

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

Well we reclaimed Frk back, So that's some good news here.

 

[Flowah]

Well we reclaimed Frk back, So that's some good news here.

Here's hoping with a little more time he can show us a consistent kind of play like the kind we saw during preseason.

 

[njx9]

You are exactly right. That would be mis-casting it.

Just as you did. This is nothing like holding a 17 or hitting on an 18. Last season was all about holding garbage and hoping someone else busts before you do. Who knows what this season will bring, but it doesn't look like the team has moved out of that 7-9 range, and it's hard to believe that 7 or 8 will be safely in.

We know, with certainty, that had Detroit done what you wanted (or even what I wanted the Legwand year) they would have already missed the playoffs at least once by now. We know, with certainty, that by doing what they did they have not.

Yet.

So, that's the scoreboard as far as the team is concerned. Until their process fails they aren't going to deviate from it.

So it's not very predictable, and the consistency is only "consistency" based on another team's failure. No one, that I'm aware of, is arguing that the team will deviate from it. It's clear they won't. But there's no certainty in arguing that the team might've been better off trading or not trading for guys like Legwand, Cole and Zidlicky.

 

[Frk It]

Miller has 2 goals, as many as Tatar, Sheahan, Zetterberg and Abdelkader COMBINED.

Glendening has 4 points, as many as Larkin and Zetterberg and good for 6th on the team.

Improve the 4th line and it's no longer our 4th line. Talking about putting Helm on the 4th line... why in the world would we put perhaps our best forward so far on the 4th line??? That's insane. Now bumping up Glendening to the 3rd line and increasing their icetime, and putting together something like Miller-Ott-Larkin on the 4th line, that may be an idea worth testing.

Tell me where I said we should put Helm on the 4th line. I said he used to be there, to point out the quality of players we used to be putting on that line.

That's great Miller has 2 lucky goals this season. He has 6 goals in his last 110 games before that. His offense is non-existent. Also I said Glendening is the one guy I'd keep on our 4th line and build around.

 

[HockeyinHD]

Just as you did. This is nothing like holding a 17 or hitting on an 18.

Except it is.

But there's no certainty in arguing that the team might've been better off trading or not trading for guys like Legwand, Cole and Zidlicky.

"Better off".

 

[HockeyinHD]

Bench's point was "how should we TRY" to measure them.

As far as trying, hey, whatever people want to do is fine. My point here is that chasing advanced stats in hockey is going to be like chasing Bigfoot because there's too much static in the signal.

Best case scenario, I think there may be some fairly good advanced stats on goaltenders vs {series of variables}. We're seeing a little bit of it with the save percentage by zone, although even that is pretty rough and unrefined as it doesn't include goalie movement to save position, shot velocity, distance, visual impairment, shot deflection, rotation, trajectory, etc. But, anyway, I think there's a path to relevance there. That's about it.

 

[BinCookin]

As far as trying, hey, whatever people want to do is fine. My point here is that chasing advanced stats in hockey is going to be like chasing Bigfoot because there's too much static in the signal.

Best case scenario, I think there may be some fairly good advanced stats on goaltenders vs {series of variables}. We're seeing a little bit of it with the save percentage by zone, although even that is pretty rough and unrefined as it doesn't include goalie movement to save position, shot velocity, distance, visual impairment, shot deflection, rotation, trajectory, etc. But, anyway, I think there's a path to relevance there. That's about it.

Did you even read my post? Im not trying to develop a new advanced stat, im trying to count 3 things.
Yes there are a million confounding variables. I am not trying to say "the numerical results" will imply anything. But it should be pretty clear that if our 4th line gives up 33 Chances against and creates 1 FOR. And dividing by ice time thats massively worse than all other lines... AND this corresponds with more actual goals against... its not really an advanced stat. It would be a simple stat!

1) GF//GA when 4th line is on the ice at ES (5on5)

2) Count scoring chances. I think they count these. (you can count how many scoring chances our 4th line gives up, this will help define if they are giving up perimeter shots, or REAL chances)

3) Count 4th line penalties drawn vs taken.

Let me simply state. I WILL COUNT ALL THIS... if someone shows me HOW to!!!

IF our 4th line is a ****** as some people think... these numbers will prove it.

 

[Frk It]

Did you even read my post? Im not trying to develop a new advanced stat, im trying to count 3 things.

1) GF//GA when 4th line is on the ice at ES (5on5)

2) Count scoring chances. I think they count these. (you can count how many scoring chances our 4th line gives up, this will help define if they are giving up perimeter shots, or REAL chances)

3) Count 4th line penalties drawn vs taken.

Let me simply state. I WILL COUNT ALL THIS... if someone shows me HOW to!!!

IF our 4th line is a ****** as some people think... these numbers will prove it.

This should give you most of what you're looking for:

http://www.corsica.hockey/combos/

 

[BinCookin]

This should give you most of what you're looking for:

http://www.corsica.hockey/combos/

Thanks Frk it.

Looking at this site: They have xGF / xGA decimal places. (what is this? - according to glossary it means x=expected (estimated from Corsi im sure))

But GF GA is at 0?

How can i find just GF and GA from this line's 40.33 Min of Ice time.

 

[Frk It]

Thanks Frk it.

Looking at this site: They have xGF / xGA decimal places. (what is this? - according to glossary it means x=expected (estimated from Corsi im sure))

But GF GA is at 0?

How can i find just GF and GA from this line's 40.33 Min of Ice time.

That's supposed to be what that GF and GA column gives you. I know that Ott and Glendening have 0 goals. Miller has 2, but maybe those 2 goals were with different linemates????

 

[Winger98]

Tell me where I said we should put Helm on the 4th line. I said he used to be there, to point out the quality of players we used to be putting on that line.

That's great Miller has 2 lucky goals this season. He has 6 goals in his last 110 games before that. His offense is non-existent. Also I said Glendening is the one guy I'd keep on our 4th line and build around.

He's referring to me Re: Helm on the fourth line. I'd be fine putting him back there, but the moment I saw one post arguing that Helm-Gator-GLendening isn't that different from OMG and then another saying Helm is our best player...well, kinda pointless to argue.

 

[BinCookin]

That's supposed to be what that GF and GA column gives you. I know that Ott and Glendening have 0 goals. Miller has 2, but maybe those 2 goals were with different linemates????

Ive tried different line mates. I also know glendening has 4 assists, so he had to pass to someone.

LOL.

Maybe data isnt uploaded until a line has some sort of minimal threshold

OK so according to this site:

our OMG 4th line has scored 0 Goals, and also allowed 0 Goals. (Perfect defensively, Inept offensively)

They have 8 Scoring chances for, 7 scoring chances against. (They are being outshot, but apparently are roughly even on scoring chances) (in similar ice time 39min vs 40 min) (Nyquist-Neilsen-Larkin have 5 Scoringg chancs for, and 5 against, also even) This generally implies they are not givingg up more scoring chances than other lines as would be expected " " by the shots. This does imply they are giving up more "useless" shots.

OMG line also +2 penalties drawn vs taken

Meanwhile Larkin line is even; Helm line -2.

I cant find PENT/PEND stats for some reason (penalties taken/drawn) just the differential..

Anyway these numbers "SO FAR" imply the line is

1) Has let in NO goals against
2) Has 8-7 ratio in scoring chances
3) Has +2 powerplays for the team as a total.

This does not sound like the worst line in all of hockey.

Realize I understand that this line in fact never tries to shoot on the opponents net much, and lets lots of shots on our net. But scoring chances are not in line with that, implying they are letting up "more NON-scoring chance shots"
To which i would say.... "Who cares"

 

[Frk It]

He's referring to me Re: Helm on the fourth line. I'd be fine putting him back there, but the moment I saw one post arguing that Helm-Gator-GLendening isn't that different from OMG and then another saying Helm is our best player...well, kinda pointless to argue.

My mistake.

What was our 4th line in 08 when we won the Cup? Does anyone remember?

 

[Cyborg Yzerberg]

My mistake.

What was our 4th line in 08 when we won the Cup? Does anyone remember?

Woah boy, okay, lemme give it a shot.

Drake-Draper-Maltby
McCarty

That sounds right to me.

 

[ap3x]

Iirc, they ended it with Hudler-Helm-McCarty.

 

[izlez]

Waiving Ott or miller is in fact a no brainer. That is the worse line in all of the NHL and the statistics prove it. There was an article on TSN on this very line today.


http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/a...cary-a-look-at-the-nhl-s-best-and-worst-lines

Imma go out on a limb and say that Beleskey-Nash-Hayes might be worse.

0G 0A -7
0G 0A -2
0G 0A -7

really doesn't sound all too good to me.... but hey, advanced stats!

 

[HockeyinHD]

IF our 4th line is a ****** as some people think... these numbers will prove it.

No, not really. All it will show is the numerical results for one 4th line of one team. It won't rank them among all 4th lines, it won't allow for role or team expectation, it won't allow for situation, none of that. You'll have a sequence of numbers.

Some 4th lines are used against scoring lines. Some are snuck out there so the top 9 can steal a breather. Some are sent out to try and hit. Some are sent out to score a little. Some are sent out to prevent scoring at all costs.

That's why an attempt at highly precise stats in hockey is a fun pastime, but unlikely to amount to anything particularly illuminating.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Imma go out on a limb and say that Beleskey-Nash-Hayes might be worse.

0G 0A -7
0G 0A -2
0G 0A -7

really doesn't sound all too good to me.... but hey, advanced stats!

Who cares if a line is getting scored on all the time, as long as they have solid advanced stats right?

 

[BinCookin]

No, not really. All it will show is the numerical results for one 4th line of one team. It won't rank them among all 4th lines, it won't allow for role or team expectation, it won't allow for situation, none of that. You'll have a sequence of numbers.

Some 4th lines are used against scoring lines. Some are snuck out there so the top 9 can steal a breather. Some are sent out to try and hit. Some are sent out to score a little. Some are sent out to prevent scoring at all costs.

That's why an attempt at highly precise stats in hockey is a fun pastime, but unlikely to amount to anything particularly illuminating.

I understand your point. But IF we had a 4th line used as a "shutdown" line vs TOP lines.

AND IF they are being outshot horribly.

They SHOULD be being out chanced hard, and outscored hard right?

I am not trying to measure anything complicated here LOL.