pokey10
Neat
Easy to quantify points.
/thread It would avoid trying to vote on vague opinionated points.
Easy to quantify points.
This^. If you make it to your offensive zone as a dman, it shows you did your job on the backend. Putting up points is just a bonus.Because playing in the offensive zone more than the defensive zone is actually a very underrated defensive attribute on HF.
Congrats. You're half way there.I'm trying to find where I mentionned the word "winning", but I can't.
"Rel" is "Relative to his team".
Because certain stats - such as CF, GF, +/-, xGF, etc. - are also driven by how your teammates play and also by the team's system (coaching)? Because of how these teams play, using CF% as an example, the same player is more likely to have a higher CF% on a team like Carolina, Boston or Tampa than on a team like Anaheim, Washington (under Trotz at least) or NYR.Congrats. You're half way there.
On what planet does comparing your stats/performance/metrics to your team, aka your stats relative to your team, "remove" the effect your team has on those stats? How can using your team as a benchmark, mean that your team has no effect? Do you not see how completely absurd that notion is?
Because certain stats - such as CF, GF, +/-, xGF, etc. - are also driven by how your teammates play and also by the team's system (coaching)? Because of how these teams play, using CF% as an example, the same player is more likely to have a higher CF% on a team like Carolina, Boston or Tampa than on a team like Anaheim, Washington (under Trotz at least) or NYR.
It's the same reason people use era-adjusted stats, because scoring 50 goals if the scoring rate is 6 goals/game is not as good as scoring 30 goals when the scoring rate is 3 goals/game in the league. In that case, you remove a league wide effect.
Also, I suggest that you re-read my post, because I did not say it removes a team's effect completely because combinatory effects do exist - but it does a good job at removing most of the individual effect a team might have on a stat.
How can the opponent be less likely to score a goalie if he was on the ice for more goals than anyone else
Sorry for the ugly graph, but I don't want to do an ANOVA or anything on that because it's clear that teams do have an effect regarding CF% (probably the same for +/-, GF%, xGF%, etc.).
If you remove that, you partly eliminate one of the many sources of bias on how good a player is and get closer to how beneficial he is to his team. Does it eliminate all the other sources? Nope, but it's a start, and the easiest to remove. Do you completely remove the effect of teams by using rel stats? No, because, as I said, combinatory effects also exist (the effect of a player is different from the effect of a team which both are different from the effect of a player and the team combined)
For Karlsson, I saw you mentionned his terrible GA last season. But, he also happened to have one of the best RelGF% in the league, which means that when he's on the ice, his team was more likely to score and/or the opponent is less likely to score.
I suggest that you read on this very useful statistical tool called ANOVA.Based on what? How can you possibly make this claim?
Logically, a good corsi rel would actually be easier to achieve on a bad team.
But, end result, it's not an accurate reflection of a player on one team being better than a player on another.
If you are referring to my last sentence, to clarify, it just means that the ratio GF/GA for the Sens went up when Karlsson was on the ice compared to when he was not.How can the opponent be less likely to score a goalie if he was on the ice for more goals than anyone else
Stopping pucks is the goalies job, sans last-ditch efforts by defenders e.g. Faulk (?) the other night. Preventing scoring chances isn't even the sole job for defensemen anymore, except in extreme cases.
Overall impact is IMO the bottomline. If Brent Burns is directly involved in 76 goals, for another player have a greater positive impact, that player would probably have to be elite in either defense/offense and very good in the other.
Sorry for the ugly graph, but I don't want to do an ANOVA or anything on that because it's clear that teams do have an effect regarding CF% (probably the same for +/-, GF%, xGF%, etc.).
If you remove that, you partly eliminate one of the many sources of bias on how good a player is and get closer to how beneficial he is to his team. Does it eliminate all the other sources? Nope, but it's a start, and the easiest to remove. Do you completely remove the effect of teams by using rel stats? No, because, as I said, combinatory effects also exist (the effect of a player is different from the effect of a team which both are different from the effect of a player and the team combined)
For Karlsson, I saw you mentionned his terrible GA last season. But, he also happened to have one of the best RelGF% in the league, which means that when he's on the ice, his team was more likely to score and/or the opponent is less likely to score.
I did not look at other seasons, that is true. I mostly picked that because I wanted to get back on topic a little. That being said, if people are saying "unlucky", then they clearly don't know PDO is real.Bingo, and I think just about everyone agrees with this--offensive impacts are relatively easy to account for. It's defensive impacts that have been the question.
Ok so EK has had more years as one of the worst relGF% relative to team than he has as the opposite. Even relative to the Sens, they were bleeding goals with him on the ice to the extent that his overwhelming offense didn't supersede his terrible ("unlucky" because of on-ice save percentages repeatedly) on-ice impact on goals against. What you're citing is an outlier year--so if we follow your argument to its logical conclusion...
The real problem is people pick and choose which relative stats to run with and then make excuses for the others.
I did not look at other seasons, that is true. I mostly picked that because I wanted to get back on topic a little. That being said, if people are saying "unlucky", then they clearly don't know PDO is real.
So use Corsi or +/- instead of points.
Is that what you think?Because playing in the offensive zone more than the defensive zone is actually a very underrated defensive attribute on HF.
Corsi is the most overrated stat there is. It is not a defensive stat.So use Corsi or +/- instead of points.
Sorry but advanced stats really aren't that accurate.They actually aren't easy to understand well. What's apparent to me is that most people here who think they understand advanced statistics don't, at least not well. The interpretation of these advanced stats are often problematic.
Leaves a lot of room for interpretation!The Norris Trophy, as described by the league, is awarded to the "defense player who throughout the season demonstrates the greatest all around ability in the position." So pretty much every candidate would have to have impressive point totals no?
Dont really see the big deal
Indeed. The whole point of the analytics field is to dig into the data we can collect to find a way to explain who best contributes to goal differential for their team while on the ice. Not that we have anything close to being precise yet, but that's the general idea.True but if your on the ice for more goals against compared to how many your on the ice for goals scored than your not really helping your team win.
There really isnt much room actually. That guy you described doesnt have all around skill. Just defensive skill. So that player going up against someone who does all of that, AND STILL gets pp time and points is always going to get beat out.Leaves a lot of room for interpretation!
For example, A guy who blocks shots,clears the crease ,hits,doesn't get beat off the rush,kills penalties , makes an accurate exit pass but does not get PP time or spend much time in the O Zone ...meaning doesn't rack up the points will never be considered for the Norris.
Odd that a Selke award is given out though! Perhaps they should come up with a separate award for offensive Dman?