Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: This Week In GIFs

Introducing Zone Hit Ratio: A New Dial on the Truculometer

Editor's Note: JP Nikota takes a crack at developing a tool to determine how much pressure each team's defensive corps faces. Pretty neat stuff.

class="photo"

There has been a lot of debate recently about the difficulties of measuring defensive capabilities using statistics, as many statistics rely on goal scoring as a unit of measurement. Although some stats, such as Corsi or Fenwick numbers use shot attempts to measure the flow of the game, rather than a team's ability to score, they still are essentially offence-driven numbers created for the purposes of measuring a goalie's workload.

Zone Hit Ratio (ZHR) is my own attempt to focus entirely on the defensive side of a team's game in the hopes of isolating some of the fine checking work done by many low-scoring defensemen such as Mike Komisarek or Luke Schenn.

Star-divide

What I have done is to break down every hit in every game by zone - defensive, neutral, or offensive - to see where a team does most of its dirty work. (Yes, that's right, I'm crazy. Download the Google Docs version yourself if you're curious.) To come up with the number, I added the number of hits administered by a team in its own zone to the number of hits they receive in their own zone; this number is divided by the sum of the number of hits administered in the offensive zone and the number of hits received in the offensive zone. The formula: 

(Team Defensive Zone Hits + Opposition Offensive Zone Hits)

________________________________________________     = ZHR

(Team Offensive Zone Hits + Opposition Defensive Zone Hits) 

 

If a team has a high ZHR, that means that their defensemen are probably under a lot more pressure than a team that has a lower ZHR. A lower ZHR suggests that more challenges for the puck take place in the offensive zone than in the defensive zone. Note that I have entirely excluded neutral zone hits in this equation.

This means that if a team has a ZHR of less than 1, they hit more often in the offensive zone than in the defensive zone. If the number is greater than 1, the team delivers more of its hits in its own end than in their opponents'.

Incidentally, the league average ZHR is 1.008, and therefore, any team with a ZHR under that number does more hitting than most in the offensive zone. If a team is over 1.008, they challenge for pucks more often than most in the defensive zone.

At this point, I need to stress that ZHR is, at best, a complimentary statistic to evaluating defensive workload. Complimentary, that is, not just to actually watching a team, but also to other stats that exist already. Furthermore, ZHR does not in any way measure defensive capabilities, and assumes that all hits are made with equal effectiveness, which of course is not the case. It is merely a game-flow indicator that uses hitting as a way of tracking puck contestations. That is, since only the puck carrier (or a very recent puck carrier) can be hit, ZHR is a useful way of keeping track of how often a team has to challenge for the puck in its own zone or in its opponents' respective zones.

Another aspect of this statistic to consider is that different strategic systems commonly used by teams to score, such as dump-and-chase, puck-cycling, or scoring off the rush, may affect ZHR numbers more than the players within the systems. For example, a team that scores more goals off the rush might rely more heavily on its defensemen to maintain or recover puck possession than a team that often employs the dump-and-chase system.

Coupling the ZHR number with the team's goals-against average gives us an interesting perspective. If a team with a high goals-against average has a low ZHR number, this suggests that the team's defense is relatively porous, compared to a team with the same goals against average, but a higher ZHR. Of course, maybe the team plays in front of Vesa Toskala, in which case, your boat is sunk anyway, but that's a whole post unto itself. The point is, by combining ZHR with other goal-scoring/prevention based numbers, it's possible to begin assessing defensive capabilities, but I'm not going to do that here.

It is important to note that some of these teams' ZHR numbers will change relatively drastically as the season advances, since we are dealing with a small sample size. I have studied every game played up to and including the games on the night of October 26th.  The average ZHR number will likely stay roughly the same, since it is the result of studying 239 team games. Individual team numbers, however, may very well fluctuate, since most teams have only played eight games at this point in the season. In short, the sample size is too small to draw too many conclusions.

A few observations on the data:

The standard deviation for all teams' ZHR is 0.142, which means that most teams are within two standard deviations of the average.

Nashville has a very high ZHR, while Pittsburgh's is quite low. That said, both teams are still not much more than two standard deviations from the mean. Also, since we're dealing with small sample sizes at the team level, these numbers could still regress towards the mean.

As you can see, the Leafs actually hit slightly more often in the offensive zone, which suggests that the Leafs' defense may not be under as much pressure as the average team's on a night-to-night basis. It also means that despite having a very small forward corps, the forwards are carrying their weight with regards to hitting.

Montréal's defense, on the other hand, does a LOT of hitting for their team. In terms of hitting, having runty forwards does affect the workload of their defensemen. Interesting to note that so far, they've had the same amount of success as the Leafs in terms of W's and L's.

Note that all information on hits is from www.nhl.com. Also, many thanks and stick taps to my girlfriend and fellow PPPer Miss Fox, who helped me sort out standard deviation. 

PensionPlanPuppets.com is a fan community that allows members to post their own thoughts and opinions on the Toronto Maple Leafs and hockey in general. These views and thoughts may not be shared by the editor of PensionPlanPuppets.com.

Comment 119 comments  |  4 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Very interesting. Do the Preds have tiny forwards? Propensity to hit obviously is an issue—since Mtl’s Fs will rarely hit, that will boost their ZHR even if they are in the O zone a lot. Meanwhile NSH and MTL’s D strike me as getting in more than their share of hits even if they aren’t in their end much. And I’m guessing Ottawa’s ZHR is very low because even though they are in their end a lot their D (other than Phillips) are not at all physical.

"That’s why stats are so important – anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about history." - Bower Power

by The '67 Sound on Oct 27, 2010 2:30 PM EDT reply actions  

Incidentally, the league average ZHR is 1.008

Shouldn’t it be 1?

Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.

by Chemmy on Oct 27, 2010 2:36 PM EDT reply actions  

median vs mean issue?

Rule #20

by JaredFromLondon on Oct 27, 2010 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

No.

Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.

by Chemmy on Oct 27, 2010 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

what if you carry the 1?

Rule #20

by JaredFromLondon on Oct 27, 2010 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

As a non-math person, that kinda just blew my mind.

by Shield on Oct 27, 2010 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

It would be if you divided the rink into two zones, But because he is dividing into 3 zones and dropping the neutral zone from the equation wouldn’t that account for some possible imbalance?

by JohnnyG on Oct 27, 2010 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

No.

I’m doing some math and getting an average of 1.060 for my test case with no real numbers and assuming that if there are two teams: A and B an offensive hit for A is a defensive hit for B.

His math looks right, not sure why though.

Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.

by Chemmy on Oct 27, 2010 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

The entire game isn’t played in the offensive or defensive zones.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Oct 27, 2010 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

But since we ignore all neutral zone hits they don’t count for or against.

Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.

by Chemmy on Oct 27, 2010 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

/shrug

I thought it should be one at first too. Whatevs.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Oct 27, 2010 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don’t think J.P.’s math is wrong, I can reliably get non 1 summations for four teams playing each other once.

I’m just trying to figure out why and what that means now.

Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.

by Chemmy on Oct 27, 2010 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, shouldn’t the entire sum of the season for the league add up to 1?

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Oct 27, 2010 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

No.

Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.

by Chemmy on Oct 27, 2010 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

I understand in my head why it shouldn’t be 1, but I’m having a hard time verbalizing it. Gimme a second.

Great stuff though, JP.

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Oct 27, 2010 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think I’m there too. It’s because it’s a non-weighted average.

Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.

by Chemmy on Oct 27, 2010 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Exactly. If team A is playing team B, and team A’s ZHR is 1.2, that doesn’t mean Team B’s ZHR needs to be 0.8

The team’s will have different denominators in their ratio calculation depending on how the hits are distributed (although they could be the same), and the ratio is only a reflection of that team’s distribution of hits versus their opponent.

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Oct 27, 2010 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

More succintly:

3/1 + 1/3 divided by 2 isn’t 1.

Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.

by Chemmy on Oct 27, 2010 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

yes.

can we agree though that if one team is >1 in a game, the other team has to be <1?

i think i’m confusing myself here.

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Oct 27, 2010 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

wait, that’s wrong. Team A’s offensive zone hits does not have to equal Team B’s defensive zone hits.

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Oct 27, 2010 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

that’s what got me as well.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Oct 27, 2010 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

I was thinking I misinterpreted that too.

Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.

by Chemmy on Oct 27, 2010 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Thanks, daoust.

Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?

by JP Nikota on Oct 27, 2010 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

I would assume it is because he rounded every team’s ZHR to three digits. That probably would account for a small loss in accuracy.

by Terras on Oct 27, 2010 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

I’m not rounding and I can reproduce the average not being 1.

Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.

by Chemmy on Oct 27, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Welcome

Thanks for joining.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.

by PPP on Oct 28, 2010 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

No because all four factors: TOH, TDH, OOH, and ODH are independent of one another.

Certified Grabbo Lover

by SkinnyFish on Oct 27, 2010 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

what about JOD, THY and ILM?

Rule #20

by JaredFromLondon on Oct 27, 2010 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

I thought TOD and ODH were equal, not just hits the team gave.

Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.

by Chemmy on Oct 27, 2010 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Nope, just hits delivered; not received. For example, these are the numbers for the 1st Montreal-Toronto Game:
MTL: DZ – 13, OZ – 16
TOR: DZ – 11, OZ – 14

So if you wanted to calculated ZHR for Toronto for that game it’d be:
(11+16) / (14+13) = 27/27 = 1; meaning it was a pretty even game and the score showed that.

But for the Ottawa game they were
OTT: DZ – 15, OZ – 12
TOR: DZ – 17, OZ – 17
ZHR = (17+12) / (17+15) = 29/32 = 0.906; which would mean Toronto carried the play and they did with a 5-1 score.

Hmmm but the more I think about it, every game taken together from both sides should average out to 1…..

Wait I got it. The reason for the discrepancy, ZHR league wide not being 1, is that all teams have not played the same number of games and therefore the weighting in his overall average is slightly off as technically Boston’s average ZHR (6 games played) should count less than Chicago’s average ZHR (10 games played). I’m guessing his league average was calculated by using the teams’ averages and not the summation of the game by game averages.

Certified Grabbo Lover

by SkinnyFish on Oct 27, 2010 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

OTT: DZ – 15, OZ – 12
TOR: DZ – 17, OZ – 17
ZHR = (17+12) / (17+15) = 29/32 = 0.906;

And from Ottawa’s perspective
ZHR = (15+17)/(17+12)=32/29 = 1.1034

add those together and you get
(29/32)+(32/29)=2.009698275

As Chemmy says 3/2 +2/3 !=2

It’s counter-intuitive. There’s a hydraulic relationship where one going up makes the other go down, but it’s not a perfect 1:1 relationship, so that makes the numbers slightly less beautiful.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well shit. I hated statistics in college.

Certified Grabbo Lover

by SkinnyFish on Oct 27, 2010 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

It would have to be zero sum

for a perfect 1 ratoi. You’d have to factor in hits recieved and hits delievered… since we don’t do the former, it doesn’t work out that way.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Nope.

Taking the numbers from the game above we have these numbers:

(29/32)+(32/29)=2.009698275

Now if you calculate it as a “league as a whole” the way you’re thinking of you would get

(Toronto’s O + Ottawa’s D) / (Toronto’s D + Ottawa’s O)
or
( (29/32)+(32/29) ) / (32/29 + (29/32) )
Which would have to equal one… because it doesn’t matter which order you add the same two numbers in the numerator… But this is a different operation

Symbolically
(A / B) + (B / A) != ( (A+B) / (B+A) )

And now my head hurts.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's what I was saying

you’re agreeing with me.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hmm

and (A/B) + (B/A) = (A^2 + B^2)/AB

which is why it’s not 1.0

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

or in trigonometric terms

tan x + cot x = hyp/AB

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

woops

that’s hyp^2, not hyp.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

LOL. For some reason my brain just does not process trig. I get by with algebra, I even picked up a little calculus but when it gets to trig it melts and flows out my ear.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

well

think of it this way.. if the two numbers are sides of a right triangle, then the team that has the largest “angle” is most dominant from a zone perspective.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also

if you multiply a team’s tangent + cotangent by the multiplied value of all their offensive zone and defensive zone hits, you know how physical the games are generally in are…. but this is excessive.

I’m going to entertain myself with it now.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ah, that makes a lot more sense, though I would have to think about it pretty seriously to really figure it out beyond just sounding intuitively plausible.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

draw it on a napkin

it’s just a graphical representation of what we’re talking about.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

But this would involve, y’know, effort and stuff ;)

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

This discussion needs moar Lady Gaga!

This space for rent...

by fair_n_hite_451 on Oct 27, 2010 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

I want your love and I want your cotan, you and me could have a bad statmance…

eh…

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

This is the best explanation.

I don’t think it’s counter-intuitive at all, there just isn’t a reason for the league-wide average to be 1. The big hint for me: the same stats going in both the numerator and denominator makes it very unlikely for it to be zero-sum.

Consider a two team league of one game and it should be simple enough to construct any number of counterexamples. (I used TOR: DZ – 5, OZ – 20 and OTT: DZ – 10, OZ – 10 to give ZHR = 2 and ZHR = 1/2).

In fact, here’s a theorem:
1) The league-wide average can’t be less than 1. Every game must have an average ZHR of at least 1 since (h + 1/h) >= 2 (ask me again if you don’t believe me). (This part is sketchy:) I think the league-wide average is at least a weighted average of the average for every game, so the league-wide average must be at least 1. I might spend a few minutes to show this more rigorously.

President of the "Please don't use 'Oaf' as a derogatory term" club.

by Oafijev on Oct 27, 2010 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

If you just consider fractions:
1/1, 2/1, 3/1, 4/1
As the numerator goes up, the value of the fraction goes up in a direct linear way. It would be a straight line sloping upwards if you plotted it.

Now flip them upside down:
1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4
You have a non-linear relationship: It starts off decreasing fast, then bends to an asymptope at zero (the difference between 1/2 and 1/3 is big. The difference between 1/99 and 1/100 is small).

You try and add a bendy line to a straight line, and you’re never going to get a constant (like 1) as the answer.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Don’t worry, I wasn’t quizzing you. :) I was just skipping steps. I figured anyone who may not believe that step is capable of proving it for themselves.

President of the "Please don't use 'Oaf' as a derogatory term" club.

by Oafijev on Oct 27, 2010 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

The answer is: it depends how the league-wide average is calculated. If you calculate the ZHRs for every game and then average the result over all games, it must be at least 1 as I stated above. If you calculate the average ZHR for every team and then average the average ZHRs for every team (which is what I think was done here), then it is possible to have a league-wide average less than 1 (I can construct a counter-example).

President of the "Please don't use 'Oaf' as a derogatory term" club.

by Oafijev on Oct 27, 2010 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

Anyway we can get the CORSI numbers from this game to see if they agree with the ZHR.

by schennsational on Oct 27, 2010 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

No

because you aren’t including hits received. It isn’t like goals for and against, which are zero sum.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

hmm, nope.

An average ZHR of 1 would suggest that the league overall has an even amount of hits in the offensive and the defensive zones. The fact is, that overall, the league has slightly more hits in the defensive zone than in the offensive zone.

by Miss Fox on Oct 27, 2010 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

I’m new to the game of advanced statistics so CORSI, Fenwick and some of these numbers don’t fully compute for me yet as far as their meaning. What I have gathered though is that CORSI and Fenwick use shots as an indicator for flow of play. If indeed this is the case i would argue that this stat would also be best served as an indicator of flow of play using hit srather than shots. What the ratio gives you is the ratio of hits at one teams end of the ice to the other teams end.

e,g. Hits in Leafs end : Hits in inferior teams end

In my mind a number above one indicates that the puck is in that teams end more than the other teams end. In this case a lower number would be better would it not?

by schennsational on Oct 27, 2010 3:34 PM EDT reply actions  

Yes

That is exactly right.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.

by PPP on Oct 27, 2010 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

Wouldn't a ZHR of 1.000 be very good?

I mean… it means the team hits everything no matter where is.

by Learn2Leaf on Oct 27, 2010 3:41 PM EDT reply actions  

not really, ideally you never want the puck in your end

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Oct 27, 2010 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

A ZHR of 1.000 means you get hit as much as you hit, so really there is no advantage.

Certified Grabbo Lover

by SkinnyFish on Oct 27, 2010 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

Does a ZHR of 1.000 not mean that there are an equal number of hits happening in both ends of the ice?

Team D Hits + Opposition O Hits ( Hits in own end)
-—————————————————————————————————-
Team O hits + Opposition D hits ( Hits in other end)

by schennsational on Oct 27, 2010 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

pretty much.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Oct 27, 2010 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Interesting stuff. On an unrelated note, I’m just happy that, for the first time maybe ever, the current Northeast Division standings basically reflect the approximate order of awesomeness of cities with Northeast Division franchises.

Overtime loss: The new black.

by Varry Galk on Oct 27, 2010 4:06 PM EDT reply actions  

It’s uncanny, no.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

1) Of COURSE most teams will be within 2 standard deviations. In fact, 95% of teams will be within 2. In any given normal distribution (which we assume we have here) +/- 1 standard deviation is the range in which 66% of scores will fall, and 1.96 standard deviations is the range in which 95% of scores will fall.

2)

since we’re dealing with small sample sizes at the team level, these numbers could still regress towards the mean.

Well, those 2 team’s numbers might regress to the mean, but some other team would take their place. RttM only happens when you cherry pick extreme scores from one sample, and then look at how those same people score in another independent samples. They tend to regress not because everyone always moves towards the mean, but because people move randomly up and down all the time, and so picking the most extreme teams tends to pick people at their random high or low point.

3)

This means that if a team has a ZHR of less than 1, they hit more often in the offensive zone than in the defensive zone.

No it doesn’t. If their ZHR is less than 1 it means that there is more HITTING IN GENERAL happening in their offensive zone than their defensive zone. It could be that they are doing more hitting (generating pressure to keep the puck in and recover turnovers after shots or bad passes or dump ins), or that the other team is hitting THEM more in the offensive zone (perhaps because they like to dangle a lot, or they play a strong puck possession game, or something). Vice versa for the defensive zone. It could be a measure of their team beating up on offensive forwards, or of opposing forwards pressuring their defense).

In fact, it seems like the really interesting thing to do would be to control for time of possession within a given zone. If Toronto spends all game in the Sens end, then all the game’s hitting is going to happen there, and virtually nil in the sens end. In this situation ZHR is just a poor proxy for time of possession, which we already have, right?

So perhaps a more interesting stat would be to look ONLY at the hits dished by a team (not its opponents), and to divide this by the time in each zone.
So then what you’d get is

Toronto’s: (O zone hits / time in the O zone) / (D zone hits / time in D zone)

This tells you whether Toronto is more aggressive hitting people at which end of the ice.

So the team-specific measure (not counting hits from the other team) might tell you more about how aggressive a particular team is in the two zones, while the ZHR (adjusted for time in each zone) would tell you how chippy the general style of play is in each zone. Not sure which would be more interesting… ZHR is harder to interpret but may or may not end up being more useful.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 4:11 PM EDT reply actions  

Actually
Toronto’s: (O zone hits / time in the O zone) / (D zone hits / time in D zone)

This tells you whether Toronto is more aggressive hitting people at which end of the ice.

No it doesn’t, because it’s still a ratio. It doesn’t tell you whether they’re more aggressive than anyone other than themselves .There’s no team comparison going on there.

I think part of the problem is trying to combine multiple statistics into one stat here. Based on your concept a team that delivers 2 hits in 10 seconds in it’s own end, and 20 hits in 100 seconds in the other team’s end, will have a ratio of 1, which implies they’re equally prone to contact at each end of the ice.. I’m exaggerating for effect here.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

to wit

0.2 hits per second/0.2 hits per second = 1(with no units, so we might as well be talking about Radians here).

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don’t get what you are saying. 2 hits in 10 seconds probably IS a lot like 20 hits in 100 seconds. The aim of this measure isn’t to tell you which team lays more hits than the other team, or which end of the ice the puck was in more (indeed, it goes to great lengths to REMOVE that information). Instead it tells you whether their offensive zone or their defensive zone is a more unfriendly place to be as an opposing player. And that tells you something about their overall style of play.

Oh wait… Perhaps what all this is about is that the NHL doesn’t keep track of the time that the puck spends in each zone? And so that leaves us finding all the stats that they do track per zone (shots, faceoffs, hits), and trying to use them to guess how much time teams are spending there? In that case, why not make one composite index of all the counting stats that are reported by zone, and toy with different weightings of them to see which best predicts overall winning?

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

You mean

regression analysis? Because if I was an NHL owner, I would just go out and pay big money to a university research team to do just that. It could be done, but I think we lack the expertise to do it ourselves.

Obviously the most important factors are goal scoring, and goal prevention… getting deeper into those sides of things is what we’re trying to do.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

I am a university researcher ;)

Would a simple regression be enough to optimize it? It would tell you how much each is associated, and presumably it might be optimal to weight them in proportion to their overall relationship… but that’s an assumption. Regression isn’t really designed for how to optimize multivariate things, especially when they get interactive… it seems like you might want to do some much higher powered modelling with some serious calculus. There are guys who do this stuff, but not my cup of tea.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

If you can separate out the factors

as slices in time, and determine impacts on outcomes, then it helps… but I’m not sure how rates of change or vector analysis does much for you with the level of info we have here.

I don’t get the feeling that it’s a dynamic system we can control with enough ability to figure out in that fashion.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

well it’s definitely a dynamic system… the problem is that our data isn’t very good ;) If we had a big database that listed minute by minute who was on the ice with who and when each shot took place, and how good a chance it was, then you could start doing some fancy time series modelling of the probability of a goal being scored for or against in any given minute with any given combination of players on the ice… and then you would do some multi-level modelling in which you’d feed in information about player’s height, weight, speed, shot accuracy, time to release a shot (which you’d have to measure in hundredths of a second from some other source of data), etc… In fact if you could measure all the physical stuff for a player and use that to predict outcomes well, then look for interactions between them (e.g., does it help extra to be big AND fast beyond just the contributions either of them make), and you could even look at the residual for each player and use that as an index of their “intangibles” (sort of the hockey equivalent of a Tobin’s q)… yeah, given enough data of the right types, and enough time to study up on the stats techniques and a few months to build a really good model you cold probably get some very high powered results.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah

and despite how many articles the star writes about Wilson creating databases I’m not getting the impression that is what’s going on… at least not to a fine enough degree to make a huge difference statistically in terms of results.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

The non ratio of 1 thing

the more I think about it is a problem.

Theoretically the average should equal (All NHL offensive zone hits)/(All NHL defensive zone hits) which should be equal, since the two numbers are the same thing…. I’m incorrect above…. if they aren’t 1 it’s a rounding error probably.

I take back what I said before, it IS (or should be) zero sum.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:12 PM EDT reply actions  

nope, you were right above.

toronto’s dzone hits given does not equal their oppositions o-zone hits given. it would equal their oppositions o-zone hits received, which this stat does not incorporate.

should not be zero sum!!

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Oct 27, 2010 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

for the entire league

it should be though… all o-zone hits /all d-zone hits should be 1… because all o-zone hits ARE d-zone hits for the other team… it’s a rounding error.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

are they? Thinking out loud here: an offensive zone hit for the Leafs is not a defensive zone hit for Ottawa. One is a hit given, the other is a hit received.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Oct 27, 2010 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

right, which is what i said, and what steve said originally too!

look at the example above – Toronto had 34 hits total, Ottawa had 27 hits total. If it was zero sum, they’d have to be the same number.

Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.

by daoust on Oct 27, 2010 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

As I say elsewhere, it’s only zero sum if you do a different calculation:

A = Toronto’s O zone hits
B = Ottawa’s D zone hits
C = Toronto’s D zone hits
D = Ottawa’s O zone hits

ZHR = (A+B)/(C+D)
ZHR = (C+D)/(A+B)

For the league as a whole you could do something like this
( (A+B) + (C+D) ) / ( (C+D) + (A+B) )
which reduces to
(A + B + C + D) / (A + B + C + D) = 1

But that’s NOT the same thing as

((C+D)/(A+B)) + ((A+B)/(C+D))
To do the algebra here you’d have to put them over a common denominator
( (C+D)*(C+D) / (A+B)(C+D) ) / ( (A+B)(A+B) / (A+B)(C+D) )
which simplifies to
( (A+B)^2 + (C+D)^2) / (A+B)(C+D) )
You could start multiplying out those terms, but you’d be left with a lot of ugly quadratic stuff… Which would not be certain, I’m pretty sure, to have to tidily come out as being =1.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

ZHR = (A+B)/(C+D)
ZHR = (C+D)/(A+B)

Correction:

ZHR = (A+B)/(C+D)
ZHR = (C+D)/(A+B)

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

WEIRD
if you write “ZHR (toronto)” or “ZHR (ottawa)” without the space between “R” and the open parens sigh, SBN disappears the entire parenthetical word!

BIZARRE!

also " ( " (without the spaces disappears

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

For the entire league, wouldn’t it just be all offensive zone hits / all defensive zone hits?

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Oct 27, 2010 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

No

see our discussion below.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well that’s the problem isn’t it. This HAS to be from the perspective of one team. You can’t do it from a neutral perspective, because who would be in the numerator and who would be the denominator.

League wide offensive zone hits / defensive zone hits just tells you that the league hits itself equally in both zones, which isn’t very interesting to know. It’s how much one SPECIFIC team hits another that matters.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think

the question is more around the math of the sums of the ratios… which we went into earlier.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

after 1 game

if Toronto plays Buffalo, and there are 15 hits in the Leafs D zone, and 20 hits in the Sabres zone, the ratio is 20/15 for the Leafs, and 15/20 for the sabres…. ok nevermind you’re right… it’s not zero sum… I was right the first time…

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

I did the same thing.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Oct 27, 2010 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

It's annoying to think and rethink over and over like this... the stat is confusing.

Yeah not zero sum, so the 1.008 thing is fine.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

For this reason though

I think it’s just another stat that displays zone control… nothing to do with how physical a team is.

I think a forecheck stat would be good where it’s just a team’s hits in the offensive zone/how often they’re hit in the defensive zone.

Hit vs. be hit on the forecheck. over 1.0 would be ideal. and THAT stat is zero sum.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, this one makes sense to me.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Even then though

you’re really just measuring physicality, we have no idea how it correlates to offense at this point, and it’s far too early to tell.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well yeah, but that’s the joy of it. If it only measured offense, or time on ice then it would essentially be redundant with other measures we have. It’s interesting to the extent that it adds new information not covered by other things. That way we can have more points of attack for how to break apart what is happening in a game.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Right

but all you want t do is correlate it to wins, and that correlates directly to goals for and a gainst… so really… that’s what we’re trying to get at. The components of a winning team.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

It depends.

If there is only one optimal way in which to win, then you are right. In this case there is an optimal ratio of physicality to skill to puck posession, and all teams do better to the extent that they can mimic this underlying efficient ratio.

But the reality is probably more interesting than that: There might be multiple stable ratios that are optimal. There might be a phsyical style that works and a skill style that works, etc. Or it could be that there are a few ranges that you want ot be in, and it doesn’t matter where you are so long as you are whtin the range and not outside of it. To the extent that you can build more sophisticated measures of physicality vs. skill in different places then you can build a far more complete picture of how to assemble different parts of teams in complementary ways to win.

Science is about cleaving nature at the joints, right. The trick is to find a couple of relationships that really parsimonious describe what happens in games, and what the main differences are, and how they relate to each other.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

I said the same thing earlier.

by schennsational on Oct 27, 2010 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

This is a problem
In any given normal distribution (which we assume we have here) +/- 1 standard deviation is the range in which 66% of scores will fall, and 1.96 standard deviations is the range in which 95% of scores will fall

Why are we assuming a normal distribution?

Has anyone graphed this yet?

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:14 PM EDT reply actions  

Well if it is anywhere close to a normal distribution, then MOST scores will be within 2 SD’s, even if it isn’t precisely 95%. If it’s not close to a normal distribution then SD is a pretty meaningless statistic to report.

This is where we get to the hazy edges of my expertise, but given the weird non zero-sum linearities I would guess it’s probably either a normal distribution, or a chi square distribution (which is similar but not identical). But I’m getting way hazy here so someone who really knows what they are talking about should step in and solve it for us :)

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

I haven't looked at the data yet

I’m just reading comments and responding… I could look at it, but the lag on here is bothering me right now.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

ok

23 of 30 teams fall within 1 SD, that’s 76.67% of the data, which is rather high , and likely indicates that the distribution is not Normal.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

Really? That’s just 3 teams above the rate at which it’d be close to normal.

Frequency distribution with intervals around 0.5 might be the way to go.

My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most unpredictable team in the NHL.

by red army line on Oct 27, 2010 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well

that’s the other part of the problem, the data set is really small.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.

by Steve Burtch on Oct 27, 2010 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Small sample size, and maybe a little kurtosis (pointier peak on the distrubituion)… there are actually tests you can run for skewness and kurtosis, but I never remember what htey are. Wilk’s lambda and crap like that.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Good point.

No one graphed it, and it’s possible that it’s not a normal distribution. Though, I think we can all be pretty confident that it would become one by the end of the season, if we could evaluate all the games played.

by Miss Fox on Oct 27, 2010 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Have we carried the goddamn ONE yet?

by not norm ullman on Oct 27, 2010 6:26 PM EDT reply actions  

Great Post

If you really want to try and quantify how good players are defensively, how about incorporating a blocked shots stat as well?

Maybe a Blocked shots to total shots taken ratio, then broken down by player.

Obviously, if you are blocking a lot of shots then your team isn’t spending enough time on the offensive side of the puck, but if we are determining who the best defenders are, I think that is relevant.

Also some forwards and D-men will have more opportunity to block shots but a correction or exception could be made for blocked shots on the penalty kill. Could be a separate stat on its own.

Hmm, some input on this from every one would be useful to measure this in it’s proper context.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Albert Einstein

by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Oct 27, 2010 6:32 PM EDT reply actions  

oops! I am so tired I am throwing commas where they shouldn’t be.

Disregard some of those extra ones.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Albert Einstein

by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Oct 27, 2010 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

Or just calculate blocked shots as a percent of shots taken.

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

That too… but still a reference of how many total shots taken would be important for proper context.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Albert Einstein

by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Oct 27, 2010 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

sure. and for that we could use an extra-advanced statistic called “shots taken” :)

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 27, 2010 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

you’re a dick.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Albert Einstein

by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Oct 28, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

On the mean not being 1:

Hits given and taken in your zone are completely different numbers than hits given and taken in the opponent’s zone. It’s a little confusing if you’re thinking too hard about it, but the reason that it’s not 1 is not a complicated stats question, I’m afraid – sorry, you seemed far more keen on that idea. The mean could well have been much further away from 1, since it’s theoretically possible that more hitting is done in one team’s end of the rink.

Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?

by JP Nikota on Oct 27, 2010 10:07 PM EDT reply actions  

Let me rephrase the equation:

(Hits given in the defensive zone + Hits taken in the defensive zone)
____________________________________________________ = ZHR

(Hits given in the offensive zone + Hits taken in the offensive zone)

Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?

by JP Nikota on Oct 27, 2010 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Statistics

I love how a hockey blog sparked such a spirited math conversation! Great idea JP! I don’t know how you thought of it but it’s a great way of measuring pressure throughout a game. Plus, i love that the Leafs are <1!!

Here’s hoping we have another low ZHR tomorrow!!

by Kyle Young on Oct 28, 2010 1:19 AM EDT reply actions  

Thanks. Glad to hear a few folks have enjoyed – the thing was a lot of work.

I’ll likely be running the numbers again in a few weeks once we have a larger sample size. I think it could be an interesting thing to keep tabs on.

Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?

by JP Nikota on Oct 28, 2010 1:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

for sure ...

I am a bit of a math nerd myself .. but statistics was the sleep aid in uni haha. I wish you luck and i’ll definitely be keeping my eye open for the next set!

PS GO LEAFS! Let’s see Kessel light the lamp a few times to get that Boston crowd riled up!

by Kyle Young on Oct 28, 2010 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Whoa

This is not a great thread to wander into drunk.

WHAT?

The biggest Mike Zigomanis fan on this website

by Archimedies on Oct 28, 2010 1:20 AM EDT reply actions   1 recs

Yo numbers and stuff. HOT CHICKS11!

Glory glory Man United, AND the other MU, AAAAnd the Leafs. I think I need a drink now.

by Wan Ihite on Oct 28, 2010 2:20 AM EDT up reply actions  

Forget drunk

It’s half-nine here, I’ve just got into work after not nearly enough sleep and, hoping to have some hockey goodness and Panther-fan mockery to tide me over, I get crushed by a wave of mathematics. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck my head.

by Be26 on Oct 28, 2010 4:30 AM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Your best source for quality Toronto Maple Leafs news, rumours, analysis, stats and scores from the fan perspective.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

N907005365_1934770_7971_small
PPP Salary cap Challenge - Paper bag Leaf fan
Lifeasaleaffan_small
(Old) Marlies Game Photos
Newman_small
PPP Salary cap Challenge - samspade
Small
PPP Salary Cap Challenge - DaSim85
Globeatar_small
How Much Should You Spend On A Top 4 D?
Phaneufkessel_small
TOI-weighted NHL Team Ages
48839cd14228986f0ad0d2e405f1_small
Casting Call
Petering_small
PPP Salary Cap Challenge - Self Destructive Zones
Globeatar_small
The Fancystats Exchange, Part 1
Or-wallpaper-1680x1050__1__small
PPP Salary Cap Challenge-BCapp #2

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

StatCounter

wordpress visitor


Chief Blogging Officers

Calvin_small PPP

Aen1_small Chemmy

PPP's Girlfriends

Don_t_panic_small SkinnyFish

Picture_1_small JP Nikota

Fg_small birky

Christian-hanson-wrecks-brian-o_1__small Bower Power