Playing the Pessimist: Total Eclipse of the Chart
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 27, 2011 10:07 AM EDT
Email
Print
The Toronto Maple Leafs 2010/2011 Season was a wild ride - it was a tale of 2 teams, signs of progress, of individual successes but ultimately team failure. It was a season that involved cognitive dissonance for pessimistic (or realistic?) Leafs fans who looked at the numbers and saw futility - but without our own 1st round pick, there was no benefit to a collapse in the standings. On one hand, it generally forced Leafs fans to be united in their cheering for improbable success, on the other it was frustrating and often felt like there was no light at the end of the tunnel.
In case you didn't know, I love charts. They can often compellingly portray a pattern in one little picture much better than a table or long-winded essay. This post doesn't contain any information you probably don't already know, but can maybe be used as a reality check on the Leafs late-season push and what that could mean for next year.
Above we see 10-game moving averages of Leafs Shots For (Blue) and Shots Against (Red), as well as dotted lines representing the average pre- and post-ReimTime. Black dotted line is League average (both For and Against as they must by definition Shots For = Shots Against at the league level).
I'm a big fan of looking at shot patterns - mostly shot quantity rather than shot quality as the data is easier to access. What does the above chart tell us? Pre-Reimer, the Leafs were putting shots on net far below league average, but they were also preventing shots from getting on net. Post-Reimer, Leafs shot at approximately the same rate, but gave up on average 5 more shots per game.
From a shot perspective, Leafs looked like they were getting badly outplayed after Jan 1, 2011. Then why did they have their greatest season success during this period?
Again, we have 10 game Moving Averages for Leafs Shooting% (Blue) and 1-Sv% (Red) so they could both be on the same axis (lower = better Sv%). Pre-Reimer, Leafs were not only getting sub-0.900 goaltending (and trending worse as the games went on), they were shooting at well below league average - for a good 20 game period around game 13, scoring on around 6.5% of shots. Post-Reimer, a miracle happened - goals actually started going in when Leafs shot the puck, at almost a 10% clip and well above league average. And equally amazing, the boys in blue finally started getting respectable goaltending - .914 after Jan 1, with most of that coming from James Reimer (0.921).
The most common worry next year seems to focus around Reimer not being a one-hit wonder - but what should be equally worrying is can the Leafs consistently maintain a team shooting% almost 1% above the league average?
Finally, combining Shots with Shooting% and Save% gives us the actual goals that ended up in the net. Once again, shown above is 10 game Moving Averages for Leafs Goals For (Blue) and Goals Against (Red). Pre-Reimer, Leafs just plain couldn't score and were getting scored on a lot. It was a bad time. A sad time. It ended in Waffles. Post-Reimer, Leafs scored and surprisingly got scored against greater than league average. In fact, they had the exact same GF and GA after Jan 1 (131).
My interpretation is that Post-Reimer, Leafs finally started becoming competitive - but all while riding the percentages. Falling level of shots, increased shots against, getting spectacular goaltending and above-average shooting% all indicate that all else being equal, a fall back to earth is in order.
Ending with a flicker of Optimism
Luckily for us, all else isn't equal. The roster to be iced in October isn't the same one that played the 2010/2011 season.
Player, Coaching & Management changes:
Thanks for the memories: Tomas Kaberle, Kris Versteeg, Francois Beauchemin, John Mitchell, J.S. Giguere, Tim Brent, Frederick Sjostrom, Brett Lebda, Christian Hanson. Coaches: Keith Acton, Tim Hunter.
Welcome to the Blue & White: Tim Connolly, J.M. Liles, Cody Franson, Matthew Lombardi, Phillippe Dupuis, full seasons of Joffrey Lupul, Nazem Kadri, Keith Aulie. Mgmt & Coaches: Rick Dudley, Scott Gordon, Greg Cronin.
G/T to Hockey-Reference as always, and NHL.com.
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.
84 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What a load of goddamn nonsense.
Coconut cream.
That is all.
Not liking the Habs since 1959.
by not norm ullman on Aug 27, 2011 11:25 AM EDT reply actions
worst pie ever
Y'all Heard About Me, You Just Didn't Know It was Me
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 27, 2011 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
cow pie for you, pal.
Not liking the Habs since 1959.
by not norm ullman on Aug 27, 2011 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Your charts are NOT stupid but rather pretty and appealing…. with your permission I would like to take your charts, print them and hang them on my walls.
<3
"There's been four different Cup winners the last four years, and I got one of them (Anaheim) and it was a fighting team. We're playing it that way regardless." - B. Burke, Toronto Maple Leafs GM
Summarizes quite nicely what happened. And this wasn’t due to score effects either.
Great Link
That would be great to have broken down from pre-Reimer days to January 1 onward as well.
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.
In 5v5 close situations (within 1 goal first and second period or tied in the third) which removes most score effects:
Fenwick For per 20 min with Reimer: 13.095
Fenwick For per 20 min with JS/Gus: 13.626
Fenwick Against per 20 min with Reimer: 16.079
Fenwick Against per 20 min with JS/Gus: 15.301
That is about a 4% drop in fenwick for and a 5 percent increase in fenwick against with Reimer in goal than with Giguere/Gustavsson in goal.
Shooting Percentage with Reimer: 10.4%
Shooting Percentage with Giguere: 7.79%
Shooting Percentage with Gustavsson: 7.00%
Save Percentage with Reimer: 93.53%
Save Percentage with Giguere: 91.85%
Save Percentage with Gustavsson: 90.74%
The biggest difference is clearly the shooting percentage under Reimer which isn’t sustainable. Of goalies with 500 minutes of 5v5 close ice time, only Jonathan Bernier had a on ice higher shooting percentage and only Bernier, Reimer and Bobrovsky were over 9.5%. We can probably expect the Leafs shooting percentage (and thus maybe goal production) to drop up to 25% from where they were under Reimer last season. Hopefully Reimer’s save percentage is mostly sustainable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey
by HockeyAnalysis on Aug 27, 2011 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
What about the Fenwick numbers pre/post Beauchemin trade?
by stevesmith19 on Aug 27, 2011 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Can’t do pre/post trade easily but you can see how players perform with Beauchemin on the ice and without Beauchemin on the ice. Generally speaking, fenwick was significantly lower when Beauchemin was on the ice but goals against was significantly higher (opponents had a pretty high shooting percentage when he was on the ice last season – 9.95% in 5v5 close situations, 9.45 in all 5v5 situations).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey
by HockeyAnalysis on Aug 27, 2011 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions
That should read “fenwick against was significantly lower…”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey
by HockeyAnalysis on Aug 27, 2011 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks for the stats. I suspect that the Beauchemin trade was a significant factor in what we see in the charts in this post but that may be an accepted explanation already.
by stevesmith19 on Aug 27, 2011 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
2010-11 Opposition Shooting Percentage in 5v5close situations:
Aulie: 4.33
Kaberle: 5.81
Phaneuf: 6.56
Schenn: 8.16
Komisarek: 8.42
Gunnarsson: 8.49
Beauchemin: 9.95
Lebda: 11.92
Beauchemin and Kaberle’s numbers include their time in Anaheim and Boston. Beauchemin’s main 5v5close defense partners last year were Phaneuf (300 minutes), Sbisa (186 minutes) and Komisarek (123 minutes). Beauchemin either had some bad luck last year or just didn’t play as well as he usually does or some combination of the two.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey
by HockeyAnalysis on Aug 27, 2011 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I think Aulie’s in for a “sophomore slump” next year. It’s not that he’ll be a less-competent defender, or that he’ll actually be slumping, but I think a bunch of his numbers are going to regress hard. His PDO doesn’t of 1024 doesn’t look great either.
Not followin' @JPNikota on Twitter? Oh, you better believe that's a paddlin'.
my prediction, he plays better but “looks” worse
Y'all Heard About Me, You Just Didn't Know It was Me
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 27, 2011 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I really really hope he's not in the Top 4 next year.
Even though he looked better the second time up, he is NOT ready for a top 4 role, especially when we have Liles, Phaneuf, Schenn, Gunnar, Franson all worthy of more ice time (temporarily ignoring LD/RD)
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 27, 2011 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I think a sheltered 3rd pair of Aulie – Franson would be a good thing, each getting extra time on their special teams specialty
Y'all Heard About Me, You Just Didn't Know It was Me
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 27, 2011 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I also really like the Idea of Gunnar – Phaneuf for some reason
Y'all Heard About Me, You Just Didn't Know It was Me
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 27, 2011 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I dont hate it on paper - Go Go Ron Wilson Blender!
Plus it allows for Aulie to get the 3rd pairing minutes and put Liles with Schenn as a Kabby replacement (sort of).
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 27, 2011 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions
1024
isn’t astronomically high. Particularly when combined with Boyce’s 1069.
All regression implies is that he’s very likely to fall within the range of 976 and 1023… it could still be positive and regress appropriately.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions
yanno who else had a PDO of 1024?
Teemu Selanne and Matt Carle
Scott Hartnell and Ville Leino had 1023… I’m not sure people are worrying about their PDO numbers much.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions
1 year ago Selanne’s PDO was 1018. The year before that it was 993. For Carle the previous two years were 1014 and 1007. For Hartnell it’s 992/1026. Leino was 965/1019. Carle is the only one there who has been above 1000 three years running. I’d say Aulie’s likely in for a correction.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Aug 28, 2011 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions
the correction
is being closer to the mean of 1000… Selanne’s numbers actually regressed AWAY from the mean, he went from 7, to 18, to 24.
Carle also went AWAY going from 7 to 14 to 24. Hartnell went from 8, to 26, then back to 23. Leino went from 35, to 19, to 23…
The regression thing is a league wide point… it’s far from certain in an individual, and it has ZERO to do with being positive or negative. It just implies the number will be closer to 1000. Nobody said it was likely to be positive, but you have no way of assuming it either 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 Aug 28, 2011 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Over time it does tend to regress toward 1000 even for individuals. My browser doesn’t seem to want to load SBN pages very well right now, so I can’t find it, but in a thread earlier in the week someone posted a link to an article demonstrating that over multiple seasons, PDO regresses toward 1000 for individual players.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Aug 28, 2011 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
No, not all players
Selanne’s 5v5 PDO’s over the past 4 seasons are 1061, 1003, 1028, 1020 and his 4 year average is 1.022.
His 5v5 close PDO’s are 1058, 1007, 1035, 1024 for a 4 year average of 1026.
Pretty sure Selanne’s natural PDO (what he would regress to, his talent level) is something above 1000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey
by HockeyAnalysis on Aug 28, 2011 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I didn’t say “all players”, I said that it tends to regress toward 1000.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Aug 28, 2011 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions
This is just the law of large numbers. The more numbers that you average together (whether they represent seasons, people, whatever) , the closer to the “true” average you get. If you take a bunch of 20 sided dice, on average each of them will roll a score of 10. If you roll thirty of the suckers and pick the one that rolled highest, you’d expect it to roll a lower number next time (because it probably was a number well over 10). If you pick the one that scored lowest, you’d expect it to roll higher (because it was probably well under 10.
That’s all regression to the mean implies – if you sift through a bunch of results and pick out the most extreme scores on any given roll of the dice (or season shooting percent or whatever), then because all of those scores have a random component, the ones that are likely to end up the highest for that roll (or season, etc) are ones that got a bunch of good or bad luck. When you seize a hold of it and say “that one” on the basis of this extreme score, you’re liable to see the score become less extreme on the next roll/season.
If you sort through the NHL you’ll also find a couple of people like Selanne who have an average higher than chance for several years in a row. Less of them than you get for a single year, of course, but still quite a few. The more years you include in this sample, the fewer of them you’ll get, but with only 4 or 5 you’d still some quite a bit of randomness in the distributions.
In technical terms there are two components to each person’s score – skill (which is presumably a permanent feature of their performance) and randomness (which isn’t). The bigger the sample size you have of their work, the more the randomness component cancels out and they “regress” back to the “true” skill component.
Maybe Selanne’s PDO really is higher than 1000, but if we selected him out of the entire NHL for having a high 5 year average, that’s possibly a problem. If you created a random score for hundreds of players over 5 seasons, you would expect a few of them to have a score in the neighborhood of 1.022 just by chance (in technical language, you’re talking about the “sampling distribution” here).
Yes, but I’ll argue that Selanne’s elevated PDO is not a result of ‘random chance’ but rather a result of skill.
PDO is a little more complex but if we look at a component of PDO, shooting percentage, we see that it isn’t random. The players with a good shooting percentage (over multiple seasons) are the players we expect to have a good shooting percentage – the good offensive players. The defensive players and weaker offensive players have poor shooting percentages. If it were purely random we would see Travis Moen types at the top of the list and Daniel Sedin types at the bottom. But we don’t.
So, the shooting percentage that Daniel Sedin would naturally ‘regress’ to is quite different than the shooting percentage that Travis Moen would naturally regress to. The same, I believe, can be said for PDO. Selanne’s ‘regress to’ PDO is something above 1000, not 1000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey
by HockeyAnalysis on Aug 29, 2011 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I think
the skill has something to do with it. His career shooting percentage is 15.4%, that’d elevate things pretty far.
"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 Aug 29, 2011 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Question for anyone, is it easier for a team to overperform when they’re well out of the playoff picture?
Additionally, any predictions for next year’s Devils, who saw a emphasized version of this slow start, hot finish?
Ya the post-elimination meme seems to be a trend for the Leafs…. not sure if thats statistically significant for all teams far out of the playoffs.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 27, 2011 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I Imagine they face more backups. I’ve always wondered about goalie QualComp stats. …and hit posts, but that’s another discussion.
by A Lindros Jaw on Aug 27, 2011 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions
In previous years I'd agree, yes we faced a lot of backups.
I don’t have the data on me but I don’t remember facing a ton of backups post-Jan 1 last year, except that one time MON put Auld in against the Leafs which was hilarious and kind of pissed of Montreal fans.
We were facing Thomas, Miller, Lundqvist, etc. at the end of last year… I don’t think we were getting above-average backup starts
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 27, 2011 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions
NJD and PHI are two of my biggest ?s next year.
No idea how their teams will look on ice.
NJD seems to heavily depend on Brodeur/Coaching.
PHI is completely revamped for the most part -2 great forwards +1 great goalie (arguable)
In the West my biggest ?s are CBJ (will Wisniewski + Carter be enough?), MIN (lots of ex-SJers), DAL (how will they cope with the loss of Richards?)
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 27, 2011 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions
New Jersey ran into bad luck at the beginning of last year like Colorado ran into good luck the year before. I agree that Brodeur is a big question, and I think their defense could use some depth, but they will definitely be in the playoff hunt this year.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Aug 27, 2011 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I'd say the luck
side of things was more shooting than goaltending luck in NJ’s case. During MacLean’s tenure in the first 31 games of the season, they only scored 55 goals on 918 shots, giving them a S% of only 6%. They allowed 90 goals on 888 shots for .899 goaltending which is also well below NHL average, but it still gives them a PDO Of 959 or so, which is well above what the Leafs had pre-Reimer.
That’s pretty fucking ridiculously low shooting, and it totally turned around after MacLean left… I don’t really think he was the problem people painted him as.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Solid work
though as you said it’s telling us stuff we already know.
I don’t think the shooting percentage is "unsustainable’ because if you look at the season averages it just looks to me like numbers balancing out towards the NHL average. Over the course of a full season most teams will be pretty close to league average shooting percentage.
Also what you’re witnessing here is the TEAM PDO regressing to the mean. Reimer just seemed to be part cause and part beneficiary of that process. The Leafs seasonal PDO was around 875 pre-Reimer (judging from your chart), then post Reimer it was around 1014, over the course of the whole year it balances out to 994…. or right around 1000.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 9:32 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
The shooting percentage for the team over the course of the full season might be sustainable, but the shooting percentage when Reimer was in goal is not. The point being, the success the Leafs had when Reimer took over might not be fully sustainable, even if Reimer can maintain his save percentage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey
by HockeyAnalysis on Aug 28, 2011 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions
Well
PDO tends to end up around 1000, whether it ends up above or below is near impossible to determine. For this reason, it’s very important to minimize shots against, and increase shots for.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
taking fewer
high percentage shots will pump it up, as will allowing more lower percentage shots… either one can have the same effect, which is why I think ignoring shot location is a bit misleading (particularly when looking at this stuff).
"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 Aug 28, 2011 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions
I'll share the same points I was looking up
during the past season:
1. The Leafs are averaging 8.69 “good” shots a game, and 20.5 “bad” shots a game.
2. The SH% for a “good” shot by the Leafs is 17.25%
3. The SH% for a “bad” shot by the Leafs is 5.04%
4. For the month of January the Leafs actually rattled off 11 straight games to start the month where they fired 10 or more “good” shots. There were only 13 games in January, so they were playing excellently from an offensive opportunity perspective for the month.
5. The majority in the variation in the Leafs shot totals from game to game is largely due to significant shifts in their “bad” shots from game to game, but they do occasionally play games where they have very few good scoring opportunities from in close.
I looked into that on March 2nd.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions
that was over the course
of the first 63 games of the season.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Variations in shot location don’t have a significant effect on shooting/save percentage. A greater impact is the talent level of the players on the ice. A shot from Ovechkin is far more difficult than a shot from Colton Orr from the same location.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey
by HockeyAnalysis on Aug 28, 2011 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm sorry
but that statement just strikes me as absurd.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions
I'll agree with you
on the Ovechkin vs. Orr comment, but there’s a problem with that statement.
1. You’re picking players that are obviously at either end of your supposed talent spectrum, and the variation in most NHL’ers is far smaller than the distinction between those two players.
2. You’re purely basing that on the NUMBER of shots taken by Orr and Ovechkin, and obviously Ovechkin shoots far more often than Orr does.
Saying the impact isn’t significant is ridiculous when the variation in shooting percentage based on location has been tabulated again and again… most goals for good players still go in from in close, and not randomly all over the ice.
If good players scored goals at an equal rate from any spot on the ice I’d agree with you, but they don’t.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Alex Ovechkin
does not score goals at a significantly higher rate than the expected NHL average based on shot location… thus he’s not significantly superior to the average NHL shooter.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions
woops
meant to link this one:… apologies.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions
If you read the bottom of the
posting it says the following:
You may have noticed that the spread between the highest and lowest shooting percentages is quite small – much smaller than the spread in actual shooting percentage, indicating that shot location accounts for just 27% of shooting percentage. If we take all of these results together, we can make the following claim about the components of shooting percentage:
- Ability to get to a location to take a shot = 24%
- Transient ability in getting to that location = 3%
- Shooting talent (ie – ability to exceed average shooter performance) = 19%
- Transient ability to score = 54%
That’d make location MORE important than shooting talent.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions
the "transient"
portion definitely swings in favour of ability to score versus getting to a location.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions
It seems to me that the best goal scorers combine an “above average” shot with an above average ability to get in the best shooting areas. That and they shoot more often.
The Leafs are my Rushmore
Certified Grabbo Lover and member of the PPPPP
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Aug 28, 2011 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions
right
and for the most part, it’s probably more of shooting more often, and getting to good areas.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions
if their shot
was below average, odds are their coaches wouldn’t have them shooting very often, so that part is assumed.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions
can anyone think of a good-great goalscorer who had a below average shot?
Y'all Heard About Me, You Just Didn't Know It was Me
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 28, 2011 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions
or the corrollary
of a horrible goal scorer with an above average shot? (Jonas Hoglund?)
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Or perhaps
Jason Blake?
There’s more of those guys bouncing around the NHL me-thinks.
Great shot? Horrible ability to pick locations to shoot at.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Chad Kilger, dude had an absolute cannon, also Jeremy Williams has one helluva wrister, Rob Schremp has a pretty good shot too
Y'all Heard About Me, You Just Didn't Know It was Me
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 28, 2011 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
I actually
don’t agree on Williams or Schremp… I think their failures in other areas has a lot more to do with their lack of playing time.
They’d both put up good scoring numbers if given the chance.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
im just using them as great shot, not great goal scorers, Schremp has a chance to prove otherwise still, but they both fit the basic criteria of the thought experiment
Y'all Heard About Me, You Just Didn't Know It was Me
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 28, 2011 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions
they'd fit in the
great shooters but bad at the rest of hockey group.
I think Schremp will still carve out a decent career before all is said and done btw. Last year he had 26 points in only 63 games… that pro-rates to a 34 point season as a 24 year old… not horrible.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Atlanta misused him
horribly btw… 11 minutes a night in playing time? 4 points in 18 games? wtf are you even playing him for if not to score?
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions
Schremp was given way too many chances to succeed in the NHL and failed every time.
You don’t give players ice time if they don’t deserve it. Unless their name is Tyler Bozak and you have no other options.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 28, 2011 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions
way too many?
he has yet to play a full season… 44 games 2 years ago, 63 this past year… prior to that he played 1, 2, and 4 games… how is that being given a chance?
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions
he had
a 15.7% shooting percentage last year, and that didn’t drop after he was dealt to Atlanta, he just hardly played at all.
The 4 points was a reflection of his usage, not his actual play offensively.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions
he was a
-19 on the Island before the trade, but Blake Comeau was -17, John Tavares was -16, and Josh Bailey was -13… is he really that much worse?
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions
if the
Islanders had played Schremp on the wing they’d be further ahead/
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
also he is a terrible skater and has issues getting to good scoring areas at NHL game speed
Y'all Heard About Me, You Just Didn't Know It was Me
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 28, 2011 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
yeah
that part I’ll admit to… I think he’d be good on the PP though.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions
he’d also be a good shootout asset, kid has some dirty dangles
Y'all Heard About Me, You Just Didn't Know It was Me
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 28, 2011 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions
From http://www.puckprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=625
The unmistakable conclusions from this table? Outshooting, out-qualitying and out-finishing all contribute to why Good Players dominate their opponents. Shot Quality only represents a small fraction of this advantage; outshooting and outfinishing are the largest contributors to good players� +/-.
In that statement shot quality is essentially shot location. Based on the table in the link, variations in goal scoring is ~50% shooting ability (shooting percentage), ~40% number of shots, and ~10% shot location.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey
by HockeyAnalysis on Aug 28, 2011 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions
I'll agree
that the “shot quality” or finishing is important… but the key here is, is it repeatable. In that article by Tom, the player’s aren’t individuated… you’re looking at a whole data set aka “good” players.
If you read what I posted above, that distinction is acknowledged by Gabe, but the point is, the shot quality portion that is so important isn’t repeatable. The repeatable portion is ability to get to good locations, so we should worry about players controlling that more than their shot quality.
you can’t CONTROL shooter quality season to season to the same extent. You can only really control where they shoot from, and how often they do it, and hope the rest takes care of itself.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions
good players
in the puck prospectus article will remain generally the same as a group, but individually their numbers will vary pretty wildly.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions
so
in conclusion, what I’m saying is,
I’d rather have a bunch of forwards that go to the right spots on the ice who are above average generally (Grabovski + Kulemin), than one guy with variable skill who has a good year, but has a hard time repeatably going to where he’s supposed to (Phil Kessel?)
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions
The problem with Gabe is he uses very small sample sizes. Half a season vs half a season of data isn’t near enough to separate talent from the myriad of other factors that come into play so he gets a large ‘transient ability to score.’
By combining similar players into a group, as Tom did, you eliminate the small sample size issues and get some real and useful results.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey
by HockeyAnalysis on Aug 28, 2011 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
ok
I’ve conceded that it’s important, but Tom didn’t look at it for all individual players season to season… he just did it with the group.
There’s no discussion of variation within the group, which could still be quite high without affecting the overall averages.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions
and
I’d disagree with your argument about sample sizes, he did the analysis on over 500 players, that’s a lot of data points.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
if the data set
were too small that would actually show MORE variation in his data, not less… the fact that location was repeatable but shooting percentage wasn’t shouldn’t change much if you add more data points.
"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 Aug 28, 2011 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions
500 players, many of which had 10 or fewer goals. 10 goals split between even and odd games results in a lot of variation in how that split occurs. It would be better if he used fewer players and more data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey
by HockeyAnalysis on Aug 28, 2011 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions
tuuuuuurn arouuuuund briiiiiiiiiiiiiiight eyes
EVERY NOW AND THEN I FALL APART
Y'all Heard About Me, You Just Didn't Know It was Me
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 28, 2011 6:16 PM EDT reply actions
I'm worried about the shots against numbers
But not the percentages. The Reim Time save percentage improvement reflects a new goalie, and by-and-large in this instance I expect at least half of that improvement to be sustainable. The late season shooting percentage is unsustainably, good, but so is the early season percentage unsustainably bad. The overall average is about what we should expect, and we should expect variability as well.
The real question here is whether improvement in personnel and development of young players can improve that SF/SA gap.
I've been looking at the sky
The Shots Against confirms in my mind what we saw in terms of the Leafs often hanging Reimer out to dry.
BTW, this happened both pre-and post- Beauchemin trade. There doesn’t seem to be a huge difference after Jan 1, 2011 in terms Beauchemin preventing shots at a substantial rate better than after he was traded.
That’s not to diminish his value at all, just that the entire team was giving up a lot of shots well before Beauchemin was traded, and wasn’t a specific effect of the trade.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 29, 2011 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Pension Plan Puppets
Related FanShots on Pension Plan Puppets
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
- Adam Henrique sends New Jersey Devils to Stanley Cup Final with OT goal vs. Rangers (VIDEO)
SBNation.com Recent Stories
StatCounter
