HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

How skewed is high danger shots against?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-09-2017, 10:50 AM
  #1
Vali Maki Sushi
Tuna Vali Maki Roll
 
Vali Maki Sushi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Pingtung City
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 4,781
vCash: 500
How skewed is high danger shots against?

I'm asking because a lot of people are saying how the Bruins have terrible defense, and the Canucks have an above average defense, yet the Bruins constantly give up some of the lowest HDSA/60 in all situations and Canucks give up some of the most in all situations.

Vali Maki Sushi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2017, 11:03 AM
  #2
Machinehead
Weidmanns Heil
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NYC
Country: Germany
Posts: 68,343
vCash: 50
It can be skewed, because high-danger shots only refers to vertical distance to the net while making the goaltender move horizontally has more of an effect on save percentage.

It's not that these chances aren't dangerous, but they leave out a lot of other dangerous chances.

As far as the Bruins go, people are out to lunch calling their defense terrible. They're a 56% possession team. That doesn't happen with a terrible defense; I don't care what excuses people wanna hurl.

__________________
Machinehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2017, 11:05 AM
  #3
DJJones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,093
vCash: 500
Distance is a wildly incomplete variable.

Does the goalie have a clean line of sight, is there a defender in front of the guy, is it a rebound, was it a cross the plane pass, was it a one-timer, ect.

Wouldn't think to hard on it.

DJJones is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2017, 11:08 AM
  #4
Vali Maki Sushi
Tuna Vali Maki Roll
 
Vali Maki Sushi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Pingtung City
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 4,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJJones View Post
Distance is a wildly incomplete variable.

Does the goalie have a clean line of sight, is there a defender in front of the guy, is it a rebound, was it a cross the plane pass, was it a one-timer, ect.

Wouldn't think to hard on it.
Yup like St. Louis last year gave up a lot more HDSA/60 than this year, yet most of it were very easy and visible shots, which worked perfectly for Elliott as he's a positional goalie, whereas it doesn't work very well for Allen as he's more athletic, and thus the Blues had to change up their defensive play.

Vali Maki Sushi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2017, 11:11 AM
  #5
Vali Maki Sushi
Tuna Vali Maki Roll
 
Vali Maki Sushi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Pingtung City
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 4,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
It can be skewed, because high-danger shots only refers to vertical distance to the net while making the goaltender move horizontally has more of an effect on save percentage.

It's not that these chances aren't dangerous, but they leave out a lot of other dangerous chances.

As far as the Bruins go, people are out to lunch calling their defense terrible. They're a 56% possession team. That doesn't happen with a terrible defense; I don't care what excuses people wanna hurl.
That's what I say, you can't be a bad defensive team if you're top in corsi and HDSA/60 prevention. You aren't necessarily top 5 in the league defensively, but you aren't bad. But I feel corsi is more about success than defense. For example New Jersey from 2014-2016 are better defensively than the Sens of 2013-2014, even though Sens had a positive corsi, as New Jersey also prevents corsi well, and Sens reasoning for positive corsi is because they took a lot of chances, but also allowed a lot.

Vali Maki Sushi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2017, 11:14 AM
  #6
Machinehead
Weidmanns Heil
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NYC
Country: Germany
Posts: 68,343
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainierBeat View Post
That's what I say, you can't be a bad defensive team if your top in corsi and HDSA/60 prevention. You aren't necessarily top 5 in the league defensively, but you aren't bad. But I feel corsi is more about success than defense. For example New Jersey from 2014-2016 are better defensively than the Sens of 2013-2014, even though Sens had a positive corsi, as New Jersey also prevents corsi well, and Sens reasoning for positive corsi is because they took a lot of chances, but also allowed a lot.
I wouldn't disagree with this. It's just that being top 5 in CF% qualifies your defense as being at a certain level, even if it's not the best.

Machinehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2017, 11:14 AM
  #7
Vali Maki Sushi
Tuna Vali Maki Roll
 
Vali Maki Sushi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Pingtung City
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 4,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJJones View Post
Distance is a wildly incomplete variable.

Does the goalie have a clean line of sight, is there a defender in front of the guy, is it a rebound, was it a cross the plane pass, was it a one-timer, ect.

Wouldn't think to hard on it.
Speaking of rebounds, goalies have more control over that than the defense does, and that's why I don't like adjusted save percentage, as goalies who allow more rebounds and stops them are more likely to have better inflated Adj.Sv%, making them seemingly look good, when the reason why they have good stats is because of their own inability.

Vali Maki Sushi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2017, 11:19 AM
  #8
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
 
Mrb1p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Citizen of the world
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,826
vCash: 500
Fact is, none of these defense is actually good.

Mrb1p is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2017, 11:22 AM
  #9
wgknestrick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,266
vCash: 500
You can also have stat keeper, arena bias affecting the data. Location is just manually recorded by a human that may or may not know WTF they are doing. NHL has notoriously been terribly inconsistent arena to arena with regards to data collection. You'd be amazed just how many times the number of recorded shots is wrong (now image the exact location of those).

I'm not saying this is the case here, but I'd examine home vs away data first to see if there is a significant difference.

wgknestrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2017, 11:36 AM
  #10
DJJones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wgknestrick View Post
You can also have stat keeper, arena bias affecting the data. Location is just manually recorded by a human that may or may not know WTF they are doing. NHL has notoriously been terribly inconsistent arena to arena with regards to data collection. You'd be amazed just how many times the number of recorded shots is wrong (now image the exact location of those).

I'm not saying this is the case here, but I'd examine home vs away data first to see if there is a significant difference.
LA full out lies on their shot reporting. Years ago Detroit was the same way.

I'm sure there are teams that under report as well.

DJJones is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2017, 11:54 AM
  #11
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 11,994
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJJones View Post
LA full out lies on their shot reporting. Years ago Detroit was the same way.
Detroit hasn't changed in that regard.


Last edited by spiny norman: 02-09-2017 at 08:32 PM. Reason: fixed quoting
major major is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2017, 12:09 PM
  #12
Raccoon Jesus
Moderator
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Raccoon Jesus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: I.E.
Country: United States
Posts: 30,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJJones View Post
LA full out lies on their shot reporting. Years ago Detroit was the same way.

I'm sure there are teams that under report as well.
Home CF%: 55.23%--2nd Overall.
Away CF%: 54.63%--1st Overall.

Please explain.


I also don't think shot attempts are that skewed, they're pretty close to objective events. Hits are tougher to record, and let's not get into giveaways and takeaways. When you talk about arena bias, some stats are clearly more subjective than others.

__________________
"Every good army needs a couple of criminals." --Dean Lombardi, 2008.

"What the ****, guys? It was a metaphor." --Dean Lombardi, 2015.
Raccoon Jesus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2017, 12:15 PM
  #13
Vali Maki Sushi
Tuna Vali Maki Roll
 
Vali Maki Sushi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Pingtung City
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 4,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raccoon Jesus View Post
Home CF%: 55.23%--2nd Overall.
Away CF%: 54.63%--1st Overall.

Please explain.


I also don't think shot attempts are that skewed, they're pretty close to objective events. Hits are tougher to record, and let's not get into giveaways and takeaways. When you talk about arena bias, some stats are clearly more subjective than others.
Bridgestone is super biased. In one game I counted 10 high danger shots in a game against them (Nashville) yet when Corsica.hockey updated it not a single high danger shot was added...

Vali Maki Sushi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2017, 12:21 PM
  #14
Raccoon Jesus
Moderator
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Raccoon Jesus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: I.E.
Country: United States
Posts: 30,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainierBeat View Post
Bridgestone is super biased. In one game I counted 10 high danger shots in a game against them (Nashville) yet when Corsica.hockey updated it not a single high danger shot was added...
Interesting. Could you show me where on Corsica you're seeing high danger shots/chances against?

I ask because the only places I see it, Nashville is decidedly middle-of-the-pack, hard to use that as evidence for bias over an anecdote.

Raccoon Jesus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 11:50 AM
  #15
haakon84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,544
vCash: 500
Lundqvist faces 3 more High Danger Shots per game at Home than he does Away. I just don't see how that is possible. I can't find any other goaltender with that big of a gap.

haakon84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 12:01 PM
  #16
Machinehead
Weidmanns Heil
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NYC
Country: Germany
Posts: 68,343
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon84 View Post
Lundqvist faces 3 more High Danger Shots per game at Home than he does Away. I just don't see how that is possible. I can't find any other goaltender with that big of a gap.
The Rangers are ****ing horrible at home.

This is ever since AV took over.

Machinehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 12:19 PM
  #17
haakon84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
The Rangers are ****ing horrible at home.

This is ever since AV took over.
No the gap is smaller since AV took over. I don't think one team can be that much worse at home over a 10 year period. My hypothesis is that MSG over counts the rebound shots down low for Lundqvist. I'll do splits for other goalies.

haakon84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 12:27 PM
  #18
Anglesmith
Global Moderator
Skates like a deer
 
Anglesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,825
vCash: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
I wouldn't disagree with this. It's just that being top 5 in CF% qualifies your defense as being at a certain level, even if it's not the best.
I've never been comfortable with this type of separation of defence and offence. If a team (hypothetically) has the ability to control possession in the offensive zone for 80% of the game, but the other 20% of the game they give up breakaways and odd-man rushes, are they a good defensive team?

Similarly, if a team just has no ability to hold onto the puck at all, constantly chips it out, chips it deep and sits back and collapses, but does a good job of keeping pucks to the outside and limiting good chances, frustrating the other team and not allowing a lot of goals, are they a bad defensive team?

Possession is driven by both a team's ability to get the puck back (which is influenced also by how aggressive the team wants to be based on their coaching) and their ability to hold onto the puck, which again is influenced by their offensive strategy. Neither of these things take into account how prone a team is to defensive lapses, which are what people would generally call "bad defence." You can absolutely be a bad defensive team without spending a lot of time defending.


Last edited by Anglesmith: 02-17-2017 at 12:46 PM.
Anglesmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 01:01 PM
  #19
haakon84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,544
vCash: 500
Almost every goaltender has a higher High Danger Shots Per Game when away as opposed to home from '06-'17 besides Lundqvist and his gap is by far the largest. It's an anomaly and it's making his GSAA look much better than it probably should be.

He has the highest shots per game of anyone at home or away and its at home ice.

here is my quick mock up to show relations:

left column is home, right column is away.
name - games played - high danger shots per game


haakon84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 01:16 PM
  #20
Vali Maki Sushi
Tuna Vali Maki Roll
 
Vali Maki Sushi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Pingtung City
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 4,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anglesmith View Post
I've never been comfortable with this type of separation of defence and offence. If a team (hypothetically) has the ability to control possession in the offensive zone for 80% of the game, but the other 20% of the game they give up breakaways and odd-man rushes, are they a good defensive team?

Similarly, if a team just has no ability to hold onto the puck at all, constantly chips it out, chips it deep and sits back and collapses, but does a good job of keeping pucks to the outside and limiting good chances, frustrating the other team and not allowing a lot of goals, are they a bad defensive team?

Possession is driven by both a team's ability to get the puck back (which is influenced also by how aggressive the team wants to be based on their coaching) and their ability to hold onto the puck, which again is influenced by their offensive strategy. Neither of these things take into account how prone a team is to defensive lapses, which are what people would generally call "bad defence." You can absolutely be a bad defensive team without spending a lot of time defending.
You can't really be a bad defensive team, you just can't be a good one if you give up a lot of quality chances but rarely have to defend. Vice versa as well. Defense is the amount of shots allowed (Because in a game of luck, every shot matters), quality shots allowed, frequency (Like if you allow 10 shots in less than 2 minutes, than somehow only allow 20 shots in total for the entire game...), etc.

Corsi is more about success than actual defense. For example the Sens of 2013-2014 had a positive corsi but gave up a lot of corsi against, just had a huge amount of corsi for as well. Devils the last few years had some of the league worst corsi for chances, but were usually a good team at preventing corsi against.

Vali Maki Sushi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 01:35 PM
  #21
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 29,987
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJJones View Post
Distance is a wildly incomplete variable.

Does the goalie have a clean line of sight, is there a defender in front of the guy, is it a rebound, was it a cross the plane pass, was it a one-timer, ect.

Wouldn't think to hard on it.
While true, if the numbers bear out that {X}% of shots from {Y} feet end up in the net, you don't have to worry so much about {Set A} different shooting situations which generate/result in shots on goal as you do about the correlations of your data. It's not perfect, and some things will get occasionally get labeled "incorrectly" if defined by a single variable, but best fit lines, etc on graphs aren't supposed to be, and correlations don't have to be 100% in order to be relevant.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 01:41 PM
  #22
Nithoniniel
Registered User
 
Nithoniniel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Skövde, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 12,131
vCash: 500
I think what most people mean regarding Boston is that they don't have a lot of talent on the back end, and that's mainly regarding their top guys. What they do have is a terrific system, good defensive depth, and a forward group that supports their D-men very well.

I'll be very interested to see how they look moving forward, because few teams are as consistently terrific at supporting each other from my viewings.

Nithoniniel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 01:48 PM
  #23
WilliamNylander
Elite Drive Train
 
WilliamNylander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 10,256
vCash: 523
BOS's 5-man defense is a lot better than Vancouver's. Not even close.

WilliamNylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 01:56 PM
  #24
Vali Maki Sushi
Tuna Vali Maki Roll
 
Vali Maki Sushi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Pingtung City
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 4,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nithoniniel View Post
I think what most people mean regarding Boston is that they don't have a lot of talent on the back end, and that's mainly regarding their top guys. What they do have is a terrific system, good defensive depth, and a forward group that supports their D-men very well.

I'll be very interested to see how they look moving forward, because few teams are as consistently terrific at supporting each other from my viewings.
Behind Anaheim, Boston easily has the best 2-way forward depth. Third place usually goes to St. Louis, but losing Backes and Brouwer has hurt them in that regard.

Vali Maki Sushi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 02:51 PM
  #25
haakon84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,544
vCash: 500
Pretty unprecedented. There is no way the Rangers were that much worse at home than every other team over the past decade. Something is up.


haakon84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:42 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.