First, I can't make out what your saying. Second, NJ clearly outplayed Washington on Fridays and played a close game on Saturday. They didn't do well against Tampa in the playoffs last year as well.
The Rangers were a top 5 defensive team last year and Tampa 22nd in goals against. Yet the Caps had no problem getting by the excellent defensively Rangers and then laid and egg against the not so great defensively Lightning. But in the regular season the Caps had no problem with Tampa.
And east coast teams go to Vancouver and perform poorly all the time because they make that trip so infrequently. Drawing any big conclusion based on that once every other year game makes no sense whatsoever. But regardless that game was 4-4 going into the 3rd. The Wings are a top 4 defensive team and without a doubt a very well coached one yet the Caps scored 7 in that one.
You seem to be trying to cherry pick a very small sample size of games to support your argument while ignoring at least as many examples that directly contradict it.
Actually, thus far they are a rather mediocre defensive team, and they're scoring goals in droves.
Yes, I am ultimately evaluating team defense by how many goals they allow. You have to allow for sample size, and an uneven number of games played by the teams in question, but the Caps are at the upper tier of team scoring, and upper middle-of-the pack for goals against.
Last year, the Caps stopped scoring as many goals, and tightened up in a big way. So far this year, they're scoring goals and not limiting goals to the same extent.
Caps beat Detroit 7-1. They scored 4 goals in Vancouver and had no trouble with their defense. They beat Pittsburgh on the road. They are 1-0-1 v NJ so far. In total v those 4 teams the Caps are 3-1-1.
Again...what is your beef?
They were outshot and outplayed in both games, do you expect to hold a 20%+ shooting percentage if you face them in the finals? I am not saying Washinton is a bad team, that would be stupud. They have had a little trouble so far against good defensive teams.
Again, it's not so much a question of whether the Caps are a good team; everyone knows they are good.
Yet your contention is that so far, their Achilles' Heel is that they struggle against defensive teams.
Their season to date is one of high goal totals, but less stingy defense than last year, however. You are talking about last year's Caps team. This year's team scores goals and stops just enough to win.
Top of the league in goals for, and in the teens for goals against.
Their problem, to the extent a team in their position in the rankings has problems, is not their inability to score goals, not unless it's a crisis for everyone else.
Actually, thus far they are a rather mediocre defensive team, and they're scoring goals in droves.
Yes, I am ultimately evaluating team defense by how many goals they allow. You have to allow for sample size, and an uneven number of games played by the teams in question, but the Caps are at the upper tier of team scoring, and upper middle-of-the pack for goals against.
Last year, the Caps stopped scoring as many goals, and tightened up in a big way. So far this year, they're scoring goals and not limiting goals to the same extent.
Goaltenders are not made equal so I say shots are the best way to evaluate. If you give Washington a .940 sv% like what Thomas had last year they would destroy the NHL in terms of goals allowed.
Your disregard for the goaltending component is flat-out baffling. Defense, like a PK, is only a good as the goaltender's ability to ultimately stop the puck. It's a joint effort, and it includes the forwards when done properly. Defense includes goaltending, and the offense factors in the opposing defense and goaltending as well.
This is the age-old question of how far you can take new statistical methods in hockey, vice baseball for example, which is far more often a series of one-on-one battles.
You should be able to reliably employ baseball-style metrics for shootouts in hockey, but five-on-five play? Not to me.
Breaking down the defense into constituent elements, while excluding others, is fraught with difficulties.
Yet your contention is that so far, their Achilles' Heel is that they struggle against defensive teams..
Here's the reality. The Capitals dont struggle in the larger sense against anyone before the playoffs at which time they are prone to struggle against anyone. The Caps in the past three seasons have an average finishing position of 1.3 in the east and look to be ready to repeat that success.
They beat everyone. You cant "yea, but" the Caps 7-1 win over Detroit and then dismiss a Caps win at NJ. The contest was for 2pts in the standings. The Caps consistantly get the two points.
Your disregard for the goaltending component is flat-out baffling. Defense, like a PK, is only a good as the goaltender's ability to ultimately stop the puck. It's a joint effort, and it includes the forwards when done properly. Defense includes goaltending, and the offense factors in the opposing defense and goaltending as well.
This is the age-old question of how far you can take new statistical methods in hockey, vice baseball for example, which is far more often a series of one-on-one battles.
You should be able to reliably employ baseball-style metrics for shootouts in hockey, but five-on-five play? Not to me.
Breaking down the defense into constituent elements, while excluding others, is fraught with difficulties.
See I disagree. When I consider team defense, it is the ability to limit shots. Goaltending is a whole different ball game. Because your goaltender can't stop a puck on a PK doesn't mean you trade your top PK'ing defensmen.
You consider the combination of Goaltending and defense to be team defense, then goals is a suitable way to judge. I break it up into more then that.
The Caps thus far struggle against themselves. That isn't to say that other teams haven't played well. The Habs and Lightning deserve full marks for beating the Caps. Yet the Caps get inside their own heads, I think.
you see...in the end its the W that counts. That is what you seem to be missing.
That is a poor way to look at things early in the season. As we seen with Toronto, if you judged their team based on wins you would think they are a top team and nothing needs to be changed. In reality, Toronto is a below average team that should be around the 9 or 10 seed.
That is a poor way to look at things early in the season. As we seen with Toronto, if you judged their team based on wins you would think they are a top team and nothing needs to be changed. In reality, Toronto is a below average team that should be around the 9 or 10 seed.
The Capitals are a known quantity. 2nd place, 1st place and 1st place. They are again challenging for 1st place in the east. You think there is a chance that the Capitals suddenly turn into last season's Leafs?? Just stop.
The Capitals are a known quantity. 2nd place, 1st place and 1st place. They are again challenging for 1st place in the east. You think there is a chance that the Capitals suddenly turn into last season's Leafs?? Just stop.
Are you even reading what I post? I'm not going to respond to this.
When I consider team defense, it is the ability to limit shots.
Any shots or quality shots? Most teams couldn't care less about giving up low percentage shots yet in the world of statistics a shot is a shot is a shot.
There are just too many variables in a free flowing sport like hockey to try to apply the same statistical method as so many do with baseball.
Any shots or quality shots? Most teams couldn't care less about giving up low percentage shots yet in the world of statistics a shot is a shot is a shot.
There are just too many variables in a free flowing sport like hockey to try to apply the same statistical method as so many do with baseball.
The leader in hockey stats, Gabe Desjardins, has pretty much proven that over the course of the season shot quality from one team to another does not exist. Scoring chances for the most part are proportional to shot totals.
Your disregard for the goaltending component is flat-out baffling. Defense, like a PK, is only a good as the goaltender's ability to ultimately stop the puck. It's a joint effort, and it includes the forwards when done properly. Defense includes goaltending, and the offense factors in the opposing defense and goaltending as well.
He was obviously talking about the teams' play with the puck. No idea why you would be baffled that he's disregarding goaltending. The original discussion was about the Capitals' ability to play a strong puck-possession game and to generate offensive chances against teams that make generating those chances difficult. You and several other people are having a different conversation on your own for some reason.
Obviously the shot-based statistics are far from perfect, but simply looking to GF/GA to assess a team's offense and defense is actually retarded. His point was that the Capitals have shown a tendency to be dominated by teams that complicate their typical passage through the neutral zone. I think that's certainly a fair point, and that problem was very apparent in the games against New Jersey, regardless of the impact of external factors. Plenty of people here have acknowledged that the Capitals were dominated in some of their early wins, especially against Pittsburgh. Pretending the problem doesn't exist by looking at things in terms of the current results without regard for how the results might change under different circumstances (the playoffs) isn't going to make the problem actually disappear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd
The Capitals are a known quantity. 2nd place, 1st place and 1st place. They are again challenging for 1st place in the east. You think there is a chance that the Capitals suddenly turn into last season's Leafs?? Just stop.
...what?
(That's pretty much rhetorical; you don't really need to answer.)
Very intesting. If I read our visitor correctly, he's talking mostly about possession of the puck. Which I'd agree shots should show disparity. But I'm not in agreement you use the term defense cause it does include the goalie. However the opposing goalie has no bearing on the caps ability to get possession from a forechecking, break through the neutral zone, and generate scoring chances. But defense doesn't end at that point.
The Caps struggle against complete teams, not necessarily stronger team defenses. You know, better teams. Teams with pronounced positive Corsi figures aren't just strong defenses, they're strong three zone puck possession teams. Is Washington's overall puck possession game crisp or smart enough? Not nearly. It hasn't been since prior to the Vancouver Olympic games. Their PP really tends to be the key.
What they do have is a fair amount of depth and typically a disciplined enough effort defensively to win most nights. They do Mike Green quite a bit. No slight to Wideman/Carlson but their record has dipped since his injury and a lot of it has to do with his importance to their transition game.
The other aspect to last night's game is it being the second of back-to-backs. As much as they talk about being in better shape and the like, their mental toughness and execution hasn't been very sharp in those situations, especially late.
Btw, I don't see how shots numbers account for the slow start from Detroit or Montreal or the fast start by Edmonton.
I really like Washington, I believe they are the second best team in the conference behind Pittsburgh. They are set up well now and really well into the future. What I am wondering is if their personnel is not setup well against the trap or if it is a coaching adjustment that has not been made. I know Kovalchuk is tailor made against teams with little neutral zone structure but he has looked lost against Pittsburgh.
See I disagree. When I consider team defense, it is the ability to limit shots. Goaltending is a whole different ball game. Because your goaltender can't stop a puck on a PK doesn't mean you trade your top PK'ing defensmen.
You consider the combination of Goaltending and defense to be team defense, then goals is a suitable way to judge. I break it up into more then that.
I'm familiar with CORSI ratings. I'm well aware of the inroads that statistical analysis introduced over that last ten to fifteen years or so have made, but find some of the conclusions to be troubling. I simply don't agree with the interpretation much of the time. A statistic is never wrong, per se. It's simply a number. It's what we infer from statistics that is so open to interpretation.
Part of the problem is that those who go to the trouble to count are rarely motivated at the termination of the exercise to say that a statistic in question is of only partial or even minimal importance.
Put differently, I have no problem with the CORSI rating. I have a problem with those who look at CORSI ratings and make absolute statements. Individual stats are part of an aggregate in making a determination of a team's or line's or player's night or season.
The sexiness of the newer statistics tends to impair the judgement of amateur statisticians in hockey. CORSI is interesting because it's a new way of examining team/individual play in what is an inherently fluid team game that resists this sort of dissociation to analyze individual parts.
In the end, I'm not sure that statisticians, who follow a team game that integrates on-the-fly line changes, can successfully employ metrics that are far more effective in tracking baseball and football, sports rife with one-on-one matchups, stoppages of play, and teams on defense and then on offense, in a fixed manner. Breakout? Transition? Somewhat unique to hockey.
It would help if CORSI evangelists were more nuanced in what they feel the stat, and others, add to the picture. Too often, its adherents champion CORSI in Revelatory terms. I find it an interesting addition to the mix, but I'm more measured in what I feel it says about a team or player than are many proponents.
I really like Washington, I believe they are the second best team in the conference behind Pittsburgh. They are set up well now and really well into the future. What I am wondering is if their personnel is not setup well against the trap or if it is a coaching adjustment that has not been made. I know Kovalchuk is tailor made against teams with little neutral zone structure but he has looked lost against Pittsburgh.
The Capitals' coaching question is often discussed on the board, with some strong opinions on both sides. I'm not sure the clear answer to your question exists, though, beyond opinions expressed by individual posters. Does Boudreau have a set game plan to beat the trap? Well, he isn't stating it outright. The Caps have been successful in pecking at the Lightning in the past, successful against Boucher. In the playoffs, they were crushed. What can you infer from the regular season-to-playoffs swing? Up to the individual to interpret, I suppose.
It's not like the Caps have a consistent mental block against TB, or inability to crack that 1-3-1 system. They have beat them often enough in the regular season. Last playoffs, it was a decided mismatch. Why? Well, everyone here has voiced an opinion at one time or another.
The Caps struggle against complete teams, not necessarily stronger team defenses. You know, better teams. Teams with pronounced positive Corsi figures aren't just strong defenses, they're strong three zone puck possession teams. Is Washington's overall puck possession game crisp or smart enough? Not nearly. It hasn't been since prior to the Vancouver Olympic games. Their PP really tends to be the key.
What they do have is a fair amount of depth and typically a disciplined enough effort defensively to win most nights. They do Mike Green quite a bit. No slight to Wideman/Carlson but their record has dipped since his injury and a lot of it has to do with his importance to their transition game.
The other aspect to last night's game is it being the second of back-to-backs. As much as they talk about being in better shape and the like, their mental toughness and execution hasn't been very sharp in those situations, especially late.
Btw, I don't see how shots numbers account for the slow start from Detroit or Montreal or the fast start by Edmonton.
I'm going a little deeper with the stats here. These are the CORSI stats when the game is tied. As we know, when a team gets ahead they often sit on the lead and allow more shots and less shots for. By using "tied" is shows how teams play when there are no advantages.
Edmonton - 0.485
Detroit - 0.584
Montreal - 0.525
As you can see, Edmonton is riding the PDO train while Detroit and Montreal have had bad puck luck at different stages of the game.
Edit: Since I last looked at my numbers Detroit and Montreal seems to have a normal PDO or even slightly positive. My apologies.
Last edited by Jason MacIsaac: 11-13-2011 at 07:16 PM.
