HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

Modern Hockey Analysis Tools

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-06-2012, 03:07 PM
  #26
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,236
vCash: 50
wait I have a bit of a brain cramp , the numbers at the end (r-on / r-off) are the average goals scored by their team per game , or against their team per game?

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 03:12 PM
  #27
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Lidstrom and Pronger - playoffs

Year Player GP ESGA MinP Player GP ESGA MinP
1998 Chris Pronger 10 8 13 Nicklas Lidstrom 22 14 4
1999 Chris Pronger 13 11 14 Nicklas Lidstrom 10 6 2
2000 Chris Pronger 7 6 11 Nicklas Lidstrom 9 9 2
2001 Chris Pronger 15 6 16 Nicklas Lidstrom 6 4 0
2002 Chris Pronger 9 3 7 Nicklas Lidstrom 23 15 1
2003 Chris Pronger 7 4 7 Nicklas Lidstrom 4 3 0
2004 Chris Pronger 5 1 8 Nicklas Lidstrom 12 6 2
2006 Chris Pronger 24 16 13 Nicklas Lidstrom 6 6 1
2007 Chris Pronger 19 8 13 Nicklas Lidstrom 18 9 3
2008 Chris Pronger 6 2 6 Nicklas Lidstrom 22 10 7
2009 Chris Pronger 13 8 6 Nicklas Lidstrom 21 10 3
2010 Chris Pronger 23 21 12 Nicklas Lidstrom 12 10 1
Total Chris Pronger 151 93 126 Nicklas Lidstrom 165 102 26
Per-playoff Chris Pronger 12.6 7.7 10.5 Nicklas Lidstrom 13.8 8.5 2.2
Per-82 Chris Pronger 82 50 68 Nicklas Lidstrom 82 51 13

In the playoffs, Pronger has taken even more penalties, and Lidstrom has taken fewer. There's an absolutely massive gap between them in the rate that they take minor penalties. (I would really like to see the coincidental penalties separated out, but don't feel like doing the work now.)

In the HOH top defencemen project, I posted the on-ice and off-ice ES goal ratio for several players in the playoffs, including Lidstrom and Pronger. Here are those numbers for the 1998-2010 playoffs.

Lidstrom - 1.28 R-ON, 1.32 R-OFF
Pronger - 1.50 R-ON, 0.87 R-OFF

It appears that Pronger has had a much larger impact on the ice at even strength...but the fact that Pronger will take 4-5 additional minor penalties in a 7 game series has to be weighted against that. Hard to quantify it exactly, as the on/off numbers have a lot of other influences and we don't have the coincidental penalties separated out.

Basically Pronger became more like Pronger in the playoffs.
How are Pronger's numbers affected by his time in Anaheim, when Niederarmayer on the other pairing was basically getting the shut down roles at even strength?

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 03:13 PM
  #28
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,236
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
How are Pronger's numbers affected by his time in Anaheim, when Niederarmayer on the other pairing was basically getting the shut down roles at even strength?
Is this true? That surprises me a lot if it is.How is niedermayer better at shutting down players than Chris Pronger?

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 03:32 PM
  #29
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
wait I have a bit of a brain cramp , the numbers at the end (r-on / r-off) are the average goals scored by their team per game , or against their team per game?
R is shorthand for even strength GF/GA ratio.

So if a player's team has 15 ESGF and 10 ESGA when he is on the ice, his R-ON is 1.5 (15/10). If the team has 12 ESGF and 12 ESGA when the player is off the ice, his R-ON is 1.0 (12/12).

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
How are Pronger's numbers affected by his time in Anaheim, when Niederarmayer on the other pairing was basically getting the shut down roles at even strength?
Niedermayer and Beauchemin, right.

Taking out the Anaheim years from the above numbers (leaving 1998-2006, 2010), Pronger had 54 ESGA/82, 73 minor penalties/82, R-ON=1.42, R-OFF=0.81.

From 1998-2004, in his prime in St. Louis, Pronger had 47 ESGA/82, 94 minor penalties/82, R-ON=1.44, R-OFF=0.72. Yeah, he took a lot of penalties in the playoffs for the Blues.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2012, 03:35 PM
  #30
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
Is this true? That surprises me a lot if it is.How is niedermayer better at shutting down players than Chris Pronger?
Pronger was probably the more important player on both special teams, but Anaheim fans insist that Niedermayer was the top shutdown guy.

Niedermayer was Canada's top shutdown guy at the 2010 Olympics too, right?

Peak Niedermayer was an excellent hockey player; he just wasn't at that level for long.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 10:20 AM
  #31
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Here's a look at minor penalties taken by Chris Pronger and Nicklas Lidstrom. Starting in 1997-98, when both became Norris contenders, through 2010-11.

I have left out major penalties because many of them are coincidental, and don't put the team down a man. Some of the minor penalties are probably coincidental as well, but I don't have a data source that separates those numbers.

Year Pronger GP Lidstrom GP Pronger MinP Lidstrom MinP Pronger ESGA Lidstrom ESGA
1998 81 80 65 9 55 51
1999 67 81 49 7 59 61
2000 79 81 41 9 43 70
2001 51 82 30 9 26 65
2002 78 78 45 10 50 55
2003 5 82 5 19 7 55
2004 80 81 39 9 50 51
2006 80 80 37 25 47 48
2007 66 80 32 23 27 35
2008 72 76 43 20 34 36
2009 82 78 39 15 56 49
2010 82 82 32 12 45 56
2011 50 82 21 10 33 65
Total 873 1043 478 177 532 698
Per-season 67 80 37 14 41 54
Per-82 82 82 45 14 50 55

MinP=minor penalty taken, ESGA= on-ice even strength goal against.

Pronger has been on the ice for fewer ES goals against than Lidstrom, even on a per-game basis, despite playing similar ice time. This is one reason I've been high on Pronger in the past. But it appears that Pronger takes penalties as a substitute for allowing goals, compared to Lidstrom. So his team ends up allowing goals on the power play instead.

It's hard to quantify the effect without having the coincidental penalties split out, but if Pronger allows 5 fewer ESGA than Lidstrom but takes 30 more minor penalties, that looks pretty similar.

Looking at Lidstrom's career season by season, there is a very high negative correlation (-0.72) between minor penalties taken and ESGA.This correlation would undoubtedly be of a lower magnitude if those numbers were normalized to league average, but it's still interesting.
If I've interpreted this correctly, on average Pronger is on the ice for slightly few ESGA than Lidstrom, before considering the impact of penalty taking.

Pronger is on the ice for 31 extra minor penalties per 82 games. Let's assume that 15% are coincidental minors that don't put his team shorthanded (not supported by any data, but I think it's a reasonable ballpark estimate). Let's also assume that their teams kill 85% of penalties (which I'm sure is higher than the average over that time period, but they generally played on very good defensive teams). Relative to Lidstrom, Pronger's penalty-taking would therefore cost his team around 31 * 0.85 * 0.15 = 3.95 goals against per season.

In other words, after taking penalty-taking into account, Lidstrom and Pronger are virtually even in terms of ES goals against. Pronger is on the ice for about 5 fewer goals against at even strength, but his team probably surrenders around 4 more goals on the penalty kill.

Still, I think this favours Lidstrom for three reasons:

1. This analysis only takes into account the defensive impact of penalties (ie teams allow more goals while on the PK). However, this doesn't take into account the lost offensive opportunities (as it's much harder to score while on the PK compared to even strength).

2. Even if both players have the same net impact on defense, Pronger still spends roughly triple the time in the penalty box. All things being equal, I'd rather have my Hall of Fame defenseman sitting on the bench, ready to be used as needed, rather than sitting in the penalty box.

3. Lidstrom maintained this elite level of play for a longer period of time. He might not be "better" (if we're talking about ability) but was clearly more "valuable" (if we're talking about how much he contributed to his teams). I place more focus on "valuable" but understand that this is a matter of personal preference.

A few more points:

4. I don't think that Pronger should get extra credit for being tough and intimidating - these are valuable only insofar as they help his team defensively. Since his goals-against numbers should already capture any positive impact of his strength and physical play, we would be double-counting if we gave Pronger additional credit for his toughness.

5. Technically I think this should be done on a per-minute basis. From 1999 to 2012 (I realize this doesn't correspond exactly to the years you used), Pronger has played about an extra 30 seconds per game (roughly 2%). I suspect Pronger played a slightly greater percentage of his ice time at ES than Lidstrom (just a hunch that I haven't verified). Perhaps this factor favours Pronger slightly?

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 01:19 PM
  #32
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post

4. I don't think that Pronger should get extra credit for being tough and intimidating - these are valuable only insofar as they help his team defensively. Since his goals-against numbers should already capture any positive impact of his strength and physical play, we would be double-counting if we gave Pronger additional credit for his toughness.
I've always thought this. Comes up in Potvin/Bourque/Lidstrom debates a lot.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 01:22 PM
  #33
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,236
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I've always thought this. Comes up in Potvin/Bourque/Lidstrom debates a lot.
Is it possible to take into consideration the fact regular seasons and playoffs are extremely differant in how some forwards or players in general might be affected by intimidation , having to deal with the same ''aggressors'' for 4-7 games in a row instead of just one and moving on?

Could the intimidation factor slowly get bigger as the numbers of consecutive games against the intimidator rises?

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2012, 01:48 PM
  #34
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
Could the intimidation factor slowly get bigger as the numbers of consecutive games against the intimidator rises?
In Pronger's case, the level of crazy definitely rises. Whether that is a good or bad thing is a matter of some controversy. The Pronger from St. Louis was something of a disaster in the playoffs, specifically because he couldn't keep his rather large id in check. But he got better later on.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 01:05 AM
  #35
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Still, I think this favours Lidstrom for three reasons:

1. This analysis only takes into account the defensive impact of penalties (ie teams allow more goals while on the PK). However, this doesn't take into account the lost offensive opportunities (as it's much harder to score while on the PK compared to even strength).
Disagree. Yes it is harder to score, but you have already counted all goals against on the PK as a disadvantage of the penalty kill. If it were even strength, some goals would be scored - and some would be allowed. Your earlier calculations simply assume that neither team has an advantage at even strength, which is a reasonable assumption. It's even strength play, after all.

(In a specific game situation this may be a disadvantage - for example while trailing in the third period. But it shouldn't be a factor in aggregate.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
2. Even if both players have the same net impact on defense, Pronger still spends roughly triple the time in the penalty box. All things being equal, I'd rather have my Hall of Fame defenseman sitting on the bench, ready to be used as needed, rather than sitting in the penalty box.

3. Lidstrom maintained this elite level of play for a longer period of time. He might not be "better" (if we're talking about ability) but was clearly more "valuable" (if we're talking about how much he contributed to his teams). I place more focus on "valuable" but understand that this is a matter of personal preference.

4. I don't think that Pronger should get extra credit for being tough and intimidating - these are valuable only insofar as they help his team defensively. Since his goals-against numbers should already capture any positive impact of his strength and physical play, we would be double-counting if we gave Pronger additional credit for his toughness.
Fair points. Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
5. Technically I think this should be done on a per-minute basis. From 1999 to 2012 (I realize this doesn't correspond exactly to the years you used), Pronger has played about an extra 30 seconds per game (roughly 2%). I suspect Pronger played a slightly greater percentage of his ice time at ES than Lidstrom (just a hunch that I haven't verified). Perhaps this factor favours Pronger slightly?
In 97-98 and 98-99, Pronger played about 3 more minutes per game at even strength than Lidstrom did. From that point on they were pretty equal in ESTOI. Without crunching all the numbers, yes, that factor favours Pronger slightly.

----------------------

I found a breakdown of minor penalties on the nhl.com player pages.

Here are the minor penalties Pronger took in the playoffs from 1998 to 2010, with the associated PIM.

HI-STICKING 40
CROSS CHECKING 30
HOOKING 30
ROUGHING 28
SLASHING 24
HOLDING 22
INTERFERENCE 22
TRIPPING 14
ELBOWING 12
UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT 6
HI STICK - DOUBLE MINOR 4
HOLDING - OBSTRUCTION 4
HOLDING THE STICK 4
BOARDING 2
CLOSING HAND ON PUCK 2
DELAY OF GAME 2
DELAYING GAME-PUCK OVER GLASS 2
DIVING 2
HOOKING - OBSTRUCTION 2
INTERFERENCE ON GOALKEEPER 2
TOTAL 254

If all roughing, unsportsmanlike, and diving are coincidentals, 14% of his minors were coincidentals.

The same list, but considerably shorter, for Lidstrom.

HOOKING 20
INTERFERENCE 12
HI-STICKING 6
TRIPPING 6
HOLDING 4
DELAYING GAME-PUCK OVER GLASS 2
SLASHING 2
TOTAL 52

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 01:12 AM
  #36
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
If all roughing, unsportsmanlike, and diving are coincidentals, 14% of his minors were coincidentals.
In Pronger's specific case, I doubt that this is true.

Sturminator 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 09:58 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.