HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Notices

Advanced Stats Regarding Miller

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-07-2012, 01:32 AM
  #26
Imlach a cup
Registered User
 
Imlach a cup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirby11 View Post
i think it's safe to say this is one of those "how the **** has no one in the sabres organization realized how wrong lindy can be sometimes as a coach" moments
Yea if only the Sabres were as smart as the people on these boards we'd have dynasty on our hands.

Imlach a cup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 07:18 AM
  #27
WhoIsJimBob
Suffering
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Shots against While there is no statistical way to differentiate quality chances from a shot from the blue line, it stands to reason that the more shots a team faces, the more scoring chances they will have
There is a difference between "no statistical way to differentiate" and "it would take a lot of work to differentiate".

It wouldn't surprise me if teams had put in the work to differentiate between "easy shots" and "hard shots" to save.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 08:29 AM
  #28
Buffalo87
thehosers dot com
 
Buffalo87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Rochester
Posts: 7,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
There is a difference between "no statistical way to differentiate" and "it would take a lot of work to differentiate".

It wouldn't surprise me if teams had put in the work to differentiate between "easy shots" and "hard shots" to save.
There has actually been some pretty heavy statistical work done recently to show that scoring chance differential really doesnt tell you anything that shot differential cant. Ie - over a longer period of time, there is not a significant difference in shot quality between different teams/coaches/systems. Ill find the articles when I get home and Im not on my phone.


Also, in reponse to the question on W/L records in quality starts, I did a blog post using stats to give a season review of the goalies. Not once in his ~20 starts was Enroth bailed out when he didnt post a quality start, Miller actually had a reasonably high bail out percentage. Record in quality starts, I cant remember but I think Miller was right around the league average in terms of points % in quality starts.

Buffalo87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 08:37 AM
  #29
WhoIsJimBob
Suffering
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffalo87 View Post
There has actually been some pretty heavy statistical work done recently to show that scoring chance differential really doesnt tell you anything that shot differential cant. Ie - over a longer period of time, there is not a significant difference in shot quality between different teams/coaches/systems. Ill find the articles when I get home and Im not on my phone.

Also, in reponse to the question on W/L records in quality starts, I did a blog post using stats to give a season review of the goalies. Not once in his ~20 starts was Enroth bailed out when he didnt post a quality start, Miller actually had a reasonably high bail out percentage. Record in quality starts, I cant remember but I think Miller was right around the league average in terms of points % in quality starts.
I also know a former NHL goalie coach that tracked the difficulty of the potential save on goals against.

I could see it not being worth the work. I was calling into question whether it was possible.

Grading chances and having a Save% attributed to the various chances is possible. It's just a lot more work than the generic stats that are used.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 08:43 AM
  #30
HockeyH3aven
#Flynnsanity
 
HockeyH3aven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
wait... Lindy Ruff doesn't play a defense first, all hands on deck system?

This article seems to insinuate that the Sabres play an offensive system because their d-men pinch a lot... ok All these other successful goalies are successful because of their defensive/passive systems... but the Sabres play offensive first and our super aggressive... yea ok
They do, the Sabres are typically in the top third in the league for shots on goal and the bottom third for shots allowed. That's a pretty solid indicator a team plays an aggressive risk taking style

He never said that. He cited two examples (Blues, Coyotes) which help support his conclusion. Nowhere in the article did he disparage Lundqvist, Price, or Vokoun, with whom he grouped Miller with as "elite goalies". The whole article was about how these guys are elite because their teams tend to give up more opportunities than others.

HockeyH3aven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 08:47 AM
  #31
HockeyH3aven
#Flynnsanity
 
HockeyH3aven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
probably the dumbest statement, among many dumb statements
Teams that play passive, defensive systems, with a premium on puck control rely on their goalies to make less saves, especially ones in transition. Those teams can get by with lesser goalies because they aren't relying upon them to make as many saves on higher quality chances like more aggressive teams would.

That or you think Brian Elliot (and Mike Smith) flipped suddenly learned how to become an amazing goalie in the space of one off-season. He was quite bad for the Senators.

HockeyH3aven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 08:51 AM
  #32
Buffalo87
thehosers dot com
 
Buffalo87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Rochester
Posts: 7,254
vCash: 500
http://www.thehosers.com/2012/05/sea...alies.html?m=1

Here is the bit I did a month or so ago analyzing the Sabres goalies by the numbers. Covers quality start %, pts % in QS, even strength sv%, bail out %, goal supports, avg shots against, etc.

Buffalo87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 08:56 AM
  #33
WhoIsJimBob
Suffering
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffalo87 View Post
http://www.thehosers.com/2012/05/sea...alies.html?m=1

Here is the bit I did a month or so ago analyzing the Sabres goalies by the numbers. Covers quality start %, pts % in QS, even strength sv%, bail out %, goal supports, avg shots against, etc.
The interesting thing to me is how Miller gets bailed out more than Enroth.

If you go back over the past 3 or 4 years, I bet that is a common trend between Miller and his backups. It seems like the team never bails out Miller's backup.

And that kind of goes against the theory that the team hates Miller, right?


WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 09:43 AM
  #34
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyH3aven View Post
Teams that play passive, defensive systems, with a premium on puck control rely on their goalies to make less saves, especially ones in transition. Those teams can get by with lesser goalies because they aren't relying upon them to make as many saves on higher quality chances like more aggressive teams would.

That or you think Brian Elliot (and Mike Smith) flipped suddenly learned how to become an amazing goalie in the space of one off-season. He was quite bad for the Senators.
Boston was 29th in shots against when they won the Cup.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 09:46 AM
  #35
HockeyH3aven
#Flynnsanity
 
HockeyH3aven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
Boston was 29th in shots against when they won the Cup.
Look who won the Conn Smythe for them.

I'm not sure why you quoted me, I never disputed teams that give up lots of shots are somehow "worse". If anything, it just shows that Tim Thomas was/is really, really good.

HockeyH3aven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 09:53 AM
  #36
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyH3aven View Post
Look who won the Conn Smythe for them.

I'm not sure why you quoted me, I never disputed teams that give up lots of shots are somehow "worse". If anything, it just shows that Tim Thomas was/is really, really good.
Because the Bruins (and Sabres) play a passive defensive system based entirely on allowing a higher quantity of low percentage shots so any type of evaluation based on shot totals is totally useless.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 09:58 AM
  #37
HockeyH3aven
#Flynnsanity
 
HockeyH3aven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
Because the Bruins (and Sabres) play a passive defensive system based entirely on allowing a higher quantity of low percentage shots so any type of evaluation based on shot totals is totally useless.
Agree to disagree. Statistical analysis on trying to evaluate actual quality of chances just shows that teams that give up more shots give up more quality chances as well. The differences are so minimal that differentiating the two tends to be a waste of time.

I would also argue that teams that play this style are relying on their goaltender more. I think Tim Thomas is an example of somebody who is just really, really good. Using shot total to analyze how often a team relies on their goalie makes perfect sense.

When I meant "passive defensive system", I meant one where the use on light for checking and their defense-man rarely pinch.

Also, just because a team wins one stanley cup, doesn't mean that they're the ultimate example to follow on how to run a hockey team. The Kings won the cup being 29th in scoring in the regular season, are you going to argue that scoring isn't important to winning a championship, despite the massive amount of evidence (IE, other cup winning teams) pointing to the contrary?

Random team X won a cup in random year Y doing Z, so this must be fact, isn't an argument.

HockeyH3aven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 10:05 AM
  #38
Buffalo87
thehosers dot com
 
Buffalo87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Rochester
Posts: 7,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
The interesting thing to me is how Miller gets bailed out more than Enroth.

If you go back over the past 3 or 4 years, I bet that is a common trend between Miller and his backups. It seems like the team never bails out Miller's backup.

And that kind of goes against the theory that the team hates Miller, right?

Yeah, I was surprised to see the pretty significant difference in the support from the team from Miller to Enroth. It was visible on the ice, interesting seeing it laid out in the numbers as well.


In reference to the neglible difference in shot quality from team to team, here is one of the pieces I was referencing:

http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/6/26/shot...nd-shot-totals

Buffalo87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 10:36 AM
  #39
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyH3aven View Post
Agree to disagree. Statistical analysis on trying to evaluate actual quality of chances just shows that teams that give up more shots give up more quality chances as well. The differences are so minimal that differentiating the two tends to be a waste of time.
Right, except we're talking about specific teams playing specific defensive systems. I don't care about every team that gives up a lot of shots, I care about teams that give up a lot of shots as the means to an end.

Quote:
I would also argue that teams that play this style are relying on their goaltender more. I think Tim Thomas is an example of somebody who is just really, really good. Using shot total to analyze how often a team relies on their goalie makes perfect sense.
Yes and no. The goaltender is relied on to make the first save more, but he's also able to be much more lax with rebound control because Chara/Sieds/McQuaid/Boychuk are tackling guys in front. And Thomas' backups have had a .912 save% or better since 2009 in that same system, so it's not like TT is the only goalie capable of succeeding in that system.

Quote:
When I meant "passive defensive system", I meant one where the use on light for checking and their defense-man rarely pinch.
Fair. I've just referred to the Sabres' in-zone defense in those same words, hence the confusion. Carry on...

Quote:
Also, just because a team wins one stanley cup, doesn't mean that they're the ultimate example to follow on how to run a hockey team. The Kings won the cup being 29th in scoring in the regular season, are you going to argue that scoring isn't important to winning a championship, despite the massive amount of evidence (IE, other cup winning teams) pointing to the contrary?

Random team X won a cup in random year Y doing Z, so this must be fact, isn't an argument.
I'm bringing up the Bruins because they're an undisputed very good defensive team that also happens to allow a lot of shots against.

I don't like the collapse, I've explained why in this thread already, but to say that the Sabres are a bad defensively because of their shots against totals, when that is the entire point of their defensive system is a terrible assertion, especially when the author is making it sound like Buffalo is still playing the run-n-gun and swapping chances. That isn't happening.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 12:26 PM
  #40
HockeyH3aven
#Flynnsanity
 
HockeyH3aven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
Right, except we're talking about specific teams playing specific defensive systems. I don't care about every team that gives up a lot of shots, I care about teams that give up a lot of shots as the means to an end.


Yes and no. The goaltender is relied on to make the first save more, but he's also able to be much more lax with rebound control because Chara/Sieds/McQuaid/Boychuk are tackling guys in front. And Thomas' backups have had a .912 save% or better since 2009 in that same system, so it's not like TT is the only goalie capable of succeeding in that system.


Fair. I've just referred to the Sabres' in-zone defense in those same words, hence the confusion. Carry on...


I'm bringing up the Bruins because they're an undisputed very good defensive team that also happens to allow a lot of shots against.

I don't like the collapse, I've explained why in this thread already, but to say that the Sabres are a bad defensively because of their shots against totals, when that is the entire point of their defensive system is a terrible assertion, especially when the author is making it sound like Buffalo is still playing the run-n-gun and swapping chances. That isn't happening.
I wasn't arguing they were poor defensively, I was arguing their play style results in them giving up a lot of shots.

I'm also not saying they're bad because they allow a lot of shots, I'm saying a high quality goaltender is more important to teams that give up a lot of shots.

HockeyH3aven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 12:32 PM
  #41
dma0034
Registered User
 
dma0034's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,686
vCash: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
Boston was 29th in shots against when they won the Cup.
Yes but the quality of the shots weren't good. Remember when the 8th seed Oilers beat the 1st seed Oilers? Roloson was having 35-45 saves a game... while still impressive it was due to Edmonton forcing Detroit to take shots from the outside.

dma0034 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 12:41 PM
  #42
WhoIsJimBob
Suffering
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffalo87 View Post
Yeah, I was surprised to see the pretty significant difference in the support from the team from Miller to Enroth. It was visible on the ice, interesting seeing it laid out in the numbers as well.


In reference to the neglible difference in shot quality from team to team, here is one of the pieces I was referencing:

http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/6/26/shot...nd-shot-totals
The problem with that is it is looking at "scoring chances" vs shots from a skater POV.

Even amongst scoring chances, not all are created equal, especially from a goalie's POV.

Screens, deflections, one timers where a goalie has to move across the crease, backdoor plays, and uncontested breakaways are all tougher situations for goalies to handle vs some low in jam type plays that might count as scoring chances, but aren't that tough for goalies to handle.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 12:48 PM
  #43
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyH3aven View Post
I wasn't arguing they were poor defensively, I was arguing their play style results in them giving up a lot of shots.
Right, I think you're missing my point.

The author of this article, going back to his "advanced statistical analysis" of Lindy Ruff's system last week, has been asserting that the Sabres do not play a defensively oriented system because they allow a lot of shots against, and stringing that point into apologizing for Ruff and Miller.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 01:03 PM
  #44
HockeyH3aven
#Flynnsanity
 
HockeyH3aven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
Right, I think you're missing my point.

The author of this article, going back to his "advanced statistical analysis" of Lindy Ruff's system last week, has been asserting that the Sabres do not play a defensively oriented system because they allow a lot of shots against, and stringing that point into apologizing for Ruff and Miller.
Does playing a defensive zone collapse in the defensive zone qualify as a defensively orientated system? Wouldn't everything you do in the defensive zone while the other team has the puck be considered defensively orientated?

From what I understand, he was talking about the Sabres penchant to fore-check more heavily than most teams and to pinch with their defense-men, thus leading to more chances going the other way than most teams.

HockeyH3aven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 02:25 PM
  #45
New Sabres Captain
ForFriendshipDikembe
 
New Sabres Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 37,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyH3aven View Post
Does playing a defensive zone collapse in the defensive zone qualify as a defensively orientated system? Wouldn't everything you do in the defensive zone while the other team has the puck be considered defensively orientated?

From what I understand, he was talking about the Sabres penchant to fore-check more heavily than most teams and to pinch with their defense-men, thus leading to more chances going the other way than most teams.
Right, but that only tells part of the story--it tells how Miller likely faces more odd man rushes...but it still doesn't say how much, or how much of the total chances against come as a result.

Breaking down his shots/saves by distance of the shot would give a better picture. A team that collapses well may give up more shots, but from 30" away as opposed to 3". If you want to see how much a team relies on it's tender, look at where the shots are coming from, not just the number.

New Sabres Captain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 02:44 PM
  #46
HockeyH3aven
#Flynnsanity
 
HockeyH3aven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrigsAndGirgs View Post
Right, but that only tells part of the story--it tells how Miller likely faces more odd man rushes...but it still doesn't say how much, or how much of the total chances against come as a result.

Breaking down his shots/saves by distance of the shot would give a better picture. A team that collapses well may give up more shots, but from 30" away as opposed to 3". If you want to see how much a team relies on it's tender, look at where the shots are coming from, not just the number.
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, I have seen this sort of data before, and # of shots faces and # of "high quality chances" given up are always directly related and very similar.

I've interned with former and current AHL/NHL goalie coaches, they look at this stuff all the time. I don't know of any place to get this sort of data from NHL games, but from what I've seen at the AHL/ECHL/CHL/NCAA level backs this up.

At the end of the day, I would argue a defensive system built around collapsing and praying is a flawed one.

HockeyH3aven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 06:43 PM
  #47
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyH3aven View Post
Does playing a defensive zone collapse in the defensive zone qualify as a defensively orientated system? Wouldn't everything you do in the defensive zone while the other team has the puck be considered defensively orientated?

From what I understand, he was talking about the Sabres penchant to fore-check more heavily than most teams and to pinch with their defense-men, thus leading to more chances going the other way than most teams.
The Sabres do not at all forecheck more heavily than other teams. They involve their defensemen once the cycle is established/on the rush, but rarely are they sending two forwards below the goal line for puck pursuit.

struckbyaparkedcar 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 07:55 AM.

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.