HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > By The Numbers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
By The Numbers Hockey Analytics... the Final Frontier. Explore strange new worlds, to seek out new algorithms, to boldly go where no one has gone before.

Power play metrics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-13-2012, 11:37 AM
  #26
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
Why look at goals when shots for is better at prdicting future rates. The best stat one can look at is sh/60. The best PP teams are often near the top. The same goes for on the PK.

This site has a long long way to go before it is comparable to any of the true Sabre sites. Some of these topics are nhl.com stat worthy.
Shots for are a better predictor than goals for over a small sample where there may be too much randomness in the goals stat. At some larger sample size goals for become a better predictor because it captures the shooting skill of the team.

It depends on what you want to look at. If you want to evaluate your team's power play after 5 games by using only stats and without watching the games, shots for are certainly the best tool.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 11:58 AM
  #27
Jason MacIsaac
MARS Officer
 
Jason MacIsaac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,490
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jason MacIsaac Send a message via Yahoo to Jason MacIsaac
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Shots for are a better predictor than goals for over a small sample where there may be too much randomness in the goals stat. At some larger sample size goals for become a better predictor because it captures the shooting skill of the team.

It depends on what you want to look at. If you want to evaluate your team's power play after 5 games by using only stats and without watching the games, shots for are certainly the best tool.
While PP there is slightly more shooting skill than 5 on 5, there is still a massive amount of luck. In the long run there there really is no skill to sh% in any situation.

Jason MacIsaac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 12:00 PM
  #28
Jason MacIsaac
MARS Officer
 
Jason MacIsaac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,490
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jason MacIsaac Send a message via Yahoo to Jason MacIsaac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
I guess the last two weeks have been a failure, then - let's shut down the site.
No, the members are where it is failing. Incorrect topics are being discussed and agreed upon.

Jason MacIsaac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 12:07 PM
  #29
Doctor No
Mod Supervisor
Retired?
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 24,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
No, the members are where it is failing. Incorrect topics are being discussed and agreed upon.
The site *is* the members. I'd respectfully suggest that you follow stickied rule #2:

"Be patient, and trust others' motives. What's basic to you may not be basic to me, and we're all in this together. Be helpful. Take opportunities to learn, and take opportunities to teach."

Thanks.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 12:25 PM
  #30
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
While PP there is slightly more shooting skill than 5 on 5, there is still a massive amount of luck. In the long run there there really is no skill to sh% in any situation.
Tell that to Mario Lemieux. Or Steven Stamkos. There is some amount of skill in any competitive human endeavor.

If your idea of advanced contributions is to say "in the long run there is really no skill to sh%", I can only assume you're reading the wrong people or you are misunderstanding what you read. You obviously haven't looked at the numbers yourself.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 12:30 PM
  #31
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Tell that to Mario Lemieux. Or Steven Stamkos. There is some amount of skill in any competitive human endeavor.

If your idea of advanced contributions is to say "in the long run there is really no skill to sh%", I can only assume you're reading the wrong people or you are misunderstanding what you read. You obviously haven't looked at the numbers yourself.
I totally agree.

This is what one might call the "PDO effect". Stats are dangerous if you blindly accept them and have no idea how to evaluate them.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 01:10 PM
  #32
Jason MacIsaac
MARS Officer
 
Jason MacIsaac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,490
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jason MacIsaac Send a message via Yahoo to Jason MacIsaac
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Tell that to Mario Lemieux. Or Steven Stamkos. There is some amount of skill in any competitive human endeavor.

If your idea of advanced contributions is to say "in the long run there is really no skill to sh%", I can only assume you're reading the wrong people or you are misunderstanding what you read. You obviously haven't looked at the numbers yourself.
Tampa Bay had an on ice sh% of 12.8...only good for 11th in the NHL. The top ten teams are :

1.) Nashville
2.) Edmonton
3.) New York Islanders
4.) Toronto
5.) Atlanta
6.) Philly
7.) Boston
8.) Calgary
9.) Ottawa
10.) Florida

Your theory of superhuman skill is thrown out the window.

Jason MacIsaac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 01:17 PM
  #33
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,618
vCash: 500
Why aren't you advocating for your favourite team to sign Scott Gomez? He'll score 20+ goals with an average forward's shooting percentage!


Last edited by Hank Chinaski: 08-16-2012 at 10:38 AM. Reason: qdp
overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 01:22 PM
  #34
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,618
vCash: 500
BTW, Gabriel Desjardins doesn't actually believe that shooting percentage talent doesn't exist. See, for example, this post.

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2012/...-line-forwards

It's just that he chooses to focus on the randomness of shooting percentage in the short run, and some people take that to mean that no skill exists for shooting percentage.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 01:27 PM
  #35
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,760
vCash: 500
I've always thought that the best way to measure PP strength was in a PP minutes per goal metric. This better measures efficiency and evens out the PP disparity problem the current numbers can hide. A team who gets 5 PPs a game but needs an average of 11:32 of PP time for a goal doesn't really have a "better" PP than a team who averages 3 PPs a game but only needs 7:48 of PP per goal.

FissionFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 01:29 PM
  #36
Jason MacIsaac
MARS Officer
 
Jason MacIsaac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,490
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jason MacIsaac Send a message via Yahoo to Jason MacIsaac
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Why aren't you advocating for your favourite team to sign Scott Gomez? He'll score 20+ goals with an average forward's shooting percentage!
Gomez has below replacement level shooting. At the individual level there is skill but as a unit on the ice it is minimal. His on ice sh% in the previous 3 seasons was 7.46% which is just below average for an NHL player. I would sign Gomez, however, he still drives play and had a ridiculously unlucky season with Montreal.

Jason MacIsaac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 01:31 PM
  #37
Jason MacIsaac
MARS Officer
 
Jason MacIsaac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,490
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jason MacIsaac Send a message via Yahoo to Jason MacIsaac
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
BTW, Gabriel Desjardins doesn't actually believe that shooting percentage talent doesn't exist. See, for example, this post.

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2012/...-line-forwards

It's just that he chooses to focus on the randomness of shooting percentage in the short run, and some people take that to mean that no skill exists for shooting percentage.
I believe there is skill in shooting %, just very minimal and mostly at the individual level. Sure there are outliers like Hemsky who seems to have a high onice sh% over his career but there are outliers with any stat.

Jason MacIsaac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 01:47 PM
  #38
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
I've always thought that the best way to measure PP strength was in a PP minutes per goal metric. This better measures efficiency and evens out the PP disparity problem the current numbers can hide. A team who gets 5 PPs a game but needs an average of 11:32 of PP time for a goal doesn't really have a "better" PP than a team who averages 3 PPs a game but only needs 7:48 of PP per goal.
I think either PPG/PPO (PP goals/power plays) or PPG/min. would be the best. I see what you're saying, except that some teams may put their lesser PP unit out first, and some may put their best unit out there for close to the whole 2 minutes. Such scenarios would distort PPG/min. Even if they didn't do either of those, the goal is to score one goal on the PP, not do so the fastest.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 02:05 PM
  #39
Jason MacIsaac
MARS Officer
 
Jason MacIsaac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,490
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jason MacIsaac Send a message via Yahoo to Jason MacIsaac
SH/60 minutes
1.) San Jose
2.) Pittsburgh
3.) Vancouver
4.) Columbus
5.) Anaheim
6.) Colorado
7.) Buffalo
8.) Philadelphia
9.) St Louis
10.) Carolina

SH%
1.) Nashville
2.) Edmonton
3.) New York Islanders
4.) Toronto
5.) Winnipeg
6.) Philadelphia
7.) Boston
8.) Calgary
9.) Ottawa
10.) Florida

Even with Lidstrom retiring I can tell you which list I believe will have the better PP's moving forward.

Jason MacIsaac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 02:15 PM
  #40
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
SH/60 minutes
1.) San Jose
2.) Pittsburgh
3.) Vancouver
4.) Columbus
5.) Anaheim
6.) Colorado
7.) Buffalo
8.) Philadelphia
9.) St Louis
10.) Carolina

SH%
1.) Nashville
2.) Edmonton
3.) New York Islanders
4.) Toronto
5.) Winnipeg
6.) Philadelphia
7.) Boston
8.) Calgary
9.) Ottawa
10.) Florida

Even with Lidstrom retiring I can tell you which list I believe will have the better PP's moving forward.
I don't think anyone would disagree that SH/60 is a better predictor than SH. But why use either when you can use goals? Or better yet, GF/GA?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 02:15 PM
  #41
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
SH/60 minutes
1.) San Jose
2.) Pittsburgh
3.) Vancouver
4.) Columbus
5.) Anaheim
6.) Colorado
7.) Buffalo
8.) Philadelphia
9.) St Louis
10.) Carolina

SH%
1.) Nashville
2.) Edmonton
3.) New York Islanders
4.) Toronto
5.) Winnipeg
6.) Philadelphia
7.) Boston
8.) Calgary
9.) Ottawa
10.) Florida

Even with Lidstrom retiring I can tell you which list I believe will have the better PP's moving forward.
Detroit is on neither list.

I'd go with this list:

Nash
SJ
Edm
Van
Pitt
Philly

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 02:17 PM
  #42
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
SH/60 minutes
1.) San Jose
2.) Pittsburgh
3.) Vancouver
4.) Columbus
5.) Anaheim
6.) Colorado
7.) Buffalo
8.) Philadelphia
9.) St Louis
10.) Carolina

SH%
1.) Nashville
2.) Edmonton
3.) New York Islanders
4.) Toronto
5.) Winnipeg
6.) Philadelphia
7.) Boston
8.) Calgary
9.) Ottawa
10.) Florida

Even with Lidstrom retiring I can tell you which list I believe will have the better PP's moving forward.
Nobody is proposing using SH% alone to rank power play success. Why not include G/60 minutes in your list?

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 02:20 PM
  #43
Jason MacIsaac
MARS Officer
 
Jason MacIsaac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,490
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jason MacIsaac Send a message via Yahoo to Jason MacIsaac
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Nobody is proposing using SH% alone to rank power play success. Why not include G/60 minutes in your list?
I don't have that stat in front of me, 20 games into the season you put G/60 up against sh/60 and I'm pretty sure what list I believe will have the better PP. This is all about projecting future results.

Jason MacIsaac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 02:24 PM
  #44
Jason MacIsaac
MARS Officer
 
Jason MacIsaac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,490
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jason MacIsaac Send a message via Yahoo to Jason MacIsaac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Detroit is on neither list.

I'd go with this list:

Nash
SJ
Edm
Van
Pitt
Philly
That's opinion and has very little to do with stats. The only thing Edmonton has going for them is progression because nothing about their PP was good last year other then unsustainable sh%'s.

During the 2010-11 season Chicago had a 16.6 sh%. Good for 2nd in that category. Chicago had the 4th best PP in the NHL.

During the 2011-12 season Chicago had a 10.6 sh%. Good for 27th in that category. Chicago had the 26th best PP in the NHL.

What does this tell me? With the same players on the PP minus Seabrook Chicago's sh% moved from 2nd to 27th from year to year.


Last edited by Jason MacIsaac: 08-13-2012 at 02:35 PM.
Jason MacIsaac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 02:31 PM
  #45
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
This is all about projecting future results.
Surely projecting future results 20 games into the season is not the only goal of measuring power play success. What if we want a metric that is accurate over a longer time period?

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 02:35 PM
  #46
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
That's opinion and has very little to do with stats. The only thing Edmonton has going for them is progression because nothing about their PP was good last year other then unsustainable sh%'s.
Has nothing to do with stats? They scored goals the highest % of times per PP opportunity.

Here's list of goals per min. 5v4:

NASH
SJ
EDM
VAN
NYI
PITT
PHI
COL
CGY
FLA

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 02:40 PM
  #47
Jason MacIsaac
MARS Officer
 
Jason MacIsaac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,490
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jason MacIsaac Send a message via Yahoo to Jason MacIsaac
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Surely projecting future results 20 games into the season is not the only goal of measuring power play success. What if we want a metric that is accurate over a longer time period?
I'm not sure what you mean? From season to season? Different PP combinations, often different coaches and progression make that a little more difficult to gauge with math.

Jason MacIsaac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 02:41 PM
  #48
Jason MacIsaac
MARS Officer
 
Jason MacIsaac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,490
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jason MacIsaac Send a message via Yahoo to Jason MacIsaac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Has nothing to do with stats? They scored goals the highest % of times per PP opportunity.

Here's list of goals per min. 5v4:

NASH
SJ
EDM
VAN
NYI
PITT
PHI
COL
CGY
FLA
So that nearly 17% sh% had nothing to do with that? I think you seem to be ignoring sustainability. There are two parts to that ranking, shots/60 and sh%. Which of those factors do you believe is a better gauge for future events?

Jason MacIsaac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 02:54 PM
  #49
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
So that nearly 17% sh% had nothing to do with that? I think you seem to be ignoring sustainability. There are two parts to that ranking, shots/60 and sh%. Which of those factors do you believe is a better gauge for future events?
I haven't studied it, but looking at last year, SH% appears to be a better indicator of success than SH/60 on the PP.

Which of the two is more sustainable? I honestly don't know, but I doubt you do either.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 09:13 PM
  #50
Talks to Goalposts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
While PP there is slightly more shooting skill than 5 on 5, there is still a massive amount of luck. In the long run there there really is no skill to sh% in any situation.
I wouldn't say no skill, but relatively little and hard measure due to randomness. For example Andrei Markov's PP on ice shooting percentage over the last 5 years is 16.17% when the next highest for a big minute PP defensemen is 14.83%, the next best major teammate is at 13.83% and typical is around 12.5%. I'm pretty confidant that's reflective of a personal skill.

That said, 16% is probably the modern limit for sustainablity of on-ice PP shooting%. If a team is above that on the year like Edmonton was, there's a good chance they're going to fall.

Talks to Goalposts 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 05:36 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.