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.

Measuring offensive production

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-08-2011, 09:36 PM
  #51
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinBOOMBOOMbieksa View Post
the only issue I have in this is that though Crosby should get credit for his 41 games at Top-1, I feel like that 41 games should not be enough to knock a zetterberg out of the Top-5 for this year. But then where do you draw the line, probably 75% of the games is a better line to draw, say 60 or 65 games.
I view 60 as the absolute minimum... And it better be Lemieux-esque to stand much of a chance.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 04:33 PM
  #52
matnor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Country: Sweden
Posts: 491
vCash: 500
Updated through the 2011/12 season. The following has changed:

Top 5:
-Sidney Crosby advances from 38th to 27th and places himself in between Joe Sakic and Peter Forsberg.
-Evgeni Malkin enters the list in the 47th spot.
-Corb Denneny is pushed out of the top 50.

Top 10:
-Teemu Selšnne moves from 48th to 29th place all time and moves ahead of players like Steve Yzerman and Eric Lindros.

Top 20:
-Teemu Selšnne advances from the 38th to the 30th spot.
-Joe Thornton enters the list in the 39th spot ahead of another premier playmaker and newly inducted HOFer Adam Oates.
-Bill Cook is pushed out of the top 50.

matnor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 05:50 PM
  #53
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,550
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by matnor View Post
Updated through the 2011/12 season. The following has changed:

Top 5:
-Sidney Crosby advances from 38th to 27th and places himself in between Joe Sakic and Peter Forsberg.
I think you have an interesting idea, but I'm a bit confused.

First, if Crosby was 38th two seasons ago, then you must have given him credit for this season. Since he scored 37 points and the minimum is a half season, then by your method he scored at a 74 point pace. 74 points would be tied for 18th, except that Sharp, Datsyuk and Daniel Sedin all scored at more than a 74 points pace. So under your system, Crosby wouldn't even qualify for a top 20 pace, but seems to be given credit for a top 5 pace. How can this be so?

Second, it appears that you not only credit injured players who play at a top 5/10/20 pace with a half-season minimum, but penalize players who actually finished in the top 5/10/20 if someone with a higher pace displaces that player. For instance, if Crosby is given credit for a top 5 pace in 2011, does that mean Stamkos is no longer given credit for his 5th place finish? This seems quite unfair to me, as it gives an injured player more credit than a player who completed a season in the top X players.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 06-28-2012 at 06:05 PM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 07:05 PM
  #54
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I think you have an interesting idea, but I'm a bit confused.

First, if Crosby was 38th two seasons ago, then you must have given him credit for this season. Since he scored 37 points and the minimum is a half season, then by your method he scored at a 74 point pace. 74 points would be tied for 18th, except that Sharp, Datsyuk and Daniel Sedin all scored at more than a 74 points pace. So under your system, Crosby wouldn't even qualify for a top 20 pace, but seems to be given credit for a top 5 pace. How can this be so?

Second, it appears that you not only credit injured players who play at a top 5/10/20 pace with a half-season minimum, but penalize players who actually finished in the top 5/10/20 if someone with a higher pace displaces that player. For instance, if Crosby is given credit for a top 5 pace in 2011, does that mean Stamkos is no longer given credit for his 5th place finish? This seems quite unfair to me, as it gives an injured player more credit than a player who completed a season in the top X players.
The "played half a season" part is to determine where the bar is for the 5th, 10th, nth top scoring pace for that season. If you play games at that pace you get credit for them, whether it's 1 game or 82. So for Crosby this year, he is a non-factor in where the bar is set, so he doesn't bump anyone down, but he still gets credit for the small amount of games he did play.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2012, 02:58 PM
  #55
matnor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Country: Sweden
Posts: 491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I think you have an interesting idea, but I'm a bit confused.

First, if Crosby was 38th two seasons ago, then you must have given him credit for this season. Since he scored 37 points and the minimum is a half season, then by your method he scored at a 74 point pace. 74 points would be tied for 18th, except that Sharp, Datsyuk and Daniel Sedin all scored at more than a 74 points pace. So under your system, Crosby wouldn't even qualify for a top 20 pace, but seems to be given credit for a top 5 pace. How can this be so?

Second, it appears that you not only credit injured players who play at a top 5/10/20 pace with a half-season minimum, but penalize players who actually finished in the top 5/10/20 if someone with a higher pace displaces that player. For instance, if Crosby is given credit for a top 5 pace in 2011, does that mean Stamkos is no longer given credit for his 5th place finish? This seems quite unfair to me, as it gives an injured player more credit than a player who completed a season in the top X players.
I think you misinterpreted the methodology. This season the fifth highest PPG with at least 41 games was 1.05 scored by Jason Spezza. All players with a PPG at least that high gets credit for the number of games they actually played as "games scored at a top 5 pace". For this season that was Stamkos (82 games), Spezza (80), Giroux (77), Kovalchuk (77), Malkin (75), Crosby (22) and Aliu (2!). The same holds for top 10 (where the cutoff was 0.988, H. Sedin) and top 20 (cutoff 0.939, Whitney).

matnor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2012, 09:56 AM
  #56
Balderberg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1
vCash: 500
I calculated the best players since 80/81 (Gretzky era) Scoring pace for a full season (82) games and simply converted it into the 95/96 Playoff. In Gretzkys case, his numbers goes down a bit, but for Crosby it goes up.

I used quanthockey.com and took the Average goals per game per season, and average assists per goals per game per season and simply divened and multiplyed like this: Last years playoff it was 4,837 goals per game, and there was 1,714 assists per goal. it makes 13,127618 Points per game.

Claude Giroux scored 17 points in 10 games so 17/10=1,7 points per game, 1,7x82=139,2 Points per 82 games in that season.

In 95/96 playoff the average points per game was 15,780888 points per game, so it makes 139,2 / 13,127618 = 10,61883427747517 x 15,780888 = 167,5746344233965

And i did the same with the best playoffperformers from every year since 80/81 (with 10 games limit) and calculated with the 95/96 playoff as a reference and the numbers that followed is:

Lemieux 173,833 91/92
Gretzky 172,867 84/85
Giroux 167,574 11/12
Jagr 150,510 99/00
Forsberg 137,924 01/02
Coffey 136,087 84/85
Sakic 135,577 96/97
Gilmour 134,476 93/94
Malkin 130,824 08/09
Ovechkin 130,824 08/09

Note that i only used each players best playoff

Balderberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2012, 01:22 PM
  #57
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,550
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by matnor View Post
I think you misinterpreted the methodology. This season the fifth highest PPG with at least 41 games was 1.05 scored by Jason Spezza. All players with a PPG at least that high gets credit for the number of games they actually played as "games scored at a top 5 pace". For this season that was Stamkos (82 games), Spezza (80), Giroux (77), Kovalchuk (77), Malkin (75), Crosby (22) and Aliu (2!). The same holds for top 10 (where the cutoff was 0.988, H. Sedin) and top 20 (cutoff 0.939, Whitney).
Initially, I did not fully understand your methodology. I believe I do now. I still don't fully agree with it.

For instance: In 2007, Briere finished 10th in points with 95 in 81 games (1.17 PPG). Meanwhile, Gaborik had 57 points in 48 games (1.19). From my understanding, Gaborik would receive credit for 48 games at a top 10 pace... while Briere, who actually finished top 10 with 38 more points and .02 less PPG than Gaborik, would receive no top 10 pace credit. I just can't agree with that as anything close to fair.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 11:40 AM
  #58
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Initially, I did not fully understand your methodology. I believe I do now. I still don't fully agree with it.

For instance: In 2007, Briere finished 10th in points with 95 in 81 games (1.17 PPG). Meanwhile, Gaborik had 57 points in 48 games (1.19). From my understanding, Gaborik would receive credit for 48 games at a top 10 pace... while Briere, who actually finished top 10 with 38 more points and .02 less PPG than Gaborik, would receive no top 10 pace credit. I just can't agree with that as anything close to fair.
I think it's just a perfect example of how cutoffs can be cruel to some and beneficial to others.

I like this system as a bit of a "different" look at the better top scorers in history. Maybe instead of a hard "top-10, top-15, top-20 pace" system, it could use certain adjusted PPG thresholds so that there can be more or less than 10, 15, 20 in each category based on the season.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 02:35 PM
  #59
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,550
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I think it's just a perfect example of how cutoffs can be cruel to some and beneficial to others.

I like this system as a bit of a "different" look at the better top scorers in history. Maybe instead of a hard "top-10, top-15, top-20 pace" system, it could use certain adjusted PPG thresholds so that there can be more or less than 10, 15, 20 in each category based on the season.
I think it's more than cutoffs at work though. The problem is that a player could score 90 points in 82 games and finish in the top 10... but because another player scores 46 points in 41 games, the player with 90 points gets no credit for top 10 pace.

Also, there can already be more than (e.g.) 10 players at a top 10 pace. It's just that only 10 players with (effectively) 41+ games can be at a top 10 pace.

First, I think the 41 game threshold is too low. It should be at least ~55-60 games IMO. That would give a lot more significance to the player's "pace" than a simple half season does. Second, it might be better to include any and all players that finished in the top X over a full season. IOW, include all the actual top 10 players. Calculate the players that would be in the top 10 with a minimum of 55-60 games, and include those players as well. Use the latter threshold for players with less than 55-60 games. Then the results would be a lot fairer, including players with shortened seasons among the top 10 in pace, but not penalizing those players who played through injury and/or "paced" themselves for a full season.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 10:41 PM
  #60
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
not penalizing those players who played through injury and/or "paced" themselves for a full season.
Absolutely key. Example: Henrik Zetterberg. He posted 80 in 80 in 2010-11, and was injured at the end of the year and missed the first round of the playoffs. Last year, he played all 82 games and posted only 69 points, but still played top-end defense. He was pretty clearly hurting to start the year, but with the Wings already out two other forwards to injury, there wasn't the option of resting. Even with the injury, his line (with Filppula and Hudler) was one of the best offensive lines in the league - and he outpaced Datsyuk in ES scoring both per game and per minute.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2014, 02:33 PM
  #61
matnor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Country: Sweden
Posts: 491
vCash: 500
Edit: Updated through the 2012/13 season.

matnor 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 12:55 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.