HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Game 36: San Jose Sharks at Anaheim Ducks 1/4/12 7:00 PST

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-05-2012, 11:15 AM
  #501
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickmata View Post
And anyone who doesn't understand the limitations of stats doesn't understand hockey. Isn't there a Stratomatic forum or a fantasy hockey forum you can post this drivel in?

As far as the game last night, the Sharks played a great road game. Bend don't break, counterattack and play solid defense. Goalie played well and they got a little luck to go their way as well. Good win.

And for everyone who's been ripping on Burns because of his lack of offensive production, it is clear that he has changed his game, most likely at the request of the coaching staff. He was playing fast and loose early in the season and even TMac commented that he needed to learn to play Sharks hockey. He has changed, he is playing much better laterly and more responsible defensively than he ever has in his career. I think he is rounding out his game and over time the offense will come as well.
I'm not worried about Burns or Boyle. I still fully expect Burns to be a top-10 d-man for the forseeable future. This is just a major adjustment year for him and he's doing pretty well imo for such a major change. Boyle on the other hand looks like he's already turned it around.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2012, 11:58 AM
  #502
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickmata View Post
And anyone who doesn\'t understand the limitations of stats doesn\'t understand hockey. Isn\'t there a Stratomatic forum or a fantasy hockey forum you can post this drivel in?
Oh I understand the limitations of statistics in hockey better than anyone. Thats precisely why I know that judging a team based on how many goals theyve scored in 210 minutes of hockey (the amount of time the Sharks have been up a man this season) is completely worthless and tells me nothing about how theyre likely to perform over the remainder of the season.

Three of the top five teams in power play shooting percentage this season are the Leafs, Oilers and Islanders. But clearly its an actual talent and we should expect those teams to continue scoring on the PP at a rate that puts the rest of the league to shame.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2012, 12:07 PM
  #503
magic school bus
***********
 
magic school bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 14,701
vCash: 1965
Any time someone tries to say our team isn't as bad as it looks, they get ripped in here.

magic school bus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2012, 02:09 PM
  #504
SpinTheBlackCircle
Global Moderator
boots and pants
 
SpinTheBlackCircle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 33,179
vCash: 500
Take it to PM's if you are going to name call please.

Much appreciated.

__________________
Gots all my pertinence on it and such
SpinTheBlackCircle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2012, 02:57 PM
  #505
Phu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjb408 View Post
love the ducks fans who are saying it didnt even deserve a penalty. I dont understand how so many scum bags ended up rooting for one team, its like raiders fans .
Well they could have gotten the cue from the TV crew which played it in slow motion, saw the head get shoved to the board, and said where's the penalty?

To be fair though, overall I did not find them that annoying last night and they made some complimentary comments about the Sharks. And they were spot on on the Demers-Braun combo uberfailing on the first PP, and it being a questionable call to have them out there.

Phu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2012, 03:46 PM
  #506
Eighth Fret
Registered User
 
Eighth Fret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,142
vCash: 500
LW, why do you so casually dismiss quality of shots on the pp?

Eighth Fret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2012, 04:00 PM
  #507
Inub0i
I will Q
 
Inub0i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: UC Irvine, Irvine
Country: United States
Posts: 8,615
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Inub0i Send a message via MSN to Inub0i Send a message via Skype™ to Inub0i
Using # of shots taken during a PP isn't really a good measuring stick for how effective it is. If those shots were from the perimeter or bad angle, it doesn't matter how many shots were fired, if the majority of the shots are from those positions they won't go in unless it's a fluke.

Puck movement, tiring out the Pkers, and good passing leads to quality scoring chances.
Perimeter Play doesn't.

Inub0i is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2012, 04:55 PM
  #508
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eighth Fret View Post
LW, why do you so casually dismiss quality of shots on the pp?
I never dismissed it. There's just zero evidence that any team in the NHL creates scoring chances at a substantially different rate than that at which they create shots, either on the power play or at even strength. Shooting percentage at the team level regresses almost entirely to the mean while shot rates do not.

If you think the Sharks take a greater percentage of their power play shots from the perimeter than any other team in the NHL, you need to prove it. The reality is it's simply not the case. As I already mentioned, the Sharks are 7th in the NHL in PP SH% over the past four seasons combined. This core (yeah, there's the Ehrhoff/Blake/Setoguchi/Heatley/Burns revolving door but Thornton, Marleau and Pavelski have been here the whole time and Boyle has for three of the four seasons) has historically had no problem finishing their chances on the power play at a rate that few other teams in the league have accomplished. That would be pretty damn hard to do solely taking unscreened wrist shots from eighty feet out. They're going through a dry spell in terms of shooting percentage. It happens. It won't last as long as they keep generating shots and, by proxy, quality chances.

If you saw Monday's game, one of the Versus clowns interviewed Vigneault with some stupid question about how the Canucks hadn't scored much in their last 10 PP attempts or some similarly insignificant sample size and Vigneault, who I think you'd agree knows a thing or two about hockey, said just as much albeit in fewer words.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2012, 05:58 PM
  #509
Eighth Fret
Registered User
 
Eighth Fret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
I never dismissed it. There's just zero evidence that any team in the NHL creates scoring chances at a substantially different rate than that at which they create shots, either on the power play or at even strength. Shooting percentage at the team level regresses almost entirely to the mean while shot rates do not.

If you think the Sharks take a greater percentage of their power play shots from the perimeter than any other team in the NHL, you need to prove it. The reality is it's simply not the case. As I already mentioned, the Sharks are 7th in the NHL in PP SH% over the past four seasons combined. This core (yeah, there's the Ehrhoff/Blake/Setoguchi/Heatley/Burns revolving door but Thornton, Marleau and Pavelski have been here the whole time and Boyle has for three of the four seasons) has historically had no problem finishing their chances on the power play at a rate that few other teams in the league have accomplished. That would be pretty damn hard to do solely taking unscreened wrist shots from eighty feet out. They're going through a dry spell in terms of shooting percentage. It happens. It won't last as long as they keep generating shots and, by proxy, quality chances.

If you saw Monday's game, one of the Versus clowns interviewed Vigneault with some stupid question about how the Canucks hadn't scored much in their last 10 PP attempts or some similarly insignificant sample size and Vigneault, who I think you'd agree knows a thing or two about hockey, said just as much albeit in fewer words.
You did dismiss it earlier:

"Any notion that the Sharks can't "finish" on the power play or exclusively fire unscreened wrist shots from center ice is BS"

Of course there's going to be no statistical evidence of shots vs. quality scoring chances since the definition of a quality scoring chance is subjective, but this is why we watch games. You don't need stats to see that we go through stretches where we move the puck poorly on the PP or take crappy shots. You don't need stats to see that sometimes we have trouble gaining the zone on the pp.

I'm not so much concerned with the long-run anyway, and I don't see why you are. Granted, over the course of an 82 game season things tend to average out the way they "should", but you don't get that luxury in a seven game series. In the playoffs, unless you have an outrageously good goaltender and defense (last year's Bruins), you HAVE to convert on the important power plays.

Btw, you just casually listed off 5 players (one being a Hall of Famer) who have come and gone, that have all been integral pieces of our pp over the years like they don't matter. Yeah, Marleu, Jumbo, Pavs, and Boyle have been here most of those years, but that doesn't even comprise one PP unit, so I don't understand how you can make the claim that PP personnel has been stable over that time span. Why would we regress to the mean SH% from four years ago?

Eighth Fret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2012, 06:15 PM
  #510
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eighth Fret View Post
You did dismiss it earlier:

"Any notion that the Sharks can't "finish" on the power play or exclusively fire unscreened wrist shots from center ice is BS"

Of course there's going to be no statistical evidence of shots vs. quality scoring chances since the definition of a quality scoring chance is subjective, but this is why we watch games. You don't need stats to see that we go through stretches where we move the puck poorly on the PP or take crappy shots. You don't need stats to see that sometimes we have trouble gaining the zone on the pp.

I'm not so much concerned with the long-run anyway, and I don't see why you are. Granted, over the course of an 82 game season things tend to average out the way they "should", but you don't get that luxury in a seven game series. In the playoffs, unless you have an outrageously good goaltender and defense (last year's Bruins), you HAVE to convert on the important power plays.

Btw, you just casually listed off 5 players (one being a Hall of Famer) who have come and gone, that have all been integral pieces of our pp over the years like they don't matter. Yeah, Marleu, Jumbo, Pavs, and Boyle have been here most of those years, but that doesn't even comprise one PP unit, so I don't understand how you can make the claim that PP personnel has been stable over that time span. Why would we regress to the mean SH% from four years ago?
That's not dismissing shot quality, that's dismissing the absurd claim that a smaller percentage of the Sharks' PP shots are quality chances relative to other teams in the league. That's clearly false since if it were the case they wouldn't have such a high power play shooting percentage over the past four seasons.

I care about the long term because that's all that matters. What your PP% or place in the standings is on January 5th is irrelevant. Whether or not you convert on an "important" power play in the playoffs is inevitably going to be luck-driven. But if you generate shots on the power play at the rate that the Sharks do, there's obviously a higher probability that you'll be able to score on a PP than teams who don't generate a lot of shots up a man.

If you want to prove that there's a significant difference in contribution to PP shooting percentage between those five players, be my guest. I would think it's really obvious that Marleau, Thornton, Pavelski and Boyle have all been more important components of the PP than any of those five were as Sharks. And referring to a 40-year-old Rob Blake as though he was the Hall of Famer he was in his prime during his tenure with the Sharks is really obtuse.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2012, 06:43 PM
  #511
Eighth Fret
Registered User
 
Eighth Fret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
That's not dismissing shot quality, that's dismissing the absurd claim that a smaller percentage of the Sharks' PP shots are quality chances relative to other teams in the league. That's clearly false since if it were the case they wouldn't have such a high power play shooting percentage over the past four seasons.

I care about the long term because that's all that matters. What your PP% or place in the standings is on January 5th is irrelevant. Whether or not you convert on an "important" power play in the playoffs is inevitably going to be luck-driven. But if you generate shots on the power play at the rate that the Sharks do, there's obviously a higher probability that you'll be able to score on a PP than teams who don't generate a lot of shots up a man.

If you want to prove that there's a significant difference in contribution to PP shooting percentage between those five players, be my guest. I would think it's really obvious that Marleau, Thornton, Pavelski and Boyle have all been more important components of the PP than any of those five were as Sharks. And referring to a 40-year-old Rob Blake as though he was the Hall of Famer he was in his prime during his tenure with the Sharks is really obtuse.
Why is it absurd to claim the Sharks don't generate as many quality chances as other teams?

No, generating as many shots on the PP as the Sharks do does not necessarily mean we have a higher chance of scoring on the PP in the playoffs. Not all shots on goal are equally likely to go in. Why do you insist that they are?

I never said Blake was in his prime when he was a Shark. However, a HOF'er, even at an older age still has a world class hockey IQ, which isn't something you can replace easily; otherwise it wouldn't have taken DW over a year and a ton of assets to get someone with the potential to fill that void. Across two PP units, only four players have remained as constant PP fixtures over that time period, meaning more than half of our PP guys have changed -- how exactly is that consistent?

As an aside, and I don't mean this in a mean-spirited way, but why do you even watch the games? To hear you talk about the sport and the team, it's all either long-term averages or based entirely on luck (playoffs)... so why watch?

Eighth Fret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2012, 06:56 PM
  #512
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eighth Fret View Post
Why is it absurd to claim the Sharks don't generate as many quality chances as other teams?

No, generating as many shots on the PP as the Sharks do does not necessarily mean we have a higher chance of scoring on the PP in the playoffs. Not all shots on goal are equally likely to go in. Why do you insist that they are?

I never said Blake was in his prime when he was a Shark. However, a HOF'er, even at an older age still has a world class hockey IQ, which isn't something you can replace easily; otherwise it wouldn't have taken DW over a year and a ton of assets to get someone with the potential to fill that void. Across two PP units, only four players have remained as constant PP fixtures over that time period, meaning more than half of our PP guys have changed -- how exactly is that consistent?

As an aside, and I don't mean this in a mean-spirited way, but why do you even watch the games? To hear you talk about the sport and the team, it's all either long-term averages or based entirely on luck (playoffs)... so why watch?
Because the people saying it present no proof whatsoever and all the evidence points to the fact that scoring chances are proportional to shot totals in the current NHL since shooting percentage at the team level regresses to the mean across the board. If you're interested in evidence, this is a great look at how team-to-team differences in shot quality are nonexistent at even strength and here's info on the massive degree to which PP shooting % regresses to the mean.

When did I ever insist that every shot is equally likely to go in? That's quite obviously not true.

Blake was a good at even strength his first year with the team. He was overmatched at even strength his second year with the team. He was never more than a highly replaceable component of the PP and certainly not someone who drove shooting % on the power play. How do you figure he was difficult to replace? When's the last time the Sharks' second power play unit was even remotely relevant? Certainly not in the last four years and probably not at all in the Thornton era.

The stats are for player and team evaluation. I can still enjoy the games but if I want to objectively assess a player, team or aspect of that player or team I trust the numbers far more than I trust my own memory (or the memories of others).

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2012, 08:16 PM
  #513
Eighth Fret
Registered User
 
Eighth Fret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
Because the people saying it present no proof whatsoever and all the evidence points to the fact that scoring chances are proportional to shot totals in the current NHL since shooting percentage at the team level regresses to the mean across the board. If you're interested in evidence, this is a great look at how team-to-team differences in shot quality are nonexistent at even strength and here's info on the massive degree to which PP shooting % regresses to the mean.

When did I ever insist that every shot is equally likely to go in? That's quite obviously not true.

Blake was a good at even strength his first year with the team. He was overmatched at even strength his second year with the team. He was never more than a highly replaceable component of the PP and certainly not someone who drove shooting % on the power play. How do you figure he was difficult to replace? When's the last time the Sharks' second power play unit was even remotely relevant? Certainly not in the last four years and probably not at all in the Thornton era.

The stats are for player and team evaluation. I can still enjoy the games but if I want to objectively assess a player, team or aspect of that player or team I trust the numbers far more than I trust my own memory (or the memories of others).
Is there a place to get the raw data behind those analyses?

If you just want the Sharks to shoot more (or keep shooting as much as they are now) you are arguing volume over quality. Just shoot.. I don't care where you shoot it from or who's in front of the net, just fire away. Me, I'm sick of games where we fire 40+ shots and lose.

Eighth Fret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2012, 08:40 PM
  #514
NorCalJen
Oh baby! Oh mama!!
 
NorCalJen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: I'm behind Niemi
Country: United States
Posts: 538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eighth Fret View Post
Is there a place to get the raw data behind those analyses?

If you just want the Sharks to shoot more (or keep shooting as much as they are now) you are arguing volume over quality. Just shoot.. I don't care where you shoot it from or who's in front of the net, just fire away. Me, I'm sick of games where we fire 40+ shots and lose.
And don't most goalies say they feel more comfortable the more shots they face?

I also recall post-game comments by the opposition after some of our losses where they claim that our shots are not quality and therefore didn't worry them too much. And there have been games where we've been outshot and still won. So I just don't see how one can say shot volume over quality is the key.

NorCalJen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2012, 10:11 PM
  #515
Eighth Fret
Registered User
 
Eighth Fret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalJen View Post
And don't most goalies say they feel more comfortable the more shots they face?

I also recall post-game comments by the opposition after some of our losses where they claim that our shots are not quality and therefore didn't worry them too much. And there have been games where we've been outshot and still won. So I just don't see how one can say shot volume over quality is the key.
Oh, I agree with you. LW is the one arguing volume over quality.

The trouble is that there's no way to really define "quality" shots so that they can be analyzed statistically, thus LW won't admit to their affect on games.

Eighth Fret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2012, 10:20 PM
  #516
drunksage
Moderator
#88: The Savior.
 
drunksage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Henderson, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 12,508
vCash: 1004
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOOCH2173 View Post
So no points if you predict a shoot out win but didn't get the players right? (see Vancouver Jan. 2nd 3-2 shoot out i predicted.) Just curious that's all. If not no worries.
The tiebreaker is most goalscorers.

drunksage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2012, 11:25 AM
  #517
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eighth Fret View Post
Is there a place to get the raw data behind those analyses?

If you just want the Sharks to shoot more (or keep shooting as much as they are now) you are arguing volume over quality. Just shoot.. I don't care where you shoot it from or who's in front of the net, just fire away. Me, I'm sick of games where we fire 40+ shots and lose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eighth Fret View Post
Oh, I agree with you. LW is the one arguing volume over quality.

The trouble is that there's no way to really define "quality" shots so that they can be analyzed statistically, thus LW won't admit to their affect on games.
Unfortunately the even/odd thing is something you'd have to write a script to pull from the NHL play-by-play files but in terms of overall PP/PK numbers you can get them from behindthenet.ca

My point has never been that all shots are created equal. That's ludicrous. The point, and one that can be proven, is that no team in the current NHL is able to have a greater percentage of their shots be of high quality than any other. I linked you to the article showing that the year-to-year correlation in shooting percentage at the team level over the past four seasons has been zero. That most assuredly would not be the case if teams were capable of ensuring a larger percentage of their shots are scoring chances. Teams that outshoot their opponents on a regular basis also out-chance their opponents.

The losing with 40+ shots thing is just selective memory talking. No one remembers the craploads of games the Sharks have won firing 40+ shots; since they started shooting the puck more frequently when McLellan arrived, the Sharks have won more games, regular season and playoffs, than any team except the Canucks.

Les Wynan* 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 02:25 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.