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?
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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.
