HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Detroit Red Wings
Notices

Red Wings Defence by Playoff Corsi

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-04-2013, 08:45 AM
  #1
Henkka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,003
vCash: 528
Red Wings Defence by Playoff Corsi

Just took a look for those advanced stats. Pretty much there was nothing new.

http://somekindofninja.com/nhl/usage...Update+Results

Kronwall - Ericsson took the heaviest load against hardest opponents and was used most at defensive end. They got negative rating, but it's pretty typical for these shut-down pairs. They did decent work by numbers, but not World-Class, very rare pairings can get positive ratings against toughest competition. Lidström-Rafalski at 2008 was one example of pure greatness.

Quincey - Smith was the second pair and many in here will remember how they did those cardinal mistakes, especially Smith. But in general, they did good for a second pair. They vere the 2nd pair to play gainst second toughest competition and a hybrid pair used equally at both ends. Both offensive and defensive. And they got positive rating against 2nd tier opponents. As a final result, that's a good work.

Colaiacovo - Kindl was the 3rd pair, and they were clearly sheltered, lots of starts at offensive end. Of course, Kindl is an offesive weapon. Kindl got positive rating and Colaiacovo was negative. Good sign for Kindl. What made the difference between them?

Then we come to Dan DeKeyser. Games he played, he had also positive corsi. But he played against easiest competition with Brian Lashoff. They didn't play any games together, Lashoff came in after DeKeyser was injured. Lashoff's corsi was horrible compared to DeKeyser. After three games Lashoff was replaced by Colaiacovo.

So Kindl had three different D-pairs, and best of them was Dan Dekeyser by Corsi. Colaicovo was also good, used most in offensive zone, but had also toughest competition. Lashoff was worthless. Definitely not ready for playoff duties. I really think that with healthy DeKeyser, we could have beaten the Hawks, that 3rd pair was so much better with him. He could have make that 1 goal difference, or even more.

All in all, I would be very impressed of our DEFENCE OF A COMITTEE for next season. (gotta love that term ) It really is a solid TOP6 with no a star pair like before, but those roles are working pretty well. Kindl + DeKeyser/Colaiacovo as offensive pair, Kronwal - Ericsson as shut-down pair and Quincey-Smith as a hybrid pair.

Can't wait next season to begin. I think our defence proved it could be very steady and solid, just get more experience and after a good training camp, keep these rolings still together. And we have some new firepower rising at offensive corps (Tatar, Nyquist, 2nd year Brunner). Eastern Conference, be aware. Big Red Machine is rising again.


Last edited by Henkka: 06-04-2013 at 08:50 AM.
Henkka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 10:08 AM
  #2
InjuredChoker
Registered User
 
InjuredChoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: LTIR or golf course
Posts: 14,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henkka View Post

Colaiacovo - Kindl was the 3rd pair, and they were clearly sheltered, lots of starts at offensive end. Of course, Kindl is an offesive weapon. Kindl got positive rating and Colaiacovo was negative. Good sign for Kindl. What made the difference between them?
That is little puzzling considering that Cola didn't have tougher matchups when they were away of each other but it was still fairly small sample size.

InjuredChoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 10:52 AM
  #3
TKB
Registered User
 
TKB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 497
vCash: 433
I am still trying to wrap my head around "advanced stats."

I am certainly interested in them, but so often I see "professional" commentators rely on them way to much without any understanding of the flaws of the stat.

I looked up the forwards usage chart for the playoffs, and see that Zetterberg's quality of competion was not that high. I am not sure how that can be.

Is he penalized in quality of competition, if he shuts down the guy(s) he is playing against? (Which in terms of Fenwick/Corsi I don't think he did shut them down. As lethal as they are, The Hawks also have a tendancy to get a number of shots that are not as high quality as they look at first glance.)

I know I could look at it like +/- where I can filter for my self, the role and matchup a given line or player is given; but isn't the point of advacned stats to see through all of that?

In this case I don't know why I would not just look at +/- (with all its flaws) within the context of the team/lines/assignments.

I am sure if I had enough time i could figure the answers for myself, but anyone who has familiarity that would be great.

TKB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 11:03 AM
  #4
Henkka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,003
vCash: 528
So Corsi measures the shots against differential when the player is on the ice.

I prefer it extremely great tool to analyze defencemen and their play, but I'm not so sold for forward corsis.

But if you try to analyze those forwards corsies, it showed that Abdelkader-Datsyuk-Franzen was superior line in corsi standards during the playoffs. It's Pavel Datsyuk that makes his line always a superior line. Creates chances and prevents them at better rate than any other forward in the world.

Nyquist-Andersson-Brunner was the another line with positive corsi, but like we know, they played against easier opponents.

Filppula-Zetterberg-Cleary and Miller-Emmerton-Eaves had negative numbers, and "lost their game" by shots for and shots against. But Zetterberg line played against Toews and Getzlaf. It was expected to get burned, but not totally. Corey Perry 0 goals, Jonathan Toews 1 goal in the series? Great work. Zetterberg scored 4 by himself.

Miller-Emmerton-Eaves did had some scoring, but they really were burned by shot totals on the ice. It was Jimmy Howard who saved them.

***

Just by pure corsi standars, it looks like our biggest weakness were Zetterbergs linemates, and the 4th line. If Holland can fix these by promoting Tatar, getting Helm healthy and signing someone like Nathan Horton to get decent quality there, that will also deepen our 4th line better than it was at the playoffs, and we will be a very very hard team to beat.


Last edited by Henkka: 06-04-2013 at 11:08 AM.
Henkka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 11:08 AM
  #5
skillhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henkka View Post
So Corsi measures the shots against differential when the player is on the ice.

I prefer it extremely great tool to analyze defencemen and their play, but I'm not so sold for forward corsis.

Those forwards corsies showed, that Abdelkader-Datsyuk-Franzen was superior line in corsi standards during the playoffs. Nyquist-Andersson-Brunner was the another line with positive corsi, but like we know, they played against easier opponents.

Filppula-Zetterberg-Cleary and Miller-Emmerton-Eaves had negative numbers, and "lost their game" by shots for and shots against. But Zetterberg line played against Toews and Getzlaf. It was expected to get burned, but not totally. Corey Perry 0 goals, Jonathan Toews 1 goal in the series?

Miller-Emmerton-Eaves did had some scoring, but they really were burned by shot totals on the ice. It was Jimmy Howard who saved them.

***

Just by pure corsi standars, our biggest weakness were Zetterbergs linemates, and the 4th line. If Holland can fix these promoting Tatar, getting Helm healthy and signing someone like Nathan Horton to get decent quality there, that will also deepen our 4th line better than it was at the playoffs, and we will be a very very hard team to beat.
It's sorta useless to compare just defense pair because unless the line in front is doing their job right, nothing is going to matter, any 4th line will overwork them if they get odd man rushes etc, no matter if you got lidstrom-rafalski or who ever.

Personally i think it's good way to value some certain forwards, see their value for their team. are they turning the game to other side more and so on.

skillhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 11:11 AM
  #6
Henkka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,003
vCash: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by skillhockey View Post
It's sorta useless to compare just defense pair because unless the line in front is doing their job right, nothing is going to matter, any 4th line will overwork them if they get odd man rushes etc, no matter if you got lidstrom-rafalski or who ever.

Personally i think it's good way to value some certain forwards, see their value for their team. are they turning the game to other side more and so on.
That 14 games in maybe too small sample of everything. But still you can find some things from there. At regular season, there's injuries and the lineup will change and have suffling all the time. Differencies will come and then it shows who on average does the best job and who are used in different kind of situations the most.

Henkka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 11:31 AM
  #7
TKB
Registered User
 
TKB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 497
vCash: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henkka View Post
So Corsi measures the shots against differential when the player is on the ice.

I prefer it extremely great tool to analyze defencemen and their play, but I'm not so sold for forward corsis.

But if you try to analyze those forwards corsies, it showed that Abdelkader-Datsyuk-Franzen was superior line in corsi standards during the playoffs. It's Pavel Datsyuk that makes his line always a superior line. Creates chances and prevents them at better rate than any other forward in the world.

Nyquist-Andersson-Brunner was the another line with positive corsi, but like we know, they played against easier opponents.

Filppula-Zetterberg-Cleary and Miller-Emmerton-Eaves had negative numbers, and "lost their game" by shots for and shots against. But Zetterberg line played against Toews and Getzlaf. It was expected to get burned, but not totally. Corey Perry 0 goals, Jonathan Toews 1 goal in the series? Great work. Zetterberg scored 4 by himself.

Miller-Emmerton-Eaves did had some scoring, but they really were burned by shot totals on the ice. It was Jimmy Howard who saved them.

***

Just by pure corsi standars, it looks like our biggest weakness were Zetterbergs linemates, and the 4th line. If Holland can fix these by promoting Tatar, getting Helm healthy and signing someone like Nathan Horton to get decent quality there, that will also deepen our 4th line better than it was at the playoffs, and we will be a very very hard team to beat.
I don't remember what game it was, but I do recall looking at play by play log and seeing that line get "dominated" but when I went back to watch it again - I felt that the numbers were extremely mis-leading.

I certainly would think that over the long haul there is a strong correlation between shots on goal and quality shots/prime scoring chances, but on a case by case basis, I am mostly worried about point shots with traffic, rebounds shots (or cleared) , odd man rushes or rushes that otherwise put pressure on the defensive team.


In addition I still don't understand how Zetterberg's quality of competition is so "average" while Miller's was of the charts.

TKB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 12:40 PM
  #8
Henkka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,003
vCash: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKB View Post
I don't remember what game it was, but I do recall looking at play by play log and seeing that line get "dominated" but when I went back to watch it again - I felt that the numbers were extremely mis-leading.

I certainly would think that over the long haul there is a strong correlation between shots on goal and quality shots/prime scoring chances, but on a case by case basis, I am mostly worried about point shots with traffic, rebounds shots (or cleared) , odd man rushes or rushes that otherwise put pressure on the defensive team.


In addition I still don't understand how Zetterberg's quality of competition is so "average" while Miller's was of the charts.
Miller played only 6 games. He is not fully comparable, it could be just be a statistical fluke from different kind of games.

BTW,

When analyzing those charts, nearest people on the "right low corner" from every team with negative values are the worst players. Does it surprice that the TOP3 there is Samuelsson, Bertuzzi, and Emmerton?

Henkka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 12:47 PM
  #9
fimoknete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Roesrath, Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKB View Post
I looked up the forwards usage chart for the playoffs, and see that Zetterberg's quality of competion was not that high. I am not sure how that can be.
i didnt see the stats at all. but when watchig the games you could see clearly that datsyuks line was ordered to shut down opponents first line with dats a s 3rd defender. so zetta when not paired with dats should do the scoring part. but he didnt do that to well i guess he was more involved in defensive battle then scoring battles. maybe the overall tactic was a bit too defensive.

fimoknete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 02:02 PM
  #10
bullocks
Registered User
 
bullocks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,940
vCash: 500
Corsi is for baseball. Coach's would laugh if people ever brought that crap up.

bullocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 02:07 PM
  #11
Henkka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,003
vCash: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullocks View Post
Corsi is for baseball. Coach's would laugh if people ever brought that crap up.
You can find things from Corsi, if you can read it right a way. You can't compare players to others with their corsi-values between different teams, but inside a team, you can use it as tool to find the best and worst defensive players used by the coach. That's all you can use it for.

I don't even know how Corsi is used at Baseball, or nothing about Baseball in general, but this hockey corsi I know what it means and how I can see those same things on the ice. Or if I don't see them, corsi helps me to connect these numerical value to real defensive effort.

Henkka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 02:33 PM
  #12
braille
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullocks View Post
Corsi is for baseball. Coach's would laugh if people ever brought that crap up.
advanced stats are probably used much more in the nhl than you seem to think. i'm sure there are still some people who are resistant to it though.

braille is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 02:42 PM
  #13
The Zetterberg Era
Nyquist Explosion!
 
The Zetterberg Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ft. Myers, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 16,144
vCash: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by braille View Post
advanced stats are probably used much more in the nhl than you seem to think. i'm sure there are still some people who are resistant to it though.
This stat generally doesn't do a whole lot for me, because some of the people Corsi seem to celebrate clearly fail the eye test. It is interesting but it isn't a be all end all for me. I think teams look at these, but they are still a minor factor, the advance stats are harder to quantify in a game with flow than in the start and stop style baseball is truncated into.

The Zetterberg Era is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 02:52 PM
  #14
Henkka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,003
vCash: 528
If I compare these our defences 2013 playoff corsis to 2011-12 regular season defence corsi-map, I can see the difference what happened at Red Wings defence from last season to this season.

at 2011-12 season it was:

Shut-down pair:
Kronwall - Ericsson

Hybrid pair at both ends
Lidström/Quincey - White (Q took Lidström spot after our Captain was injured)

Offensive zone/sheltered pair:
Ericsson/Smith - Kindl/Commodore

So what happened between these two seasons?

Ericsson was pushed to those shoes of Brad Stuart. Quincey was kept on that Hybrid pair as an "Ian White" and Brendan Smith was put on Lidström's shoes. Not straight up, but as it's wise to do with prospect, almost same role, with a little bit easier role. But there is a clear sign, that Brendan Smith is the guy we want to be the next Leading Overall Defenceman (Lidström role). He took some step towards it, made mistakes, and learned from them. Interestin to see what next season will bring out from him.

Kindl stayed there as the 3rd pairing offensive guy, and DeKeyser took that 3rd pair stay-at-home "Ericsson" role, when Ericsson was promoted to Stuart role for shut-down pair. Also there was other gyus like Lashoff in the mix earlier, but these were the final and best lineups we got our best results at end of the season. That's pretty much all of it.

Henkka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 04:45 PM
  #15
Flowah
I choose to believe
 
Flowah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by braille View Post
advanced stats are probably used much more in the nhl than you seem to think. i'm sure there are still some people who are resistant to it though.
They were used to sign Neal and Vokoun. Someone high up in the Pens' organization said afterwards something to the effect of "Basically, any big decisions regarding the roster, now get made AFTER consulting the [moneypuck] stats"

Deep, advanced statistics, properly understood and used, can negate the need for scouts. It's just a way to systemize what scouts are watching for anyway, but eliminate any biases they have. Right now, hockey's problem is the dearth of advanced statistics, and poor reporting. A lot of stats are done by arena and are pretty unreliable going from team to team, arena to arena. The stats need to be pretty precise for this stuff to work consistently.

Flowah is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 08:36 PM
  #16
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by InjuredChoker View Post
That is little puzzling considering that Cola didn't have tougher matchups when they were away of each other but it was still fairly small sample size.
It's probably because Kindl is the third-best defenseman on the team. Babcock was using Kindl/Dekeyser as his second pairing at the end of the regular season. Not sure why Kindl's time was cut so much in the PO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henkka View Post
So Corsi measures the shots against differential when the player is on the ice.
Yes.

Fenwick is (SOG for+missed shots for)-(SOG against+missed shots against) and CORSI adds blocked shots to the equation (in other words, all shots fired).

Quote:
I prefer it extremely great tool to analyze defencemen and their play, but I'm not so sold for forward corsis.
Why would you use it for defensemen and not for forwards? It's as valid for one as for the other.

Quote:
But if you try to analyze those forwards corsies, it showed that Abdelkader-Datsyuk-Franzen was superior line in corsi standards during the playoffs. It's Pavel Datsyuk that makes his line always a superior line. Creates chances and prevents them at better rate than any other forward in the world.
Yes, but if we focus just on Dats and Z there's a big difference. Datsyuk defends by focusing on preventing shots. Zetterberg defends by focusing on preventing quality chances. That's part of why they are so dominant defensively when they play together; the opposing line doesn't get to shoot, and when they do it's probably not a quality chance. The wingers are all basically a wash, as none of them were particularly special defensively.

Quote:
Nyquist-Andersson-Brunner was the another line with positive corsi, but like we know, they played against easier opponents.
Which is another factor that must be examined when viewing CORSI; QoC.

Quote:
Filppula-Zetterberg-Cleary and Miller-Emmerton-Eaves had negative numbers, and "lost their game" by shots for and shots against. But Zetterberg line played against Toews and Getzlaf. It was expected to get burned, but not totally. Corey Perry 0 goals, Jonathan Toews 1 goal in the series? Great work. Zetterberg scored 4 by himself.
See my point in Z/Dats above about quality chances.

Quote:
Miller-Emmerton-Eaves did had some scoring, but they really were burned by shot totals on the ice. It was Jimmy Howard who saved them.
Which doesn't show that the fourth line actually played pretty well. One thing is that I recall them being matched up against Toews' line more than a few times during that series. It also happened some in the Anaheim series.

One thing to notice:

Everyone talks about how Zetterberg stepped up his defense in the playoffs, and was unbelievable at both ends of the rink. I think it was pretty clear that Zetterberg was better - or at minimum equal - to Datsyuk defensively in the playoffs. Yet both his ESGA/60 and Datsyuk's (the stat most often brought up in "best defensive forward" threads) were marginally higher than the regular season. Zetterberg alo faced the highest QoC in both among any Red Wing (not counting Tootoo's handful of minutes in one playoff game).

He should be winning his fourth Selke this year. Instead he's not among the top-three.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TKB View Post
In addition I still don't understand how Zetterberg's quality of competition is so "average" while Miller's was of the charts.
You want to look at "Relative Quality of Competition" or "RelCORSI" as it is sometimes referred to. You'll get a clearer picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fimoknete View Post
i didnt see the stats at all. but when watchig the games you could see clearly that datsyuks line was ordered to shut down opponents first line with dats a s 3rd defender.
Zetterberg was put on the opponent's top threat as much as possible. Datsyuk was playing in a defensive manner against Chicago, but he was not the "primary" shutdown guy.

Quote:
so zetta when not paired with dats should do the scoring part. but he didnt do that to well i guess he was more involved in defensive battle then scoring battles. maybe the overall tactic was a bit too defensive.
Hmm. Zetterberg didn't do that well? He scored twice as many points as Datsyuk in the Chicago series, and was instrumental in the team getting those three wins.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2013, 12:42 AM
  #17
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullocks View Post
Corsi is for baseball. Coach's would laugh if people ever brought that crap up.
corsi and fenwick are very likely used by every team in the NHL, and the stat was named after an assistant coach in buffalo.

almost all stats had their origin within teams' coaching and management.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Henkka View Post
So Corsi measures the shots against differential when the player is on the ice.

I prefer it extremely great tool to analyze defencemen and their play, but I'm not so sold for forward corsis.

But if you try to analyze those forwards corsies, it showed that Abdelkader-Datsyuk-Franzen was superior line in corsi standards during the playoffs. It's Pavel Datsyuk that makes his line always a superior line. Creates chances and prevents them at better rate than any other forward in the world.

Nyquist-Andersson-Brunner was the another line with positive corsi, but like we know, they played against easier opponents.

Filppula-Zetterberg-Cleary and Miller-Emmerton-Eaves had negative numbers, and "lost their game" by shots for and shots against. But Zetterberg line played against Toews and Getzlaf. It was expected to get burned, but not totally. Corey Perry 0 goals, Jonathan Toews 1 goal in the series? Great work. Zetterberg scored 4 by himself.

Miller-Emmerton-Eaves did had some scoring, but they really were burned by shot totals on the ice. It was Jimmy Howard who saved them.

***

Just by pure corsi standars, it looks like our biggest weakness were Zetterbergs linemates, and the 4th line. If Holland can fix these by promoting Tatar, getting Helm healthy and signing someone like Nathan Horton to get decent quality there, that will also deepen our 4th line better than it was at the playoffs, and we will be a very very hard team to beat.
4th line was generally weak in possession throughout the season, but was usually good at preventing quality chances in the defensive zone.

allowing more shots does not necessarily mean worse D, or that the goalie saved them.


datsyuk and zetterberg were often on the same line vs anaheim. they often faced anaheim's 3rd line. franzen spent a lot of time against getzlaf, which is one of the reasons for his +/-.

you would have to look at each game and each player with different linemates and matchups to get a good idea of how they drove possession.


i would not attribute perry's 0g to anyone but himself and howard. perry had very good chances in basically every game, but was stopped or missed. probably luck more than anything.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2013, 12:45 AM
  #18
BeersHockey
Registered User
 
BeersHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 920
vCash: 500
I ran a statistical analysis of the value of advanced stats and my findings are as follows: Sabremetrics are stupid. Must be true, my computer told me so.

BeersHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2013, 01:23 AM
  #19
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flowah View Post
Deep, advanced statistics, properly understood and used, can negate the need for scouts. It's just a way to systemize what scouts are watching for anyway, but eliminate any biases they have. Right now, hockey's problem is the dearth of advanced statistics, and poor reporting. A lot of stats are done by arena and are pretty unreliable going from team to team, arena to arena. The stats need to be pretty precise for this stuff to work consistently.
I think that's just part of the problem, though it indeed is a problem.

Hockey is a very fluid game that's governed quite strongly by randomness (over a statistically significant period of time). It's also very difficult to model dependent variables, and much of hockey, being a team sport in fluidic motion, is a set of dependent actions and reactions by constant changes in players on the ice. For example, something may start with one guy, but completed when he's off the ice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Yes, but if we focus just on Dats and Z there's a big difference. Datsyuk defends by focusing on preventing shots. Zetterberg defends by focusing on preventing quality chances. That's part of why they are so dominant defensively when they play together; the opposing line doesn't get to shoot, and when they do it's probably not a quality chance. The wingers are all basically a wash, as none of them were particularly special defensively.

Eva, how did you come this conclusion specifically? If Dats stops shots, he'll prevent quality chances as well. It's almost like saying Z lets plays develop further...

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2013, 02:06 AM
  #20
Henkka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,003
vCash: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
It's probably because Kindl is the third-best defenseman on the team. Babcock was using Kindl/Dekeyser as his second pairing at the end of the regular season. Not sure why Kindl's time was cut so much in the PO.
Playoffs usually shows the "real" matchups coaches want to use. Just like Chicago took some load off from Keith and Seabrook at regular season, but they are the workhorses at playoffs. Same happened last year with Suter+Weber pairing.

At regular season you spread the talent more. One game is not so important on long run, but avoiding exhaustion is. At playoff time that ends and you try to maximize your winning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Why would you use it for defensemen and not for forwards? It's as valid for one as for the other.
With defencemen, you just usually get a clearer picture. There are big differences between the players and clearer picture. Forwards "balls" are usually almost all at same area with slight differences. You can only separate the best guys who are great and worst guys who are worthless. But I'm ok with that, that's all what I need to know from forward side. Who to praise and who to whip.


Last edited by Henkka: 06-05-2013 at 02:12 AM.
Henkka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2013, 08:01 AM
  #21
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I think that's just part of the problem, though it indeed is a problem.

Hockey is a very fluid game that's governed quite strongly by randomness (over a statistically significant period of time). It's also very difficult to model dependent variables, and much of hockey, being a team sport in fluidic motion, is a set of dependent actions and reactions by constant changes in players on the ice. For example, something may start with one guy, but completed when he's off the ice.
Like the goal in Game 7 where Z jumped over the boards two seconds before it happened and it screws his GA/On stats?

Quote:
Eva, how did you come this conclusion specifically? If Dats stops shots, he'll prevent quality chances as well. It's almost like saying Z lets plays develop further...
It's more that they focus on different areas. Dats often will stop a play at the playmaker, where Z would stop it at the shooter (by preventing or greatly limiting the chance).

The fact that Z faced significantly tougher competition (especially in the playoffs, where Dats' QoC takes a nosedive for some reason) indicates that Datsyuk was not playing against the toughest opposition, Zetterberg was.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2013, 08:03 AM
  #22
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henkka View Post
Playoffs usually shows the "real" matchups coaches want to use. Just like Chicago took some load off from Keith and Seabrook at regular season, but they are the workhorses at playoffs. Same happened last year with Suter+Weber pairing.
Is that why Babcock relied on Zetterberg as his most important skater, and Datsyuk's QoC dropped like a rock while Zetterberg's increased?

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2013, 09:44 AM
  #23
InjuredChoker
Registered User
 
InjuredChoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: LTIR or golf course
Posts: 14,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Is that why Babcock relied on Zetterberg as his most important skater, and Datsyuk's QoC dropped like a rock while Zetterberg's increased?
QoC isn't that reliable statistic imo. It looks at +/- or Corsi which aren't that reliable statistics without context.

Both of them played against Chicago's top lines/units, Z got little more defensive assignments.

For example if player X outshoots and scores his opponents during playoff series, his opponents QoC goes down.

Does that mean that he played against lesser competition? Even if the opponent was Kane, Keith or Crosby, Bergeron, Chara or whatever?


Last edited by InjuredChoker: 06-05-2013 at 09:51 AM.
InjuredChoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2013, 12:53 PM
  #24
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
The fact that Z faced significantly tougher competition (especially in the playoffs, where Dats' QoC takes a nosedive for some reason) indicates that Datsyuk was not playing against the toughest opposition, Zetterberg was.

Datsyuk's greatest asset is playmaking, on top of all the other things he does well. I think the coach realizes someone has to score, so he wants Dats to have greater latitude on the ice. Zetterberg likes to get more physical and chippy. You know it works because of how irate the opposition get at him when he's in the shutdown mode.

If anything, this may be a reflection of how the coach wants to use each guy. He may want Dats out against weaker competition to increase offense. He has to choose between his two elite centers. Dats will still be defensively effective because he'll dictate the tempo on the ice in general, and have the puck. Kind of a roaming defense. Zetterberg gets charged with shadowing one key player and they try to always have him on the ice against that player.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2013, 10:15 PM
  #25
Harnessed in Slums
Registered User
 
Harnessed in Slums's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: In the Garage
Posts: 8,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKB View Post
I am still trying to wrap my head around "advanced stats."

I am certainly interested in them, but so often I see "professional" commentators rely on them way to much without any understanding of the flaws of the stat.

I looked up the forwards usage chart for the playoffs, and see that Zetterberg's quality of competion was not that high. I am not sure how that can be.

Is he penalized in quality of competition, if he shuts down the guy(s) he is playing against? (Which in terms of Fenwick/Corsi I don't think he did shut them down. As lethal as they are, The Hawks also have a tendancy to get a number of shots that are not as high quality as they look at first glance.)

I know I could look at it like +/- where I can filter for my self, the role and matchup a given line or player is given; but isn't the point of advacned stats to see through all of that?

In this case I don't know why I would not just look at +/- (with all its flaws) within the context of the team/lines/assignments.

I am sure if I had enough time i could figure the answers for myself, but anyone who has familiarity that would be great.
If you want to look solely at points per 60 mins then Z is #1!

The problem with that stat is that Miller is #2 and Dan Cleary is #5. Do we really believe these guys are offensive juggernauts?

Corsi relative to Quality of Competition helps to give us some reliable data. You need to be able to remove guys who didn't play much (DeKeyser and Tootoo) but it helps to tell the story of who was dominant during the playoffs.

#1 Z
#2 Kronwall
#3 E
#4 Andersson
#5 Pavs
#6 Abby
#7 Nyquist
#8 Filppula
#9 Q
#10 Cleary
#11 Brunner
#12 Smith
#13 Kindl
#14 Eaves
#15 Franzen
#16 Miller
#17 Emmerton
#18 Cola

If you disagree please give me a stat that I can see that shows different results.

Harnessed in Slums 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 12:57 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.