HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > By The Numbers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

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.

Corsi, shot quality, and the Toronto Maple Leafs

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-10-2014, 09:43 PM
  #426
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Eye Monster Invictus
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 63,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
The stats didn't predict a thing. This is the flaw... you can look at a 100 RBI man and say he's good. Chances are you'd be right because most 100 RBI men are good. However.. the entire purpose of these advanced statistics which started with baseball was to prove that looking at numbers like that is extremely misleading because it's putting a false value on a statistic. What happened was they stopped taking every hit as equal and started valuing a hit based on what actually happened in the play through a ton of analytical data recorded by people attending the games.

So yeah, you can look at the Leafs and say "well they're getting outshot so they're not very good". The problem is however, they were winning games when they were keeping shots to the outside and are now losing games when the shots are coming from the slot. This is because not every shot is the same and when you watch the games you can see the extreme difference in the shots against before and the shots against now. Corsi/Fenwick doesn't tell you that because it's just taking the common mainstream stats like a RBI or a batting average and placing value on a player or a team.


Oh and as for examples of past teams, the cup winning Penguins of the 2008-2009 season allowed on average more shots against than for that season. Coincidentally the Leafs who finished 24th in the league averaged more shots for than against. The 2009-10 Leafs who finished 29th in the league averaged a full 3 shots more per game than against as well.
That Pens team had a long period of bad play that got their coach fired. In the playoffs they outshot their opponents. There's also a big difference between a .7 shot per game difference and NINE shots per game.

You're clearly in denial here. People looked at various stats. Using those stats and comparing to past successful teams, they predicted the Leafs streak was unsustainable. The Leafs have failed to sustain the streak. Looks like a successful prediction to me.

__________________
Saturday night, I like to raise a little harm. I'll sleep when I'm dead.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2014, 10:10 PM
  #427
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,277
vCash: 50
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Since it's been asked. Shot differential for Cup Champions and finalists since the lockout.

YearChampDiffRunnerUpDiff
2006Carolina+0.7 (11th)Edmonton+4.2 (3rd)
2007Anaheim+4.1 (3rd)Ottawa+2.1 (11th)
2008Detroit+10.9 (1st)Pittsburgh-3.1 (26th)
2009Pittsburgh-1.3 (21st)Detroit+8.4 (1st)
2010Chicago+9 (1st)Philadelphia+3 (4th)
2011Boston+0.2 (17th)Vancouver+1.9 (11th)
2012Los Angeles+3.2 (6th)New Jersey+0.7 (12th)
2013Chicago+4.9 (2nd)Boston+3.8 (4th)

And yes, it's worth noting that during the 09-10 season people weren't saying "Man the Leafs are up on some hard luck, they'll rebound at any time" but instead were saying "wow this team sucks, that pick is gonna turn into Hall or Seguin" They were the 6th best shot differential team that season but finished 2nd last.

In fact, here's the Leafs finishes in shot differential the first 5 season after the 04-05 lockout:

05-06: 25th
06-07: 2nd
07-08: 7th
08-09: 9th
09-10: 6th

Their finishes in the standings:

05-06: 18th
06-07: 18th
07-08: 24th
08-09: 24th
09-10: 29th

__________________
Come join us on the By The Numbers forum. Take a look at our introduction post if you're new. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.
hatterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2014, 10:35 PM
  #428
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,277
vCash: 50
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
You're clearly in denial here. People looked at various stats. Using those stats and comparing to past successful teams, they predicted the Leafs streak was unsustainable. The Leafs have failed to sustain the streak. Looks like a successful prediction to me.
Simply because a model resulted in a successful prediction of a result does not mean the model is foolproof.

Plenty of scientific models have predicted results, been correct in many cases, but later proven to be either false or incomplete. The could easily be true about the corsi "model"

From an analytics standpoint, the worst thing about the Leafs sucking is that people aren't motivated to look at *why* their success was happening and are just happy with "they got lucky"

hatterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2014, 11:27 PM
  #429
Cap'n Flavour
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Romania
Posts: 3,443
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Cap'n Flavour Send a message via MSN to Cap'n Flavour
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
And yes, it's worth noting that during the 09-10 season people weren't saying "Man the Leafs are up on some hard luck, they'll rebound at any time" but instead were saying "wow this team sucks, that pick is gonna turn into Hall or Seguin" They were the 6th best shot differential team that season but finished 2nd last.
Vesa Toskala does tend to have that effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
So yeah, you can look at the Leafs and say "well they're getting outshot so they're not very good". The problem is however, they were winning games when they were keeping shots to the outside and are now losing games when the shots are coming from the slot.
That's a great idea! I assume you actually compiled statistics to prove that the Leafs' shot quality against has increased and aren't just pulling it out of your ***?

Cap'n Flavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2014, 11:57 PM
  #430
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Eye Monster Invictus
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 63,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
Simply because a model resulted in a successful prediction of a result does not mean the model is foolproof.

Plenty of scientific models have predicted results, been correct in many cases, but later proven to be either false or incomplete. The could easily be true about the corsi "model"

From an analytics standpoint, the worst thing about the Leafs sucking is that people aren't motivated to look at *why* their success was happening and are just happy with "they got lucky"
As I saw it described, the Leafs were producing an abnormally high amount of scoring chances relative to total shots; I never bought that explanation as being something sustainable. I believe that was reflected in the abnormally high team shooting percentage. I also recall the team having very high PDO. Now that things are regressing, the success isn't there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
Since it's been asked. Shot differential for Cup Champions and finalists since the lockout.

YearChampDiffRunnerUpDiff
2006Carolina+0.7 (11th)Edmonton+4.2 (3rd)
2007Anaheim+4.1 (3rd)Ottawa+2.1 (11th)
2008Detroit+10.9 (1st)Pittsburgh-3.1 (26th)
2009Pittsburgh-1.3 (21st)Detroit+8.4 (1st)
2010Chicago+9 (1st)Philadelphia+3 (4th)
2011Boston+0.2 (17th)Vancouver+1.9 (11th)
2012Los Angeles+3.2 (6th)New Jersey+0.7 (12th)
2013Chicago+4.9 (2nd)Boston+3.8 (4th)

And yes, it's worth noting that during the 09-10 season people weren't saying "Man the Leafs are up on some hard luck, they'll rebound at any time" but instead were saying "wow this team sucks, that pick is gonna turn into Hall or Seguin" They were the 6th best shot differential team that season but finished 2nd last.

In fact, here's the Leafs finishes in shot differential the first 5 season after the 04-05 lockout:

05-06: 25th
06-07: 2nd
07-08: 7th
08-09: 9th
09-10: 6th

Their finishes in the standings:

05-06: 18th
06-07: 18th
07-08: 24th
08-09: 24th
09-10: 29th
Good shot differential doesn't guarantee good performance (Especially with bad goaltending), but a terrible shot differential (especially to the order of 9) makes success extremely unlikely. You can expect almost an extra goal against per night, more if the goalie isn't bailing out the team.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2014, 03:06 AM
  #431
Carey Commit
Where's the Doritos?
 
Carey Commit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: All over Canada
Posts: 1,459
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Carey Commit
How much did score effects play apart with some of those Leaf teams too? I figure they were often trailing due to the subpar goaltending

Carey Commit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2014, 08:24 AM
  #432
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
That Pens team had a long period of bad play that got their coach fired. In the playoffs they outshot their opponents. There's also a big difference between a .7 shot per game difference and NINE shots per game.

You're clearly in denial here. People looked at various stats. Using those stats and comparing to past successful teams, they predicted the Leafs streak was unsustainable. The Leafs have failed to sustain the streak. Looks like a successful prediction to me.
I'm not in denial of anything, I'm not arguing about the Leafs at all here really. I'm arguing how flawed the stats are.

It seems to me people don't actually understand what advanced statistics are. Most on here have read a few articles that states there's a correlation between outshooting opponents and winning (as if this is some new revelation) and are now taking these simple formula's as fact when they completely contradict the idea of advanced statistics which is finding value in things not readily seen by all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap'n Flavour View Post
That's a great idea! I assume you actually compiled statistics to prove that the Leafs' shot quality against has increased and aren't just pulling it out of your ***?
I passed that onto someone else because I have no desire to do so. However it was proven true with shot charts earlier in the year off of CBS Sports website which has a tracker for shots and where they were taken. I would be willing to bet they look very different as of late.

TieClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2014, 08:26 AM
  #433
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynastyREredux View Post
How much did score effects play apart with some of those Leaf teams too? I figure they were often trailing due to the subpar goaltending
Their goaltending was atrocious but at the same time, the entire team was far weaker. Half the team isn't even in the NHL anymore.

TieClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2014, 10:30 AM
  #434
Cap'n Flavour
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Romania
Posts: 3,443
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Cap'n Flavour Send a message via MSN to Cap'n Flavour
Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
I passed that onto someone else because I have no desire to do so. However it was proven true with shot charts earlier in the year off of CBS Sports website which has a tracker for shots and where they were taken. I would be willing to bet they look very different as of late.
What was proven? The Star article which talked about this in mid November showed that the Leafs give up slightly more in-close chances than usual, and *far more* chances from > 20 feet out. They were never actually good at limiting in-close chances, they were just terrible at covering the points. I doubt that has changed much. Maybe they're giving up even more chances in close now, but I doubt it's that significant of a difference.

Cap'n Flavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2014, 10:47 AM
  #435
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap'n Flavour View Post
What was proven? The Star article which talked about this in mid November showed that the Leafs give up slightly more in-close chances than usual, and *far more* chances from > 20 feet out. They were never actually good at limiting in-close chances, they were just terrible at covering the points. I doubt that has changed much. Maybe they're giving up even more chances in close now, but I doubt it's that significant of a difference.
I never saw the article you're alluding to, but I did post the numbers from that site that tracked how far out the shots were taken and the Leafs Corsi struggles were clearly due to a lot more shots than avergage being allowed from far out... which alludes to the fact that the Leafs kept teams to the outside.

That is better than Corsi, but it's still not right because distance isn't the only factor either. Advanced statistics in hockey will never be taken seriously until people take the time to watch every single game and track these things. Factors such as where the shot was taken (not just distance but where on the ice), how many shots were odd man rushes, how many shots were from sustained zone time, how many shots were deflected... these are all factors that go into baseball advanced statistics (obviously relating to baseball) that are no where to be found with hockey. Hockey A.S. as is, is just taking the regular stats that have been recorded forever on NHL.com and trying to find a correlation between winning. It's not as simple as that.


Edit: Oh and as for "What was proven", the fact that Toronto was keeping shots to the outside of the prime "slot" while taking far more shots of their own from that prime area. This despite being outshot regularly.

TieClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2014, 11:05 AM
  #436
Cap'n Flavour
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Romania
Posts: 3,443
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Cap'n Flavour Send a message via MSN to Cap'n Flavour
Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
I never saw the article you're alluding to, but I did post the numbers from that site that tracked how far out the shots were taken and the Leafs Corsi struggles were clearly due to a lot more shots than avergage being allowed from far out... which alludes to the fact that the Leafs kept teams to the outside.

That is better than Corsi, but it's still not right because distance isn't the only factor either. Advanced statistics in hockey will never be taken seriously until people take the time to watch every single game and track these things. Factors such as where the shot was taken (not just distance but where on the ice), how many shots were odd man rushes, how many shots were from sustained zone time, how many shots were deflected... these are all factors that go into baseball advanced statistics (obviously relating to baseball) that are no where to be found with hockey. Hockey A.S. as is, is just taking the regular stats that have been recorded forever on NHL.com and trying to find a correlation between winning. It's not as simple as that.


Edit: Oh and as for "What was proven", the fact that Toronto was keeping shots to the outside of the prime "slot" while taking far more shots of their own from that prime area. This despite being outshot regularly.
http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/...good_news.html

There, go read it.

It does NOT say that the Leafs were good at keeping shots down from in tight. In fact, they allowed more close shots than they took. At the time that article was written, they just happened to be having some great luck with high sh% and exceptional goaltending.

What it DOES say is that the Leafs are not very good at preventing chances in close, and absolutely terrible at preventing scoring chances from a distance.

If this article were to be updated for the full season, I except there would be little change in the shot numbers, but a substantial shift in shooting % (Leafs go down, other teams go up).

Cap'n Flavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2014, 11:11 AM
  #437
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap'n Flavour View Post
http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/...good_news.html

There, go read it.

It does NOT say that the Leafs were good at keeping shots down from in tight. In fact, they allowed more close shots than they took. At the time that article was written, they just happened to be having some great luck with high sh% and exceptional goaltending.

What it DOES say is that the Leafs are not very good at preventing chances in close, and absolutely terrible at preventing scoring chances from a distance.

If this article were to be updated for the full season, I except there would be little change in the shot numbers, but a substantial shift in shooting % (Leafs go down, other teams go up).
rofl really?

Article title: Maple Leafs shot breakdowns reveal good news.

Sub-title: Leaf shooters finding success in close, goalies peppered by low-percentage attempts.

Did you even read it?

OFFENCE
The Leafs indeed go to the dirty areas and are rewarded handsomely. Overall, 56 per cent of NHL goals this season have come from 20 feet in (682 of 1,212). The Leafs are far above that — 61 per cent (30 of 49) in that area. That means they are getting the puck in deep more often before taking a shot or pouncing on a rebound. The team as a whole is taking fewer low-percentage shots. Similarly, they have allowed only 50 per cent of their goals against (18 of 36) from less than 20 feet, more a credit to their goaltending than team defence. That, of course, means that 50 per cent of the goals against come from beyond 20 feet, above the league average of 44 per cent.


DEFENCE
Those who defend the Leafs’ approach to team defence say it’s successful because defenders collapse around the goalie, forcing opponents to take low-percentage shots from a distance. That appears to be just what’s happening. League-wide, 30 per cent of all shots on net come from 20 feet in (3,901 of 13,065). But Leaf opponents only manage to take 25 per cent of their shots on goal from in close (141 of 553). The reasons include better shot blocking, clearing of rebounds and forcing opponents to the outside. Overall, NHL teams take 70 per cent of shots (9,164 of 13,065) from beyond 20 feet. But against the Leafs, it’s 75 per cent. So those extra shots faced by James Reimer and Jonathan Bernier are more often coming from a distance.


A COACH’S TAKE
Former Leafs coach Pat Quinn isn’t overly concerned about the current club’s negative shot differential. His teams were often outshot, just not by such a wide margin. “I learned a long time ago that you look at where the shots are coming from. The number of shots at the net is less important. There are some coaches that say: ‘Throw it at the net.’ That’s their way of giving the puck up.” Added Quinn: “The team that won four straight Stanley Cups in Long Island, they didn’t care if they got outshot. They were looking for their quality of shot. They’d hold the puck until they put it in the right spot.”

TieClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2014, 11:23 AM
  #438
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,277
vCash: 50
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
As I saw it described, the Leafs were producing an abnormally high amount of scoring chances relative to total shots; I never bought that explanation as being something sustainable. I believe that was reflected in the abnormally high team shooting percentage. I also recall the team having very high PDO. Now that things are regressing, the success isn't there.
I'm not denying that the team was producing an abnormally high number of scoring chances relative to shots (which also drove a high PDO), and I'm not saying for sure that it was entirely sustainable. Certainly not to the level they were producing.

However, I think the debate really shouldn't be focused around "Can the Leafs be an elite team while giving up 9 shots more per game than they take?" but rather "Can the Leafs (or any team) have success that deviates from their corsi totals in a meaningful way?"

We've seen enough examples over the years of teams with good corsi being bad or bad corsi being good that it seems to be more than random chance. Unfortunately the proper data doesn't exist to fully explore the situation, or if it does is not public (shot quality project).

hatterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2014, 11:25 AM
  #439
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
I'm not denying that the team was producing an abnormally high number of scoring chances relative to shots (which also drove a high PDO), and I'm not saying for sure that it was entirely sustainable. Certainly not to the level they were producing.

However, I think the debate really shouldn't be focused around "Can the Leafs be an elite team while giving up 9 shots more per game than they take?" but rather "Can the Leafs (or any team) have success that deviates from their corsi totals in a meaningful way?"

We've seen enough examples over the years of teams with good corsi being bad or bad corsi being good that it seems to be more than random chance. Unfortunately the proper data doesn't exist to fully explore the situation, or if it does is not public (shot quality project).
Exactly. You need to have far more data than simply the standard stat tracking to produce meaningful statistics.

TieClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2014, 11:43 AM
  #440
Cap'n Flavour
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Romania
Posts: 3,443
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Cap'n Flavour Send a message via MSN to Cap'n Flavour
Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
rofl really?

Article title: Maple Leafs shot breakdowns reveal good news.

Sub-title: Leaf shooters finding success in close, goalies peppered by low-percentage attempts.

Did you even read it?
Quote:
Leaf shooters from inside 20 feet:

SHOTS: 124

GOALS: 30

PERCENTAGE: 24 per cent

Opposing shooters inside 20 feet:

SHOTS: 141

GOALS: 18

PERCENTAGE: 13 per cent
141 is a larger number than 124.

Quote:
Leaf shooters from beyond 20 feet:

SHOTS: 270

GOALS: 19

PERCENTAGE: Seven per cent

Opposing shooters from beyond 20 feet:

SHOTS: 412

GOALS: 18

PERCENTAGE: Four per cent
412 is a larger number than 270.

I don't know how much more clear I can possibly make this. If you want to continue being willfully obtuse, I'm done.

Cap'n Flavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2014, 12:03 PM
  #441
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap'n Flavour View Post
141 is a larger number than 124.



412 is a larger number than 270.

I don't know how much more clear I can possibly make this. If you want to continue being willfully obtuse, I'm done.
I am being obtuse? You're using an article that is entirely about why the Leafs being outshot doesn't mean anything as proof of why it does mean something...

Read the article and perhaps you'll understand why the stats don't work with the Leafs (when playing well). Read the posters on here that actually understand what advanced statistics are and perhaps you'll understand why Corsi and the like are entirely flawed.

TieClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2014, 03:01 PM
  #442
ACMESalesRep
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan View Post
Would you rather have 3 quality shots on goal or 20 from the outside with no traffic? the answer is obvious.
Yes: You'd far rather have the 20 shots from outside. You'll score more goals with 20 shots that each have a 5% chance of going in (about half of league average) than with 3 shots that each have a 30% chance of going in *and nobody in the league scores on 30% of their shots. It's simple math.

ACMESalesRep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2014, 05:13 PM
  #443
Cap'n Flavour
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Romania
Posts: 3,443
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Cap'n Flavour Send a message via MSN to Cap'n Flavour
Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
I am being obtuse? You're using an article that is entirely about why the Leafs being outshot doesn't mean anything as proof of why it does mean something...

Read the article and perhaps you'll understand why the stats don't work with the Leafs (when playing well). Read the posters on here that actually understand what advanced statistics are and perhaps you'll understand why Corsi and the like are entirely flawed.
I'm using it as proof of the fact that the Leafs are NOT good at limiting chances in close, because they allowed MORE shots in close than they took. Not only that, but they allowed far more shots from longer range as well. That's exactly what I said in my previous post, and the numbers don't leave any further room for interpretation. The rest of your post is the same "Corsi's wrong" meaningless drivel that's been spouted here from the beginning.

Cap'n Flavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2014, 08:52 AM
  #444
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap'n Flavour View Post
I'm using it as proof of the fact that the Leafs are NOT good at limiting chances in close, because they allowed MORE shots in close than they took. Not only that, but they allowed far more shots from longer range as well. That's exactly what I said in my previous post, and the numbers don't leave any further room for interpretation. The rest of your post is the same "Corsi's wrong" meaningless drivel that's been spouted here from the beginning.
The only argument to possibly be made is that the in close number is slightly above the league average. There could be several reasons for this including the leafs winning most games and sitting back. The fact that they allow more shots from far out means absolutely nothing because they entire system they use encourages teams to shoot from out there. It also remains true that all those shots the leafs allowed against were from the outside far more often than the inside.

The rest of my post is the most important part of this.


Last edited by Bear of Bad News: 01-12-2014 at 10:18 AM. Reason: Stop with the personal attacks. Do you understand?
TieClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2014, 09:57 AM
  #445
Micklebot
I bee-beard'lieve
 
Micklebot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 14,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
The only argument to possibly be made is that the in close number is slightly above the league average. There could be several reasons for this including the leafs winning most games and sitting back. The fact that they allow more shots from far out means absolutely nothing because they entire system they use encourages teams to shoot from out there. It also remains true that all those shots the leafs allowed against were from the outside far more often than the inside.

The rest of my post is the most important part of this.
First off, every teams system attempts to limit shots from in close, this is not some revelation Carlyle came to, it's standard practice.

The article uses % of total shots against the leafs from inside 20 ft as evidence that they are limiting in close shots, stating that the leafs only allow 25% of shots against from inside that mark compared to a league average of 30% which sounds like a good thing. The problem is that in raw numbers, they allow more from inside 20 feet than the average team, so while their ratio of shots from inside 20 ft to outside 20 feet is healthy, the actual number of chances from inside 20% is not, especially when you combine that with the fact that the same issue can be found in their shots for.

So while their shots against might not be as bad as it looked, it was still not good. They were basically slightly below average for in close shots for and against, and well below average in shots for and against from outside 20 ft.

They did have a higher than average shooting % and Sv% from in close, which is why their record was so good, however, these kind of anomalies are common with small samples (15 games is an absurdly small sample to use goal based metrics).

Micklebot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2014, 10:22 AM
  #446
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micklebot View Post
First off, every teams system attempts to limit shots from in close, this is not some revelation Carlyle came to, it's standard practice.

The article uses % of total shots against the leafs from inside 20 ft as evidence that they are limiting in close shots, stating that the leafs only allow 25% of shots against from inside that mark compared to a league average of 30% which sounds like a good thing. The problem is that in raw numbers, they allow more from inside 20 feet than the average team, so while their ratio of shots from inside 20 ft to outside 20 feet is healthy, the actual number of chances from inside 20% is not, especially when you combine that with the fact that the same issue can be found in their shots for.

So while their shots against might not be as bad as it looked, it was still not good. They were basically slightly below average for in close shots for and against, and well below average in shots for and against from outside 20 ft.

They did have a higher than average shooting % and Sv% from in close, which is why their record was so good, however, these kind of anomalies are common with small samples (15 games is an absurdly small sample to use goal based metrics).
It's pretty obvious what I was saying if you've discussed this before... the Leafs collapse every time the puck is in their zone. All 5 guys at or below the hash marks. They allow teams to maintain possession and shoot from the outside all they want but do not allow them inside that group in the middle.

Like I said, using distance is better than nothing but shot totals, but it still ignores where the shots are coming from. Are they at bad angles or are they right in the slot wide open? This is kind of information needed to properly determine if a team is doing a terrible job of d coverage or not. The Leafs as of late there is no question are allowing prime scoring chances all over the place but early in the season and more specifically last season that wasn't true at all. It was common place for the Leafs to be outshot by a good margin (10+ shots) and yet seem as if they had all the best scoring chances because of where the shots were coming from.

I don't think anyone believes the Leafs were in an elite category ever so it's not surprise the numbers aren't anything to marvel at. They pretty clearly weren't at some abysmal level and were inevitably going to implode. The team is playing completely differently now, resulting in poor results.

TieClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2014, 11:04 AM
  #447
Micklebot
I bee-beard'lieve
 
Micklebot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 14,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
It's pretty obvious what I was saying if you've discussed this before... the Leafs collapse every time the puck is in their zone. All 5 guys at or below the hash marks. They allow teams to maintain possession and shoot from the outside all they want but do not allow them inside that group in the middle.

Like I said, using distance is better than nothing but shot totals, but it still ignores where the shots are coming from. Are they at bad angles or are they right in the slot wide open? This is kind of information needed to properly determine if a team is doing a terrible job of d coverage or not. The Leafs as of late there is no question are allowing prime scoring chances all over the place but early in the season and more specifically last season that wasn't true at all. It was common place for the Leafs to be outshot by a good margin (10+ shots) and yet seem as if they had all the best scoring chances because of where the shots were coming from.

I don't think anyone believes the Leafs were in an elite category ever so it's not surprise the numbers aren't anything to marvel at. They pretty clearly weren't at some abysmal level and were inevitably going to implode. The team is playing completely differently now, resulting in poor results.

The leafs shot charts don't really show a large percent of shots within 20 ft for bad angles though. their shots for really doesn't look much different from a location perspective than their shots against. Admittedly, this doesn't show whether it's a screened shot, or a wide open shooter, but I really haven't seen much supporting the narrative that the leafs get better chances and yield fewer good chances. Early on in the season, what I did see when watching them is that they were more successful in capitalizing on their chances.

Micklebot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2014, 11:15 AM
  #448
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micklebot View Post
The leafs shot charts don't really show a large percent of shots within 20 ft for bad angles though. their shots for really doesn't look much different from a location perspective than their shots against. Admittedly, this doesn't show whether it's a screened shot, or a wide open shooter, but I really haven't seen much supporting the narrative that the leafs get better chances and yield fewer good chances. Early on in the season, what I did see when watching them is that they were more successful in capitalizing on their chances.
It needs to be done on a game by game basis... a bad stretch will result in a lot of prime chances. A good stretch the same. Also like I said, they definitely aren't doing the good chances for, bad chances against for a solid month+ now.

It sticks out like a sore thumb offensive when you see guys come in a rush and stop up to attempt a cross rink pass to a wide open player and it not get through. The Leafs do things like that all the time offensively whereas a team like Ottawa will come in and throw it on net pretty much every time.

TieClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2014, 11:31 AM
  #449
Razzmatazz
Registered User
 
Razzmatazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
As I saw it described, the Leafs were producing an abnormally high amount of scoring chances relative to total shots; I never bought that explanation as being something sustainable.
Interesting that you mention this....are there any home road splits showing a home team bias when it comes to scoring chances? It seems like a very subjective stat that can be inflated by a home team scorer to put a mediocre team in a better light...for example, hits are a stat that comes to mind in that building...from what I've seen of the Leafs playing in Air Canada Center, just breathing within 50 feet of an opponent earns the home team a hit on the score sheet.

Razzmatazz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2014, 11:46 AM
  #450
Micklebot
I bee-beard'lieve
 
Micklebot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 14,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
It needs to be done on a game by game basis... a bad stretch will result in a lot of prime chances. A good stretch the same. Also like I said, they definitely aren't doing the good chances for, bad chances against for a solid month+ now.

It sticks out like a sore thumb offensive when you see guys come in a rush and stop up to attempt a cross rink pass to a wide open player and it not get through. The Leafs do things like that all the time offensively whereas a team like Ottawa will come in and throw it on net pretty much every time.
I had posted the shot charts back in late November, and can say from memory that it wasn't much different than today, but unfortunately, I can't get historical shot charts so you'll have to take my word. I'm not sure what benefit would come from game by game shot charts, though they are available if you want to collect them.

Also worth noting, Toronto's first 15 or so games was not exactly a rough stretch of their schedule in terms of competition with games against Edmonton, Ottawa, Philadelphia, Calgary, Columbus, Minnesota, Nashville, and Carolina.

I'm not suggesting the leafs are the worst in the league because Corsi says so, but rather that their early success not indicative of their overall play, corsi is just one metric that happened to predict that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micklebot View Post
Thankfully there's an app for that.

Shots for Toronto at ES within 20 feet
http://somekindofninja.com/nhl/index...&search=Search

At the time of this post; 122 total Shots and Goals, 4 without (x,y) coordinates.
Average distance: 12.9 feet
Shooting Percentage: 17 goals / 122 shots = 13.9%

Shots against Toronto at ES within 20 feet
http://somekindofninja.com/nhl/index...&search=Search

At the time of this post; 152 total Shots and Goals, 8 without (x,y) coordinates.
Average distance: 12.7 feet
Shooting Percentage: 17 goals / 152 shots = 11.2%

Shot charts seem to disprove that Toronto gets more shots from in close than their opponents. That doesn't mean they aren't getting better chances, but that is harder to quantify.

Micklebot 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 08:09 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.