HFBoards

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

Oilers analytic/advanced stat thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-08-2016, 10:06 AM
  #101
phaedrusDH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paralyzer008 View Post
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Matt-...nned/191/81191

Interesting counter-article to Spector's.
Spector's comments made a link between defensive zone exits and offensive zone entries. essentially, he was suggesting that Russell is highly effective at keeping team possession through the neutral zone.

Henderson has completely ignored that key distinction and only discusses Spector's comments in terms of zone exits.

in advanced stats, details are important!

what's maybe at issue here is how important is it to maintain possession through the neutral zone. just how dangerous are those neutral zone turnovers? IMO, they are worse than turnovers in other zones, but i don't have the advanced stats to back that up. (remember all those cross-ice passes from Hall that were picked off? you do, don't you?)

phaedrusDH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2016, 10:07 AM
  #102
Aceboogie
Registered User
 
Aceboogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 26,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phaedrusDH View Post
You said it yourself it is an inferrence. PDO does not necessarily mean a player is lucky, as can be affected be a lot of variables. you know that old say you gotta be good to be lucky? in Russell's case, a lot of shots against come from outside or long distances, so they should be easy to save, shouldn't they? he doesn't give up a whole lot in tight.

If you remove all skill effects and look at PDO for an individual player, it is a measure of past performance against league-wide expectations (i.e. sh% + s% = 100%). it does not imply that he is bound to regress. besides, all things being future probabilities are not based on past results.
Eh Ill really disagree here. PDO does have skill involved and guys on good teams can have higher PDOs. Fo rexample Chara has been over 100 PDo almost his whole career (although not as high as 104, in 100-102 range). Russell on the other hand has had a wide variety of PDO- some as high as 104, others in 98 range. But it varies each year almost without fail. His on ice sv % has also varied widely and mostly been sub 0.920. So some skill involved but for Russell past history overwhelming points to regression. Yes past peformance is not always indicative of future but thats if you believe Russell has just suddenly found his game at 29. Many Flames fans were praising Russell to the heavens in 2013/2014 when he shockingly enough had a 104 PDO. Attitudes towards him changed drastically after that

I think the narrative on Russells ability to keep to outside and thus his PDO and on ice sv% will be higher going into the future is getting a bit out of hand. It is true that he does that, but hes done that for many, many seasons before this and his history has shown it doesnt end in great results goals against wise. Even outside shots are still dangerous and result in rebounds that turn into goals. Or you leave a guy outside with time and he has ability to set up prime scoring chances

Hes a good D but hes in the middle of the 2 extremes. Hes not a hot garabage defensive player simply because he allows a ton of shots against. But hes not this extraordinary D who will be able to keep a 104 PDO and .940 sv% (No D ever has)

104 PDO and 0.940 sv% is just super, super, super rare. Its like winning the lotto twice in one day. Its extremely hard to replicate over more than 75-80 games

Aceboogie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2016, 10:11 AM
  #103
Aceboogie
Registered User
 
Aceboogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 26,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phaedrusDH View Post
what's maybe at issue here is how important is it to maintain possession through the neutral zone. just how dangerous are those neutral zone turnovers? IMO, they are worse than turnovers in other zones, but i don't have the advanced stats to back that up. (remember all those cross-ice passes from Hall that were picked off? you do, don't you?)
Ill try and find the study but IIRC this is least dangerous zone to turn puck over in. If its in O zone you give up ability to get shots on net, if its in the D zone you increase number of shots on your net. In the N zone its literally in the middle. If you turn it over you do give up chance to get a shot away, but being so far from the net, it was a lower chance to begin with. On the defensive side of things- in the N zone you will mostly have 2 forwards within back checking range and 2 D normally behind their forwards. So you are in a way better spot to prevent an entry and a shot.

Aceboogie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2016, 10:27 AM
  #104
phaedrusDH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceboogie View Post
Eh Ill really disagree here. PDO does have skill involved and guys on good teams can have higher PDOs. Fo rexample Chara has been over 100 PDo almost his whole career (although not as high as 104, in 100-102 range). Russell on the other hand has had a wide variety of PDO- some as high as 104, others in 98 range. But it varies each year almost without fail. His on ice sv % has also varied widely and mostly been sub 0.920. So some skill involved but for Russell past history overwhelming points to regression. Yes past peformance is not always indicative of future but thats if you believe Russell has just suddenly found his game at 29. Many Flames fans were praising Russell to the heavens in 2013/2014 when he shockingly enough had a 104 PDO. Attitudes towards him changed drastically after that

I think the narrative on Russells ability to keep to outside and thus his PDO and on ice sv% will be higher going into the future is getting a bit out of hand. It is true that he does that, but hes done that for many, many seasons before this and his history has shown it doesnt end in great results goals against wise. Even outside shots are still dangerous and result in rebounds that turn into goals. Or you leave a guy outside with time and he has ability to set up prime scoring chances

Hes a good D but hes in the middle of the 2 extremes. Hes not a hot garabage defensive player simply because he allows a ton of shots against. But hes not this extraordinary D who will be able to keep a 104 PDO and .940 sv% (No D ever has)

104 PDO and 0.940 sv% is just super, super, super rare. Its like winning the lotto twice in one day. Its extremely hard to replicate over more than 75-80 games
I think we agree in terms of how to interpret PDO...the question is how much of Russell's current PDO is luck and i don't dispute his high PDO may be in large part due to luck. past few seasons, Russell is a relatively high PDO player (5v5, per behind the net):

2015-16 DAL 1007 (4th of team D)
2014-15 CGY 1044 (1st)
2013-14 CGY 995 (2nd)
2012-13 STL 1010 (2nd)
2011-12 STL 1016 (4th)

phaedrusDH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2016, 10:43 AM
  #105
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 11,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceboogie View Post
Ill try and find the study but IIRC this is least dangerous zone to turn puck over in. If its in O zone you give up ability to get shots on net, if its in the D zone you increase number of shots on your net. In the N zone its literally in the middle. If you turn it over you do give up chance to get a shot away, but being so far from the net, it was a lower chance to begin with. On the defensive side of things- in the N zone you will mostly have 2 forwards within back checking range and 2 D normally behind their forwards. So you are in a way better spot to prevent an entry and a shot.
Sorry there's no way the neutral zone is a less dangerous place to turn the puck over than the o zone. That makes no sense what so ever.

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2016, 10:51 AM
  #106
phaedrusDH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
Sorry there's no way the neutral zone is a less dangerous place to turn the puck over than the o zone. That makes no sense what so ever.
i'd believe it. increased chance of it resulting in odd-man rushes opposition FWs have speed relative to D.

in the neutral zone, everyone is still in transition.

i'd be very interested in the study if Aceboogie can find it.

phaedrusDH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2016, 11:08 AM
  #107
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceboogie View Post
Ill try and find the study but IIRC this is least dangerous zone to turn puck over in. If its in O zone you give up ability to get shots on net, if its in the D zone you increase number of shots on your net. In the N zone its literally in the middle. If you turn it over you do give up chance to get a shot away, but being so far from the net, it was a lower chance to begin with. On the defensive side of things- in the N zone you will mostly have 2 forwards within back checking range and 2 D normally behind their forwards. So you are in a way better spot to prevent an entry and a shot.
I think what makes neutral zone takeovers seem bad is the bad ones we all remember where a bad pass is picked off by a guy heading full steam forward and it catches everyone heading the opposite direction leading to a breakaway or a 2 on 1. Statistically however those are rare. Most turnovers in the neutral zone probably end in short possesion time where the puck gets turnover again in a tight puck battle that goes back and forth a bit before anyone gets it moving again forward or back.

Halibut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2016, 12:07 PM
  #108
Aceboogie
Registered User
 
Aceboogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 26,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phaedrusDH View Post
I think we agree in terms of how to interpret PDO...the question is how much of Russell's current PDO is luck and i don't dispute his high PDO may be in large part due to luck. past few seasons, Russell is a relatively high PDO player (5v5, per behind the net):

2015-16 DAL 1007 (4th of team D)
2014-15 CGY 1044 (1st)
2013-14 CGY 995 (2nd)
2012-13 STL 1010 (2nd)
2011-12 STL 1016 (4th)
i think 101 area is reasonable but still a noticeable drop from 104. Keeping shooting % the same that would require a drop of sv% to 92.07. Im not sure if my math was correct but thatd bring hes goal against from 8 currently to 14. So 6 additional goals in 21 games just from a reduction in his on ice save % to 0.92% and still puts him over 100 for PDO. Klefboma nd Larsson are both around 97(!) so really low. Imagune Russell got to that range

As for the study I couldnt find the exact one and I think it could have been by Dellow. I did find this but its not a direct comparison between different zones

Quote:
Although there is a relatively weak 0.24 statistical correlation between neutral zone takeaways and rush shots, there is some benefit in creating neutral zone turnovers. First, stealing the puck in this area of the ice can lead to more potential rush chances because attacking forwards, who are either moving towards the offensive zone or chasing a neutral zone chip-in, are sometimes unable to regroup and defend a counter attack if a turnover occurs. Second, a neutral zone takeaway gives teams a better chance of carrying the puck in the offensive zone instead of dumping the puck into the zone.
https://tartansportsanalytics.com/20...rs-in-the-nhl/

So Ill say that it is my opinion N zones are least dangerous until I can find better evidence

Aceboogie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2016, 12:12 PM
  #109
Aceboogie
Registered User
 
Aceboogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 26,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
I think what makes neutral zone takeovers seem bad is the bad ones we all remember where a bad pass is picked off by a guy heading full steam forward and it catches everyone heading the opposite direction leading to a breakaway or a 2 on 1. Statistically however those are rare. Most turnovers in the neutral zone probably end in short possesion time where the puck gets turnover again in a tight puck battle that goes back and forth a bit before anyone gets it moving again forward or back.
I agree with this. An O zone turnover can be lost in the shuffle and almost expected but given your proximity to the net, a turnover almost for sure negates a shot opporunity/ or creates on in D zone. In the N zone if you turn puck over you give up chance to get a shot but its not as likely as it would be if it was in O zone (still have to carry it in/ dump it in and eve get to a scoring chance opportunity)

And N zone turnovers do stick out a lot more as a cross ice pass picked off not only stifles the rush that was starting, it can create odd man rushes. But I do not find it creates these chances all that much. But when they do it really sticks with you

Anyway for me; it drives me crazy when players turn puck over in the O zone. I despise it.

Aceboogie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2016, 12:23 PM
  #110
McOkMcgoMcoil
Registered User
 
McOkMcgoMcoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 14,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceboogie View Post
Thatd be awesome but like completely impossible to do. Who would pay for this- I doubt any "expert" is going to spend 3/4 hours a day doing this for free. And those who would do it for free probably arent experts. You would also still get complications with the "stats"- experts are humans and value different things/ Maybe 1 expert is really versed at offense and values that way higher than he would for D zone play. Expert 2 is the opposite- so the stats would still have bias and still be hard to say are uniform over every team
exactly, you nailed it. To actually do it would be impossible. People who do it for free would not be reliable. Experts wouldn't want to do this, and would also have their flaws. It would be the best stat as the errors would still average out.

Just in theory though it is fun to think about. They sort of do this in baseball where defensive plays they look at in terms of how far the player ran, the trajectory of the ball, and would the average player cought the ball. It isn't perfect, but basically all they do is watch every defensive play and ask how good the play was. More sophisticated than what I am suggesting as they still measure things that you couldn't in hockey.

Still, even for defensive defencemen. you could look at each time they check a player. Did they take the correct route, did they engage the stick well ect. Simply how well did they make the play.

It would be impossible. Hockey is like Soccer, Soccer is the same. Basically most people have just given up on stats. They realise it is just impossible.

McOkMcgoMcoil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2016, 12:42 PM
  #111
Aceboogie
Registered User
 
Aceboogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 26,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McOkMcgoMcoil View Post
exactly, you nailed it. To actually do it would be impossible. People who do it for free would not be reliable. Experts wouldn't want to do this, and would also have their flaws. It would be the best stat as the errors would still average out.

Just in theory though it is fun to think about. They sort of do this in baseball where defensive plays they look at in terms of how far the player ran, the trajectory of the ball, and would the average player cought the ball. It isn't perfect, but basically all they do is watch every defensive play and ask how good the play was. More sophisticated than what I am suggesting as they still measure things that you couldn't in hockey.

Still, even for defensive defencemen. you could look at each time they check a player. Did they take the correct route, did they engage the stick well ect. Simply how well did they make the play.

It would be impossible. Hockey is like Soccer, Soccer is the same. Basically most people have just given up on stats. They realise it is just impossible.
Hey LMFH does incredible game reports. He should be hired by OilersNation or Cult of Hockey to do those recaps. Those are about as close as to what you described above. I dont think itd be that much harder for that poster to rate players based on some standard. I would value that recap as much or more than best analytic review out there

LMFH (or similar) + indepth neautral btu in depth anlaytics= incredible player evalution

Aceboogie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2016, 01:08 PM
  #112
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 11,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phaedrusDH View Post
i'd believe it. increased chance of it resulting in odd-man rushes opposition FWs have speed relative to D.

in the neutral zone, everyone is still in transition.

i'd be very interested in the study if Aceboogie can find it.
I'd bet my house neutral zone turnovers result in more scoring chances than o zone turnovers.

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2016, 01:25 PM
  #113
Aceboogie
Registered User
 
Aceboogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 26,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
I'd bet my house neutral zone turnovers result in more scoring chances than o zone turnovers.
I have been looking for a new house

Aceboogie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2016, 04:15 PM
  #114
McOkMcgoMcoil
Registered User
 
McOkMcgoMcoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 14,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceboogie View Post
Hey LMFH does incredible game reports. He should be hired by OilersNation or Cult of Hockey to do those recaps. Those are about as close as to what you described above. I dont think itd be that much harder for that poster to rate players based on some standard. I would value that recap as much or more than best analytic review out there

LMFH (or similar) + indepth neautral btu in depth anlaytics= incredible player evalution
Agreed, he does great reports. Perhaps he can start assigning a mark out of 10 after each game. Then average the marks at the end of the year. I would be curious if the marks ended up pretty close to what most people would consider a good ranking of our players. I bet it would.

McOkMcgoMcoil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2016, 04:54 PM
  #115
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 11,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceboogie View Post
I have been looking for a new house
Here's a good analytics article on the importance of neutral zone play.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/ar...than-you-think

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2016, 05:21 PM
  #116
Aceboogie
Registered User
 
Aceboogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 26,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
Here's a good analytics article on the importance of neutral zone play.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/ar...than-you-think
Ive seen that one and some other great ones. But mostly focusing on importance of controlled zone entries thru NZ (as this one largely speaks about). These studies are actually really relevant to TM who is a coach who loves the dump in

Aceboogie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2016, 10:08 AM
  #117
Paralyzer008
Registered User
 
Paralyzer008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,058
vCash: 500
Sekera-Russell pairing: 47.3% Corsi
Russell when he doesn't have Sekera: 42% Corsi
Sekera when he doesn't have Russell: 57.2% Corsi

Huh.

How about not pairing those two?

Paralyzer008 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2016, 10:12 AM
  #118
hallhopkinseberle
Registered User
 
hallhopkinseberle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: london
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,706
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paralyzer008 View Post
Sekera-Russell pairing: 47.3% Corsi
Russell when he doesn't have Sekera: 42% Corsi
Sekera when he doesn't have Russell: 57.2% Corsi

Huh.

How about not pairing those two?
Benning has been this season's Davidson tbh. Love our College FA that we signed last season. Drake and Benning and have key players for us.

hallhopkinseberle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2016, 10:18 AM
  #119
LaGu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 3,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paralyzer008 View Post
Sekera-Russell pairing: 47.3% Corsi
Russell when he doesn't have Sekera: 42% Corsi
Sekera when he doesn't have Russell: 57.2% Corsi

Huh.

How about not pairing those two?
Russel - Larsson 38.3 CF%
Russel without Larsson 47.0 CF%
Larsson without Russel 52.3 CF%

At least with Sekera he improves from an otherwise bad number. In the case of Larsson both players are sgnificantly better apart than together.

Same with everyone, but I cannot say he has been bad. Apart from struggles lately, which goes for the entire d-core except Sekera, he has been good imo.

CF% is not a straight fwd stat for D though imho. Depends a lot on the role you have, tough opp and/or zone starts. Russel and Larsson have the least OZ% on the team and I think most things indicate that Larsson is facing the toughest opposition (or at least same level as Sekera). CF% while being deployed in a shut-down role will be negative on most days.


Last edited by LaGu: 12-12-2016 at 10:23 AM.
LaGu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2016, 10:30 AM
  #120
LaGu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 3,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hallhopkinseberle View Post
Benning has been this season's Davidson tbh. Love our College FA that we signed last season. Drake and Benning and have key players for us.
I think this is a excellent example of why it is so important with a balanced D group. Benning has been great playing sheltered minutes, and that is exactly what he should be doing. That is how you build confidence and learn the game at NHL level.

Then slowly you start giving him more responsability and he could really turn out to be one helluva signing imo.

LaGu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2016, 10:49 AM
  #121
Zaddy
Registered User
 
Zaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceboogie View Post
Thats interesting! But that adds even more questions about fans scouting reports. I dont think a lot of them are doing this type of stuff. Unless you tape and rewatch an entire game its hard to watch a D away from the puck, then also watch the puck and vice versa. You get glimpses of both but never both in full detail
As someone who's been doing a bit of work as an amateur scout this season I can only agree. I go to the arena and watch the game, write notes in my notebook about what I see. Then I go home and watch the game again on video and very often certain situations played out differently from what I saw then and there. Some things I put down in my notebook are just plain wrong and not at all what happened. Your brain has a tendency to fool you in so many ways. And of course the game moves so fast there's just simply no way to process it all at the same time. It gets especially confusing when you try to track multiple players in detail at the same time. The "eye test" is incredibly imperfect and I think if we had these advanced stats or if they were more prevalent in junior hockey then drafting would be a hell of a lot more accurate too.

I also agree with your sentiment that many people are letting the scoreboard affect their evaluations of certain players. Very often you see a guy have a bad game but then he scores one goal and suddenly he had a good game, while a different guy who actually played well but didn't score, or was in on a goal the opponent scored gets bad reviews, especially if that player is someone the evaluator has a bias against, which is often the case whether we know it or not. Advanced stats definitely has a place in the hockey community, they may not be perfect but they're a very helpful tool at explaining a vast range of different things.

Zaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2016, 11:57 AM
  #122
Crusty Quinn
Registered User
 
Crusty Quinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceboogie View Post
http://www.naturalstattrick.com/playerteams.php

(then filters are defenseman and over 50 mins TOI)

Nautral stat trick is great. Although no per 60 which kinda sucks
Natural Stat Trick does per 60. Just click on the "Counts" filter and change it to "Rates".

Crusty Quinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2016, 12:24 PM
  #123
oobga
Tier 2 Fan
 
oobga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,053
vCash: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaGu View Post
Russel - Larsson 38.3 CF%
Russel without Larsson 47.0 CF%
Larsson without Russel 52.3 CF%

At least with Sekera he improves from an otherwise bad number. In the case of Larsson both players are sgnificantly better apart than together.

Same with everyone, but I cannot say he has been bad. Apart from struggles lately, which goes for the entire d-core except Sekera, he has been good imo.

CF% is not a straight fwd stat for D though imho. Depends a lot on the role you have, tough opp and/or zone starts. Russel and Larsson have the least OZ% on the team and I think most things indicate that Larsson is facing the toughest opposition (or at least same level as Sekera). CF% while being deployed in a shut-down role will be negative on most days.
Russell/Larsson together is one of the oddest things McLellan has done so far. That's like putting 3 snipers that don't like to ever pass on the same forward line. Or 3 playmakers that never shoot. Or 2 play making D that don't like any physical contact and just play stick waving defense. I don't see how he thought they would compliment each other at all, and it was obvious it wasn't working after 1 period and he just stuck with it for multiple games.

oobga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2016, 12:26 PM
  #124
Aceboogie
Registered User
 
Aceboogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 26,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaddy Zads View Post
As someone who's been doing a bit of work as an amateur scout this season I can only agree. I go to the arena and watch the game, write notes in my notebook about what I see. Then I go home and watch the game again on video and very often certain situations played out differently from what I saw then and there. Some things I put down in my notebook are just plain wrong and not at all what happened. Your brain has a tendency to fool you in so many ways. And of course the game moves so fast there's just simply no way to process it all at the same time. It gets especially confusing when you try to track multiple players in detail at the same time. The "eye test" is incredibly imperfect and I think if we had these advanced stats or if they were more prevalent in junior hockey then drafting would be a hell of a lot more accurate too.

I also agree with your sentiment that many people are letting the scoreboard affect their evaluations of certain players. Very often you see a guy have a bad game but then he scores one goal and suddenly he had a good game, while a different guy who actually played well but didn't score, or was in on a goal the opponent scored gets bad reviews, especially if that player is someone the evaluator has a bias against, which is often the case whether we know it or not. Advanced stats definitely has a place in the hockey community, they may not be perfect but they're a very helpful tool at explaining a vast range of different things.
Yup, and even when scouting we have bias's. I may love when people enter the zone with puck control so everytime I see a player do that I tend to see them better. If a player dumps it in I can tend to dislike that play- and by extension not think that player made a good play. But the result of a carry in could be the puck is turned over at the top of the circle and other team gets a odd man rush the other way. or for a dump in, we could regain possession deep in their end and start a 30 second shift in that end resulting in 3 shots. Even though Ill regard the first play as better- it was the second that ended up with better results

Aceboogie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2016, 05:59 PM
  #125
Aceboogie
Registered User
 
Aceboogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 26,732
vCash: 500
Kris Russells on ice save % is not surprisingly dropping



On one hand this sucks because more goals will be scored on us. On the other hand its kinda good because a dropping on ice sv% will put Russell in the correct light and take a ton of the shine off and help to save us for giving him a long term deal

Its pretty grim that Id actually cheer for our guy to have his luck run out. But in the case of Russell the downside to him having continued luck with on ice sv% is that wed offer him 5m and cripple our cap structure for a one season wonder

I hope Russell continues to play well but Chiarelli sees him for what he is. A solid #5 D. And one who at least one of Benning/Davidson/Osterle/Simpson/Reinhart or a cheaper UFA can replace almost immediatly or in short future

Aceboogie is online now   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 03:53 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.