What is this?
I track each and every play during a game. I imput the result into a database, allowing me to track players' successes or failures. Whether it's an incomplete or complete pass-attempt, a won or lost race to a loose puck, a won or lost puck-battle, etc.; each result is tracked for each player. The results are also tracked by zone (offensive/defensive/neutral) and by situation (even-strength/powerplay/short-handed) and imputed into the database as such. This allows us to track how each player performs in each zone, and in each manpower situation. Click the FAQ tab above for further information.
Last edited by just_thoughts: 04-12-2012 at 01:23 PM.
And it's pretty darn interesting and great way to evaluate a player without looking at the stats column. Let's face it, sometimes players can have great games without putting up points, or have terrible games and still manage to put up numbers. I think his work puts things into perspective nicely..
Thanks for continuing to do this, again Subban scored a fantastic grade. Pretty indicative of how he's played lately. Wisniewski had a terrible game, and your score sums it up well.
Thanks for continuing to do this, again Subban scored a fantastic grade. Pretty indicative of how he's played lately. Wisniewski had a terrible game, and your score sums it up well.
I do think, like any stat, they don't speak the stole story though. I thought Pyatt had his best game of the year and I also felt Spacek was really good!
The only problem i really have on the surface with these stats, is that it seems that players are downgraded if they engage in puckbattles that aren't going to go in their favour. I prefer players at least engaging in puck battles and losing rather than not...
But I do appreciate and respect the work your putting in.
Last edited by hogtownhabsfan: 01-07-2011 at 11:14 PM.
I do think, like any stat, they don't speak the stole story though. I thought Pyatt had his best game of the year and I also felt Spacek was really good!
agree, I also thought Pyatt played pretty decently (didn't think he played bad anyways). The stats are amazing i have to say, but they maybe not paint a picture that portrays exactly how well the player performed. For instance, sure Gomez and Subban had a ton of SKI+, but how many of them actually helped the team? What happens if you perform an SKI+ then pass the puck to no one or give the puck away? And what about losing a face-off if you're a winger because the center got thrown out. It's not your natural position and odds are you'll lose it--is that really a mistake you made that should be counted against you?
I think what I'm getting at is that there are maybe too many stats here, and that they muddle the truth of a player's performance rather than explain it. I love a lot of them, like puck battles in all zones, successful dump-ins (and vice-versa), getting the puck through or not by a d-man. But ones like takeaways are a little murky. Shouldn't a defensive zone giveaway be judged more harshly than a neutral zone one? Like what if you lost the puck in the neutral zone 4 times and nothing much came of it, but another guy lost the puck once in front of his net and it resulted in a goal?
Anyways, sorry to nitpick, i really like what you've done here, I only wrote these suggestions/criticisms because i dig what you've done and want to help perfect it...
Yes. But there isn't enough data to show any solid trend yet. I'll post them about ten games into the exercise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Tricolore
Holy... how many times do you have to watch a game to get these stats?!?
Just once. I just pause every few seconds to imput data.
I enjoy it
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogtownhabsfan
The only problem i really have on the surface with these stats, is that it seems that players are downgraded if they engage in puckbattles that aren't going to go in their favour. I prefer players at least engaging in puck battles and losing rather than not...
But I do appreciate and respect the work your putting in.
I agree, but that's something this system also provides. It allows us to see which players are engaged in the most puck battles; regardless of outcome.
agree, I also thought Pyatt played pretty decently (didn't think he played bad anyways). The stats are amazing i have to say, but they maybe not paint a picture that portrays exactly how well the player performed. For instance, sure Gomez and Subban had a ton of SKI+, but how many of them actually helped the team? What happens if you perform an SKI+ then pass the puck to no one or give the puck away? And what about losing a face-off if you're a winger because the center got thrown out. It's not your natural position and odds are you'll lose it--is that really a mistake you made that should be counted against you?
I think what I'm getting at is that there are maybe too many stats here, and that they muddle the truth of a player's performance rather than explain it. I love a lot of them, like puck battles in all zones, successful dump-ins (and vice-versa), getting the puck through or not by a d-man. But ones like takeaways are a little murky. Shouldn't a defensive zone giveaway be judged more harshly than a neutral zone one? Like what if you lost the puck in the neutral zone 4 times and nothing much came of it, but another guy lost the puck once in front of his net and it resulted in a goal?
Anyways, sorry to nitpick, i really like what you've done here, I only wrote these suggestions/criticisms because i dig what you've done and want to help perfect it...
You're bang on. I try to use hockey logic while imputing the data. That said the results are meant to add to picture, not to paint it in it's entirety. I feel by including as many metrics as possible the anomalies that result from my mistakes will be watered down.
Good to see AK battling and winning. This is what he has to do night in and night out. Goals come when you work hard, not just because you're in the right place at the right time.
Game against Flyers updated; only four players received grades over 70; including Andrei Kostitsyn (70), Lars Eller (72), Benoit Pouliot (74), and Ryan White (75)
While I think the basic idea is good, I think the grading system needs work.
For example, a player who plays 22 minutes in a game with 65% good decisions will have a lower grade than a player who plays 4 minutes with 2 good decisions out of 3. In other words the system should take into account the quantity of total decisions in the ranking. This way we could come up with a ranking of player value.
Also some decisions should be weighted more than the others - a terrible dzone giveaway in the slot leading to a goal should weight more than an offensive zone faceoff loss in the negative category.
