I’ve been throwing some fun little statistics at you lately, but numbers are only fun when they lead to people writing angry comments. That (along with porn and pirating music/movies/ships) is what the Internet is for, right?
Archive for the ‘stats’ Category
CLS shares its "NHL BCS" (First Week of Nov.)
November 5, 2009Return to Stat Nerdia: An Update on True PP, True PK, Net Goals and Special Teams Plus/Minus
November 4, 2009The sample size is still pretty small, but I thought it would be a good time to take another look at two of the stats I made up (True PP and True PK) as well as where each team ranks in Net Goals and Special Teams Plus/Minus. The original posts can be found here and here. Each screen capture will have an explanation of the stats that are included. Click on them to get a better look.
Net Goals (all stats taken before Tuesday’s games)
Net Goals refers to a simple formula: a team’s total goals for minus a team’s total goals against.
Special Teams Plus/Minus (all stats taken before Tuesday’s games)
(Powerplay Goals For subtracted by Shorthanded Goals Allowed) minus (Penalty Kill Goals Allowed subtracted by Shorthanded Goals For) is the formula for Special Teams Plus/Minus.
True PP%
To simplify things, True PP% is a lot like PP% except it factors in the Shorthanded Goals a team allows along with the PP goals it scores.
True PK%
Much like True PP%, except this considers the SHG a team scores along with the PP goals it allows.
In Case you love percentages: factoring in shorthanded goals to PP and PK%
October 16, 2009Click to enlarge TRUE PP%
What I like about these stats is that they create a more pronounced “upper class” or elite group of PP units.
The Red Wings’ absurd PP is reflected better here: they are heads and shoulders above the rest of the league (as they should be). It also reflects just how bad the Blue Jackets’ PP was; 12% is pretty bad as it is but the team let up a lot of SHG too. When you think about it, when the CBJ went on the PP something good would happen only nine percent of the time. (LOL)
I still think sheer quantity (ultimately PPG – SHG allowed) is the best way to judge a team’s PP unit but this is pretty interesting, too.
True Penalty Kill %/PK Efficiency Rating/PK Success Level is the same as PK% except it’s PPG allowed – SHG scored divided by Times Shorthanded.
Click to enlarge True PK%
The order of best PK teams doesn’t change a ton here, but it again distinguishes the GREAT PK units. The Wild’s special teams, again, were just amazing last year.
At some point I might try to come up with a “magic number” for special teams percentages combined. Is a great overall special teams a combined 110% or … what?
Jeez, I’m a dork.
What do you think, though? Is this interesting or as fun as eating a lifetime supply of microwave re-heated pizza crusts?
Special Teams Plus Minus, Net Goals in 2008-09
October 16, 2009Yesterday I posted some simple yet interesting stats for the early part of this season. It’s uncertain if I’ll be able to make that a weekly, bi-weekly or monthly special but I’ll be tracking these things all season long.
Now that you have a frame of reference, here’s that list sorted by the simplest stat that we’ll be tracking this season: Net Goals.
There aren’t a ton of surprises there.
That being said, it’s really interesting that the league’s best team in Net Goals (Boston) scored 78 more goals than they allowed while the league’s worst team in Net Goals (Islanders) allowed 78 more goals than they scored. Funny how things work out sometimes.
It’s also interesting that only two playoff teams allowed more goals than they scored: Columbus (-4) and the Rangers (-8). This also shows that the Blue Jackets must have been one hell of an even strength team.
Perhaps the most intriguing set of stats comes in the form of the Special Teams plus-minus.
The number that sticks out the most to me here is the Columbus Blue Jackets being -29 special teams goals. 78 Special Teams Goals Allowed isn’t astronomically bad … what makes the Blue Jackets totals so bad is their anemic power play. Any CBJ pundits who are still sore that the BJ’s lack a great PP point player could point to this stat and say, “How do you expect this team to make the playoffs (again) with numbers like that?”
Looking at special teams play, it must be especially heartbreaking for Minnesota Wild fans that their team narrowly missed the playoffs last season. They were second in Special Teams +/- with a +33 (12 more than the tied for 3rd place Bruins and Red Wings).
It also makes me think that maybe injuries and Sean Avery weren’t the top reasons why the Dallas Stars missed the playoffs last season.
Just for your fun and to strengthen a point I made yesterday, here’s some extended special teams stats:
This leads to a bit of discussion on a point I (sloppily) made yesterday: quantity of PP goals (and PP goals allowed) means a lot more to me than percentages, even though it’s not a huge difference and it’s easier for networks to use a %-based graphic.
There are, however, a few examples that illustrate my point. The Buffalo Sabres managed to be in the top 5 in PPG scored despite having a PP that scored about 2% less than the other top powerplays. Over 82 games, a couple percentage points can make a big difference (kind of like how a 2% save percentage difference can make a pretty huge difference in how a goalie will be perceived). Anaheim and Boston scored at 2.5% higher rate but the Sabres drew at least 40 more power plays (or about one more every other game) and therefore were able to generate more PPGs. (OK, it was only one more PPG … but still.)
Conversely, the New Jersey Devils scored at at least a 2% higher rate on the PP than other bottom PPG scoring teams but they were only able to go on the PP 307 times (compared to Buffalo’s 358) and therefore scored 17 less last season.
Does it make an enormous difference? Absolutely not. But even if it’s only a slightly more accurate way of tracking the good PPs, that’s good enough for me.
Simple stats that I don’t see often: Special Teams Plus/Minus and Net Goals
October 15, 2009(Click to enlarge)
So those of you who hate simple arithmetic, you’re welcome. The real reason I thought to do this, though, was to take a look at special teams numbers.
It’s always bothered me that such an emphasis has been made on Power Play and Penalty Kill percentages but who gives a rat’s ass about that? To me, PP effectiveness has always been about a) sheer quantity of goals and b) timeliness. There’s no doubt in my mind that I’d take a powerplay that scored 2 out of 10 than one that scored 1 out of 4.
I’m aware that is an overly-simplistic criticism, but work with me here.
To take a more “big picture” look at special teams, I think it is also important to compare teams’ PP and PK together. If your team can eek out a substantial amount of PP goals while keeping PK goals under control, you’ll have a major advantage while attempting to make the playoffs.
So, I’ve come up with (OK, I bet someone else has done this too since it’s super-simple) “Special Teams Plus-Minus.”
The formula’s almost as simple as “Net Goals”
PP Goals Scored + SH Goals Scored – PP Goals Allowed + SH Goals Allowed* = Special Teams Plus-Minus.**
* Just realized I didn’t include SHG allowed but I’ll do it next time. Promise!
** – However, if I’ve come up with something stupidly original feel free to call it a Jimbo Score. 🙂
The relative impossibility of judging Brodeur’s greatness relative to the greats
March 14, 2009Martin Brodeur is not a Fraud.
That, ultimately, might not be the true point of Brodeur is a Fraud, but it is something that must be said nonetheless. You don’t threaten all-time records in wins and shutouts just because you have a good team in front of you.
The tricky part, though, is assessing any player in any sport compared to other players of similar greatness in different eras. Hockey is one of the truest team sports and is also a very diverse game from generation to generation.
For years, goalies could not even go down to the ice to stop a puck. The Bobby Orr era brought about a difficult time for tenders, but the Wayne Gretzky just about nuked GAA and save percentage stats.
Then, of course, there was the Dead Puck Era. A time in which the 100-point fire hydrants of the Eighties were replaced by goalies being outfitted like tanks producing once-unthinkable sub-2.00 GAA seasons.
Patrick Roy won a Cup in both eras. Martin Brodeur enjoyed his prime years in the no-score years. Some say Roy was better; some say Dominik Hasek was better than both.
But beyond his peers, how do you really compare Brodeur to … Jacques Plante? To Georges Vezina? To Ken Dryden?
The John Hollingers of the world think that you can adjust stats to tell you anything, but the problem is that these players weren’t worried about micro managing save percentages. Is it fair to say that (throwing out the steroid talk for a moment) Barry Bonds was, cleanly or not, a better home run hitter than Babe Ruth? Bonds hit more homers, but Ruth out-homered opposing teams in his day. Relatively speaking, Ruth was Gretzky-like. Incomparable. But can you say he’s a better dinger-man than Bonds? It’s futile.
Brodeur’s career, to me, is quite a lot like Emmitt Smith‘s. Both players were among the best in their position in their primes. Both were seemingly indestructible compared to their peers, allowing them to amass staggering numbers. And both were, at least slightly, damned by the fact that they played along with Hall of Fame teammates and lacked the artfulness of their best counterparts. They even share the similar quality of owning three championship rings.
Brodeur is to Smith as Dominik Hasek is to Barry Sanders.
(Although Brodeur probably butchers English less often than Smith, even if it might be his second language.)
Right now, people are trotting out “but he got his stats beefed up by SO wins!” and that’s fine. It’s relevant. But he’s 36 years old. If he plays 4-6 years, he could add 100 to 150 wins to his totals. Will that make him the best goalie of all-time?
Some will probably say yes, others will turn red faced and scream “No!”; there is simply no way to truly know. Ultimately, it’s subjective: once the stats melt away it’s all about nostalgia, rooting interest, what games you get to see and stylistic preferences.
How about, instead of grinding your teeth fighting for or against Brodeur, you just enjoy being alive to see records being broken? After all, it may take a few generations to break Marty’s records. Might as well make THE BEST of it.
Crosby hate or How I learned to stop worrying and love the stats (Morning cycle)
February 23, 2009- Watching the Washington Capitals crush the Pittsburgh Penguins was no surprise to well-informed observers and no one expects Washington fans to treat Sidney Crosby with anything less than disdain. Crosby urinal cakes and “Crosby is a douche” T-shirts? Par for the course.
But c’mon guys, the Crosby hate is starting to be excessive. Look, we all understand that Sid the Kid gets media coverage that is not quite proportionate to his standing in the league. That doesn’t mean he’s not one of the best forwards, just that he’s not the only fish in the sea. Here’s the analogy that makes the most sense to me:
Consider NHL marketing a pizza. There’s eight slices and four dudes who want that stuffed crust. Let’s say we have Crosby, Alex Ovechkin, Evgeni Malkin and Jarome Iginla/whichever fourth forward strikes your fancy at the dinner table. It’s not unreasonable to give each guy two slices, but really, Crosby gets about 5 slices and the rest are lucky to even get one.
It would be like Lebron James receving all the attention unless Kobe Bryant found a way to score 30 points blindfolded. I get that.
Still, let’s not forget how lucky we are as NHL fans. The under-30 talent in this league is almost obscene. Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin are joined by Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews, Ryan Getzlaf, Ilya Kovalchuk, Ales Hemsky, Anze Kopitar and the list goes on and on.
It’s fine to dislike Crosby, but there may come a time when you regret frowning every time he touches the puck.
-
For the longest time, it seemed, stats filled my head with a rage only matched by Rush Limbaugh’s anger after a Donovan McNabb touchdown pass.
Perhaps, though, my deep hatred was for the statistics highlighted by ESPN and other networks when they cover sports rather than stats themselves. How many times per year do you roll your eyes at an obscure contextual statistic … one that really doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of anything?
After spending the last year getting more deeply involved in the hockey blogosphere than expected, my viewpoint of Moneyball/Bill James inspired statistics changed profoundly. It is painfully obvious that judging a player by studying superficial stats like plus/minus simply cannot cut it any longer.
Last week featured some fantastic examples of the best in stat-crunching and the last month shows my rapidly increased interest in “looker deeper.” You can find some great examples of good stat use in a footnote at the bottom of this post.* (And for not as great examples, there are a few I wrote in that footnote too.)
- Here’s an open challenge: find a way to convince me that the Minnesota Wild can actually make the playoffs. Before you scream “they’re the eight (blanking) seed!” take a look at their positively homicidal schedule.
After they host the Kings tomorrow, they must go through this road trip: Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, San Jose, LA Kings and Anaheim. That’s a six game run against borderline to ironclad playoff teams. And to be honest, their schedule isn’t much easier from there.
- And, finally, from the Be Careful What You Wish For department: in this high tech era in which people can take a photo of you with a phone, is it finally time to admit that being a public figure might just suck? At least a little bit?
Obviously, the Montreal Canadiens might not be the wisest decision makers when it comes to public intoxication, but this stuff keeps happening in sports and beyond. Sure, it would be great to sleep with gorgeous women, play a child’s sport for a living and rake in millions of dollars. No doubt about it, if I was a pro hockey player no one would be allowed to bring electronics into my home or parties and everything – banana peels, veal cutlets, everything – that goes into my trash would be shredded. Perhaps there are advantages to anonymity.
(Seriously, whoever snapped that photo of Michael Phelps might get the Wayne Gretzky/Mario Lemieux “skip the grace period” treatment. Just rush that douche into the Piece of Shit Hall of Fame.)
* – It’s non-hockey, but Moneyball author Michael Lewis took a fascinating look into the way the Houston Rockets measure Shane Battier’s under-the-radar contributions.
Matt from Battle of Alberta’s breakdown of Alex Kovalev’s struggles will leave you snickering at the surface-level “body language” type commentaries of talking heads.
Our pal Earl Sleek found some stark examples of how the Ducks currently handle tie game situations versus better time’s for the Quack attack.
Your fearful author also published some stories that crunch stats in the last month. Most recently, there was my team-by-team breakdown of goaltending tandems. Also, while moonlighting at Battle of California I took a look at the Western Conference: (bubble bursting part I, part II and part III).