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 ‘true PK’ 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.