Score-Adjusted Fenwick standings update
by Eric T. on Feb 22, 2012 6:07 PM EST
Email
Print
Shot differential (Corsi or Fenwick) has been shown to correlate strongly to puck possession and zone time, and to be a good predictor of future goal differential and wins. Previously, we showed how adjustments for score effects can improve the predictions appreciably and gave the Score-Adjusted Fenwick (SAF) standings.
It's been a month. After the jump, we'll update those standings and look at what's changed.
Here's the big table of raw data; at the bottom are some observations.
| Team | Score-Adjusted Fenwick | Prev SAF | Fenwick Tied | Prev Fen Tied | Fenwick Close | Prev Fen Close |
| DET | 56.1 (1) | 57.0 (1) | 56.6 (2) | 56.5 (2) | 56.2 (1) | 56.8 (1) |
| STL | 55.2 (2) | 56.2 (2) | 57.3 (1) | 56.5 (1) | 56.1 (2) | 56.1 (2) |
| PIT | 54.9 (3) | 55.5 (3) | 54.6 (3) | 54.9 (3) | 54.5 (3) | 55.4 (3) |
| SJ | 53.2 (4) | 52.3 (7) | 52.9 (6) | 51.6 (8) | 52.3 (6) | 51.1 (9) |
| BOS | 53.1 (5) | 52.9 (6) | 53.5 (4) | 52.4 (5) | 52.9 (4) | 52.7 (4) |
| CHI | 53.1 (6) | 53.0 (4) | 53.1 (5) | 53.9 (4) | 52.3 (5) | 52.7 (5) |
| VAN | 52.7 (7) | 53.0 (5) | 50.2 (11) | 50.8 (11) | 51.0 (10) | 51.4 (6) |
| PHI | 51.6 (8) | 51.1 (8) | 49.8 (16) | 48.0 (23) | 52.0 (7) | 50.9 (11) |
| LA | 51.0 (9) | 50.9 (9) | 52.2 (7) | 51.8 (7) | 51.2 (8) | 51.3 (7) |
| WPG | 50.7 (10) | 50.8 (10) | 49.9 (13) | 50.4 (14) | 50.8 (11) | 51.1 (10) |
| NJ | 50.2 (11) | 49.7 (13) | 51.7 (8) | 51.3 (9) | 51.1 (9) | 50.3 (13) |
| OTT | 50.2 (12) | 49.5 (14) | 50.1 (12) | 50.4 (13) | 50.2 (14) | 50.1 (14) |
| COL | 49.9 (13) | 50.3 (11) | 48.4 (20) | 50.2 (15) | 50.4 (12) | 51.3 (8) |
| PHX | 49.7 (14) | 49.0 (18) | 49.9 (15) | 49.4 (18) | 50.3 (13) | 49.8 (16) |
| DAL | 49.6 (15) | 50.0 (12) | 49.9 (14) | 50.0 (16) | 49.2 (18) | 49.0 (19) |
| NYR | 49.1 (16) | 47.8 (24) | 49.8 (17) | 48.5 (21) | 49.4 (16) | 48.5 (21) |
| MTL | 49.0 (17) | 49.2 (16) | 47.3 (26) | 47.8 (24) | 48.2 (24) | 48.6 (20) |
| FLA | 48.6 (18) | 48.6 (19) | 51.2 (9) | 50.8 (10) | 49.6 (15) | 49.7 (17) |
| NYI | 48.6 (19) | 49.0 (17) | 48.7 (18) | 50.0 (17) | 48.7 (21) | 49.4 (18) |
| TOR | 48.5 (20) | 48.5 (20) | 47.9 (23) | 48.1 (22) | 48.3 (23) | 48.4 (22) |
| BUF | 48.4 (21) | 47.6 (26) | 47.4 (25) | 47.1 (26) | 47.5 (25) | 46.8 (27) |
| CAR | 48.3 (22) | 48.1 (23) | 48.4 (19) | 47.3 (25) | 48.9 (19) | 48.1 (24) |
| WSH | 48.0 (23) | 48.3 (22) | 50.9 (10) | 52.2 (6) | 49.2 (17) | 50.0 (15) |
| TB | 47.9 (24) | 47.8 (25) | 47.1 (27) | 46.7 (27) | 48.8 (20) | 48.1 (25) |
| CBJ | 47.6 (25) | 49.2 (15) | 48.1 (21) | 50.6 (12) | 48.5 (22) | 50.6 (12) |
| ANA | 47.4 (26) | 46.3 (28) | 47.0 (28) | 46.0 (28) | 46.5 (28) | 44.9 (30) |
| EDM | 47.2 (27) | 48.3 (21) | 48.1 (22) | 49.0 (19) | 47.3 (26) | 48.3 (23) |
| CGY | 46.8 (28) | 47.6 (27) | 47.5 (24) | 49.0 (20) | 46.9 (27) | 47.8 (26) |
| NSH | 45.7 (29) | 46.0 (29) | 44.5 (30) | 44.0 (29) | 45.1 (30) | 45.2 (28) |
| MIN | 45.1 (30) | 44.2 (30) | 45.7 (29) | 43.7 (30) | 45.9 (29) | 45.0 (29) |
The fastest riser was the Rangers, who had a SAF of 47.8% through 46 games and are now at 49.1% through 58 games, suggesting their SAF over the last month was about 54.1%. Other risers include Anaheim (+1.1%), Minnesota (+0.9%), and San Jose (+0.9%).
The biggest drop was from the Blue Jackets, who had a SAF of 49.2% through 47 games and are now at 47.6% through 60 games, suggesting their SAF over the last month was about 41.8%. Other fallers include Edmonton (-1.1%), St. Louis (-1.0%), and Detroit (-0.9%).
Teams which SAF views more favorably than Fenwick Tied does include Vancouver (52.7% vs 50.2%), Philadelphia (51.6% vs 49.8%), Montreal (49.0% vs 47.3%), and Colorado (49.9% vs 48.4%).
Teams which SAF views less favorably than Fenwick Tied does include Washington (48.0% vs 50.9%), Florida (48.6% vs 51.2%), St. Louis (55.2% vs 57.3%), and New Jersey (50.2% vs 51.7%).
When this methodology was published, we took an extensive look at various metrics to show that the larger sample size of SAF gives a more repeatable measure of talent (higher split-half reliability) and gives better predictions (better correlations to future points%), especially over the first half of the year. However, some dismissed our score adjustments based on the observation that the two metrics end up similar by the end of the year. So let's look at whether -- and how -- that harmonizing is occurring this year.
The two metrics do appear to be getting closer together. League-wide, the coefficient of determination (r^2) between SAF and Fenwick Tied increased from 0.80 to 0.83 over the last month. Of the ten teams that had a gap of at least 1% between the metrics a month ago, none got appreciably bigger (max increase was 0.3%), but five got quite a bit smaller (decrease between 0.7% and 1.3%). The two metrics seem to be converging over time.
Next, let's look at how the metrics are converging. For the five teams whose gap between SAF and Fenwick Tied narrowed considerably in the last month, we can check whether the two metrics are moving towards each other to meet in the middle or if one of them is changing to catch up to the other.
- For one team -- Nashville -- the two metrics moved towards each other. Nashville's Fenwick Tied went up by 0.5% and their SAF went down by 0.3% as the metrics met in the middle.
- For four teams -- Philadelphia, Washington, Columbus, and Calgary -- their Fenwick Tied moved sharply towards their SAF.
- No team saw their SAF move sharply towards their Fenwick Tied.
Thus, there were four teams for which SAF told us a month ago what Fenwick Tied is just starting to suggest now, and there are no teams for which Fenwick Tied was ahead of SAF.
This is precisely what we would expect the benefit of the larger sample to be: SAF gives a more accurate talent evaluation earlier in the year. This is true across the board, and not just for these five teams -- as would be expected from the greater split-half reliability of SAF, the average change in Fenwick Tied was nearly twice as large as for SAF (0.9% vs 0.5%).
At this point in the year, Score-Adjusted Fenwick has largely stabilized at levels reflective of team talent, while SAF Fenwick Tied is still catching up. By the end of the season, the two metrics may give similar numbers, but for in-season predictions, the greater sample size is important. Moreover, given the enhanced importance of post-deadline performance, even end-of-year playoff predictions may benefit from having the kind of sample size that permits one to make good predictions while focusing on ~20-30 games of data.
69 comments
|
Add comment
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I take some very positive out of this from a Flyers perspective, even tho the last month have been gruel to the Flyers, they have actually played really well.
This also leave me to my next point, with so many people blaming Lavys system for been a crappy system and pointing to the Rangers for a better system, this data shows that the Rangers are a below average team carried by a goaltender with a sv% of 0.94.
Well, yes and no. The Rangers had a horrible start to the year on possession numbers, but have been very good since — and great over the last month, when people really started putting them up there as a top team.
They definitely wouldn’t be where they are without Henrik’s numbers. But they’re also playing really well across the board right now.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
As you wrote your self, they have been very good over the last month, but in the first half of the year, they have still been carried by a goaltender with a crazy high sv% and the Flyers have even been good over the last month even tho the results have not been there.
by Anders Jensen on Feb 22, 2012 6:45 PM EST up reply actions
It’s not just the last month. It’s since Hagelin got called up, which was 40 games ago now.
Doesn’t change that they’re being carried by Henrik, but it was awful w/ elite goalie pre-Hagelin, to 2nd tier (behind the elite DET/PIT/STL/BOS teams) w/ an elite goalie.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
by George E. Ays on Feb 23, 2012 7:37 AM EST up reply actions
My point wasnt that the Rangers are really good right now or have been for a long stretch, my point was more to all the Flyers fans there think the Rangers is alot better then the Flyers because of some magic system Toterrela runs. Outside of out of his mind good goaltending, the Flyers are just as good as the Rangers.
by Anders Jensen on Feb 23, 2012 8:56 AM EST up reply actions
I think you can make an argument that the Flyers are as talented or more so than the Rangers, though I think the focus on Lundqvist and the coach’s system put other guys in shadow (Parent and Shero, hmm).
I’d say the Flyers can be better than the Rangers, but so far they’re not, and we’re far enough along in the season that it starts to become just a hope that this will change.
I don’t think the system is magic. I think the players follow it. There are a million diets and a million ways to play the investment markets. There are a few winners for every one, because it’s often about sticking to a good plan more than the superiority of the plan itself.
/s, more often than not
by flyersfaninchicago on Feb 23, 2012 11:42 AM EST up reply actions
Or I could have saved myself and everyone else three paragraphs and said “The Rangers execute.”
/s, more often than not
by flyersfaninchicago on Feb 23, 2012 11:45 AM EST up reply actions
“How do you feel about your team’s execution?”
“I’m in favor of it.”
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
by Eric T. on Feb 23, 2012 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Is the original for that in a movie, or John McKay – which is what Google is turning up – or someone else?
/s, more often than not
by flyersfaninchicago on Feb 23, 2012 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
John McKay is who I attribute it to. Dunno if he got it from somewhere though.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
I had commented in the game thread yesterday that it annoyed me to see obviously good shots from the point not get counted as a shot towards for Corsi. There was a little back-and-forth afterwards that despite the definition of Corsi mentioning shots only, that some folks count deflections as well.
Doesn’t this make Corsi even more arbitrary then more traditional statistics?
"Because wives and girlfriends aren’t on the road."
by BannedStreetBully on Feb 22, 2012 7:08 PM EST reply actions
All shots are counted in corsi, but shots from the point is not counted towards scoring chances
by Anders Jensen on Feb 22, 2012 7:13 PM EST up reply actions
Corsi is SOG + shots that missed the net + shots that are blocked; these events are taken straight from the NHL play by play.
Fenwick is SOG + shots that missed the net.
Excluding blocked shots makes the sample size somewhat smaller (more noise) but with a better long-term true correlation to goals. So Corsi is preferred on small sample sizes (where you need the noise reduction) and Fenwick is preferred on large sample sizes; the crossover between large and small is somewhere around 1500-2000 minutes of even strength play.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
by Eric T. on Feb 22, 2012 7:17 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And to what I guess was your actual question…
We take the shot data straight from the official play by play. So it’s no more biased than SOG or faceoff wins, and it’s a lot less biased than hits and giveaways and takeaways.
Some rinks tend to count more shots than others, but that tends to be independent of which team is taking the shot, so expressing the data as a percentage eliminates that bias (whereas reporting Corsi For and Corsi Against separately without adjusting for rink effects can be dangerous).
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Well… It’s still muddled for me.
Say Coburn takes a shot from the point. Not a scoring chance. Then it deflects off Read’s ass and goes into the net.
Is that a goal with 0 scoring chances on?
Which would be tracked by some advanced stats but not others?
I’m seriously trying to learn here, sorry if I’m coming across all brick fisted.
"Because wives and girlfriends aren’t on the road."
by BannedStreetBully on Feb 22, 2012 7:26 PM EST up reply actions
The NHL would record that as a shot by Read (type: deflection or tip-in). So it would go into Corsi and Fenwick and Read’s shooting stats, and Coburn would get an assist.
I’m not part of the scoring chance project, so I’m not sure how Todd would record it, but I’d guess that deflections from near the net are counted. But there are plenty of goals that don’t count as scoring chances — if Coburn’s shot from the point went in the net without a deflection, that would be a shot that would count for Corsi and Fenwick but would not be a scoring chance.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Depending on where Read is, I’d say Todd would could that as a scoring chance, and that the deflection off Read’s ass would be considered the only shot counted by Corsi and Fenwick.
If you’re asking whether it’s possible to have a goal without a scoring chance, the answer is yes.
Keeping alive the old Vaudeville joke, "I'd rather be dead than play Philadelphia."
Allright. thanks guys.
"Because wives and girlfriends aren’t on the road."
by BannedStreetBully on Feb 22, 2012 7:40 PM EST up reply actions
According to the definition of a scoring chance we use for the project, not all goals will necessarily come from a scoring chance. A deflection off Read’s ass wouldn’t be counted by me unless I determined it was intentional. Unscreened Shots from the point don’t count as any goalie in the NHL should be able to stop it. Screened shots are hard to judge but I do count them. I can’t go into much more detail as I’m on my phone but it might be explained in one of my previous posts which are all under the Scoring Chances link on the right
Tracking the Flyers scoring chances at Broad Street Hockey
by ToddtheFox on Feb 23, 2012 9:06 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
You’re killing me Eric!! I’ve got through the first three articles you mentioned last week, starting to understand Qual Comp after about 5 readings, and now this! I’m trying to figure this stuff out, it is definitely not easy (for me anyway) but I’m still working on it. But seriously, it can’t be easy to write about it in a way that will help others understand these concepts, so I do appreciate it.
Haha, sorry. This is definitely about step 14 in the intro to advanced stats. But here’s the short version:
People have found that shot differential is a really important indicator of a team’s talent. It correlates really well with puck possession and zone time, and it’s a really good predictor of future goal differential (the best we have, better even than current goal differential).
However, shot differential has one thing that reduces its benefits: score effects. When teams are leading, they play a more conservative game and end up getting outshot (even if they’re the better team). The conventional way of combating score effects is to focus on score differential when the score is tied (so there is no score effect), but that means throwing out almost 2/3 of the data. Since bigger sample sizes are always better, we’ve been exploring correcting for score effects instead — this article is an update on the score-adjusted standings.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Upon further reflection…
When I post a stats-heavy article, maybe I should post a Cliffs’ Notes version along with it? It could leave out the full statistical rigor and focus more on explaining what the article is for someone who is coming into it cold.
That wouldn’t be too hard to do; if people would find it useful then I’d be happy to.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
As long as you don’t mind the comments I like the way you do it now. A lot of times I will read it through, read through the comments, then look over it a second time for details I might have missed.
Then again I don’t fret if theres things I don’t understand but i like seeing all the data/etc.
My initial response was, "I hate you so much right now" but I changed it.
by DLJr on Oct 19, 2011 1:15 PM EDT
I don’t mind the comments at all. I just want to make sure everyone has the chance to get the jist of it, even if they aren’t prepared to slog through the dense parts.
I’m happy to clarify in the comments and answer questions, but I imagine that a lot of people don’t make it to the comments.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Richie is on NHL:36 tonight, crap… I need to go home.
All the moves like Jagr,
I've got the moves like Jagr!
He gives a lot of props to Philly.
Basically states he struggled a bit in the spotlight here in Philly but in LA hockey players are considered like.. D or F listed celebs. He enjoys being under the radar.
Said he would go to a Phillies game and get recognized and sometimes “it could be a bit much”
The subtle photo captions are always the best ones.
Also, that picture is Czech-tacular.
by everybodyhitswoohoo on Feb 22, 2012 11:46 PM EST up reply actions
Am I missing something?
WINNIPEG, CANADA – FEBRUARY 21: Jaromir Jagr #68 of the Philadelphia Flyers celebrates his overtime goal with Jakub Voracek #93 and Andrej Meszaros #41 during their NHL game against the Winnipeg Jets at MTS Centre on February 21, 2012 in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. (Photo by Tom Szczerbowski/Getty Images)
Lightning strikes once, Hextall strikes twice!
"I think there is virtue in pissing off idiots." - Fehr and Balanced
Much better
WINNIPEG, CANADA – FEBRUARY 21: Jaromir Jagr #68 of the Philadelphia Flyers celebrates with Jakub Voracek #93 and Andrej Meszaros #41 after learning that Score-Adjusted Fenwick suggests the Flyers are better than what their Fenwick Tied had previously implied.
Lightning strikes once, Hextall strikes twice!
"I think there is virtue in pissing off idiots." - Fehr and Balanced
Eye revenge
/s, more often than not
by flyersfaninchicago on Feb 23, 2012 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
love the caption
I wonder what a regression with score-time would look like. Also, I keep thinking about running a regression with all the components of fenwick to see if goals / shots are slightly more indicative of future fenwick than misses. Anybody seen data on that?
I haven’t seen that; I’d be interesting to see how it turns out.
What sort of regression with score-time did you have in mind?
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
So what you’re saying is, not only is SAF a better predictor of future winning percentage than Fenwick Tied is, it’s also a better predictor of future Fenwick Tied than Fenwick Tied is?!?
Badass. Well done.
by everybodyhitswoohoo on Feb 22, 2012 11:59 PM EST reply actions
Yeah amazing work. I think Fenwick Tied has been superseded.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Feb 23, 2012 12:26 AM EST up reply actions
Haha, that’s a great way to phrase what I’m getting at, but I haven’t really shown that yet.
I should take a look; it’d be pretty awesome if true.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
At this point in the year, Score-Adjusted Fenwick has largely stabilized at levels reflective of team talent, while SAF is still catching up.
Should this be “while Fenwick-Tied is still catching up”? Its either a typo or I missed the point somewhere I think.
My initial response was, "I hate you so much right now" but I changed it.
by DLJr on Oct 19, 2011 1:15 PM EDT
Are the Wild supporters still on an anti-stats-campaign?
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Feb 23, 2012 12:33 AM EST reply actions
Nah.
In the early stages of the losing streak, it turned to a defiant “shut up, this isn’t what you predicted, this is just injuries.” Then eventually they switched to despair and it stopped being fun for either side to talk about, so the conversation dissipated.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
It makes me remember that time I posted a power rankings and got inundated with “Another stats nerd not giving MIN respect!”.
To think how certain they were that the Wild would make the playoffs because no team in 1st place in December ever missed them. Except for Dallas last year, but they weren’t first in the NHL, only 1st in the West. Because it’s somehow less likely you’ll fall from 1st to 9th in the Conference if you’re 1st in the League.
Or something.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 23, 2012 9:49 AM EST up reply actions
Terrific work as always.
This might be counterproductive to what you’re trying to accomplish with this metric in terms of widening the sample size but do you think there would be any benefit in predictive value to only looking at road data?
Looking at road data only is really helpful if you want to separate offense from defense, looking separately at shots for and shots against. That way you get away from the problems of some scorers recording more shots than others, making the offense look better than it is.
But for most work, we look at the percentage, and then scorer tendencies don’t matter as long as they overcount (or undercount) for both teams equally.
Road/home splits might be interesting to see which teams make the best use of home matchups, though.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
4-7 games of data
Here’s a random thought. Is there a significant amount of data that can be collected in a 4-7 game sample wile still concentrating on getting rid of blowout noise effects? (Keeping to close or tied)
One interesting note I got was this:
Moreover, given the enhanced importance of post-deadline performance, even end-of-year playoff predictions may benefit from having the kind of sample size that permits one to make good predictions while focusing on ~20-30 games of data.
One of the interesting things about the playoffs though, that would likely wrench up predictors in that range is if there is a significant chance at change based on playing the same opponent over consecutive games.
Does that make sense?
My initial response was, "I hate you so much right now" but I changed it.
by DLJr on Oct 19, 2011 1:15 PM EDT
A ~4-7 game sample gives only a very rough indication of how good a team is. Over that span, random fluctuations would be on the order of about 2-4% — so an equal matchup could easily be something like 53/47, and a 53/47 matchup could easily come out equal. That makes it pretty hard to distinguish between two playoff-caliber teams in that time frame.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
I got a question. Have anybody looked into weighting the corsi/fenwick stats to see if that helps predict the future(especially the playoffs).
If we take a team like the Ranger, they sucked reallly really much at the start of the year but have been one of the best teams over the last several months and one would assume the team we are seeing right now should tell us more about there future success then the team there sucked at the start of the year.
in chart form P% vs adj fenwick
P% vs the adj fenwick dataset.
Can you kindly inform Rinne and Lundquist that their goaltending is not sustainable according to advanced statistics and that they need to regression to the mean? Well me neither.
by jeffgm on Feb 23, 2012 10:34 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
P%?
Lightning strikes once, Hextall strikes twice!
"I think there is virtue in pissing off idiots." - Fehr and Balanced
point percentage, its better then winning% because of the 3 point system
by Anders Jensen on Feb 23, 2012 11:03 AM EST up reply actions
Is it better than #winning?
So NSH and NYR are earning more points than their Fenwick would suggest? And CBJ just sucks.
Lightning strikes once, Hextall strikes twice!
"I think there is virtue in pissing off idiots." - Fehr and Balanced
I was just pointing out why he would use point % over winning % when plotting against adjust fenwick. CBJ sucks more then what you would expect and NSH wins more then what you would expect.
I dont know about the Rangers as they have been a very good teams over the last 40 games. The reason why I asked if any had done any weighting on these kinda of stats.
by Anders Jensen on Feb 23, 2012 11:47 AM EST up reply actions
I guess since I’ve posted this on PPP and Twitter, I should post it here too.
Nashville’s luck comes from a different place than Minnesota’s did.
Minnesota had unsustainably good luck with which shots happened to go in — their shooting percentage was a little high and their save percentage was way high. Nashville has been better than average, but it’s not necessarily unsustainable for Rinne — their PDO (shooting percentage plus save percentage) was about the same last year as it is this year.
And since goal differential is basically shot differential times PDO (plus special teams), their goal differential isn’t necessarily all that far from their sustainable long-term talent.
Where they’ve been lucky is that their goal differential has resulted in more wins than you’d expect in the long run. They have a goal differential of +13, and since every six goals is worth a win, we’d expect them to have two extra wins — something like 32-22-6 and in 7th place. They’d still be above the line in that plot, but it’d be like NJ or VAN instead of like NYR.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Yeah, i wonder why we put those together, it makes a nice metric that averages to 1000, but unlike shooting percentage, Sv% is under no obligation to regress to the mean in a reasonable time frame.
OPERATION TANK IS A GO.
In an unprecedented move 9 teams in the Eastern Conference have decided to officially "pass" on the playoffs
Revisiting the PPP conversation some more:
It’d be better to use (0.919 + current_year_sv% – career_average_sv%) to create something we expect to be close to 1.000 for every team. I wish someone would publish that.
On the other hand, the current system isn’t all that broken. Only two teams entered this year with goaltender tandems above a 0.929 expectation, so it’s not that hard when you see a team at 1.020 to pause for a second and think “is their goaltender the kind of guy who makes that a little high or way high?”
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Where can you find PDO, or the components to calculate it? I don’t see overall team sv% or sh% anywhere on nhl.com. I’m really fascinated by that particular metric and might like to play around it some. I assume it’s usually done with year-to-date numbers. Has anyone tried calculating it with a sliding window of maybe 5 or 10 games to see how it fluctuates over time?
Lightning strikes once, Hextall strikes twice!
"I think there is virtue in pissing off idiots." - Fehr and Balanced
http://behindthenet.ca/PHI_2011.html is probably the best source for it at the single team level — scroll to the bottom to see that team’s sh% and sv% at the end of the year (or current for ’11-12, obv).
At the team level, as far as I know you have to grab team shot totals and bring them into excel and calculate it, which is annoying.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Erm, last sentence was supposed to be ‘at the league-wide multiteam level’. I.e. if you don’t want to grab one team at a time.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
