Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
OBXer

Off-Season 2018

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, remkin said:

Interesting to me because of all of the detailed new stats we're supposed to be using. One would think a guy like Tulsky would be all over that stuff.

 

19 minutes ago, remkin said:

. . .

While there are specific companies that do this and offer that data raw and interpreted to clubs, having a guy like Tlusky in charge of making sense of it seems smart but also seems to indicate that we really are serious about doing it. 

. . .

Still don't get how your statement in your 1st post relates to the announcement of Tulsky's promotion.  Do you think the "new stats" stuff won't be under him after his promotion?

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LakeLivin said:

 

Still don't get how your statement in your 1st post relates to the announcement of Tulsky's promotion.  Do you think the "new stats" stuff won't be under him after his promotion?

No, I'm thinking that this stuff is elevated by his promotion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, coastal_caniac said:

it's obvious you cling to plus minus, and that's fine.

 

I've written it's a bad stat so many times I don't know what else to tell you. Advanced stats are not great, plus minus is worse. The only thing I cling to is that when a guy is on the bottom of his team in plus minus (or the top) multiple years, and gets lots of favorable zone starts, and is substantially worse than his partners, there might be something to it.

 

Do you think there is any time that +/- has any value, ever? If not, that's fine too, but there we disagree, which is also fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article over on TheHockeyNews about Darling.  It gets unto what I assume are at least "more advanced" stats, i.e. high danger shots.  It certainly doesn't exonerate him, but it does point out that a lot of the shots he was exposed to were high danger shots.  Not sure how they classified that one he let in from the blue line . . . :P

 

https://thehockeynews.com/news/article/the-hurricanes-goaltending-woes-arent-darlings-problem-alone 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHL web site has  a line up for the Canes for this year .   here it is  folks .  

Projected lineup 

Valentin Zykov -- Sebastian Aho -- Teuvo Teravainen

Micheal Ferland -- Jordan Staal -- Andrei Svechnikov

Jeff Skinner -- Martin Necas -- Justin Williams

Brock McGinn -- Victor Rask -- Phillip Di Giuseppe

Jaccob Slavin -- Brett Pesce

Calvin de Haan -- Dougie Hamilton

Justin Faulk -- Trevor van Riemsdyk

Scott Darling

Petr Mrazek

 

I would slot  Zykov on the 2nd line ,  move Staal to the 3rd line   , Move up Necas to the 2nd line and move  Ferland to the  1st line .  and Then we  would be set .  

Edited by Canesfanforever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Necas still has to earn a place.  I dont think 2nd line is the right place for that.  And Jordan is supposed to be used to shut down the other teams top player(s).  Not sure he can do that from the 3rd line.  You would then have the entire 2nd line will basically NO NHL experience.(total of 14 games) But what the heck do I know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, coastal_caniac said:

 

It's all cool, this is my only point.

That was really my point too. That these new stats, directly observed should be so much better than anything else out there, and we're in on it and have a math genius putting it together into actionable strategy for us. I'd love to know if these stats were put in use with the big trade and signing of de Haan, and most if not all trades we're trying to pull off (like Saad). I'm betting they were. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, remkin said:

That was really my point too. That these new stats, directly observed should be so much better than anything else out there, and we're in on it and have a math genius putting it together into actionable strategy for us. I'd love to know if these stats were put in use with the big trade and signing of de Haan, and most if not all trades we're trying to pull off (like Saad). I'm betting they were. 

 

Absolutely.  :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cc said:

Necas still has to earn a place.  I dont think 2nd line is the right place for that.  And Jordan is supposed to be used to shut down the other teams top player(s).  Not sure he can do that from the 3rd line.  You would then have the entire 2nd line will basically NO NHL experience.(total of 14 games) But what the heck do I know. 

True  .  but it's not that they are entirely without  NHL experience  when you have a good  defensive pairings that could come in and help out that end if things  are tough for them some what .

Edited by Canesfanforever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stats thing is interesting.  It is semantics.  I heard the guy from one of these companies Rem is talking about in a recent interview.

 

Basically, we have:

- Stats: the ones you see published

- Advanced Stats: take the stats you see and derive new stats from them, call them advanced.  Basically, only as good as the input.

- Advanced-advanced stats: derives advanced stats from less commonly seen but still public information such as shot location, etc.

 

Then there are the proprietary stats.  That's what I'll call them.  These are generated in a proprietary way, and not published.  Teams pay real money for them.  They include such things as the following.  These were just some samples given:

- What was the "quality" of the defender trying to hook the puck away from the break-away player?  Was he Faulk-class or Doughty-class?

- Was that assist a perfectly executed saucer pass?

- Who set up the screen?  Was there a screen?

- Etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish some of the proprietary stats could make their way into the more mainstream realm. I'd absolutely love to know how many high danger shots our goalies are facing versus the opposition. I still think that despite the team letting up fewer shots that teams are still getting the same amount of high chance shots off. I just have a hard time buying we've never found a replacement for Cam, sure hindsight in our remembrance of these goalies they all sucked but that's not how all of them came in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, legend-1 said:

I wish some of the proprietary stats could make their way into the more mainstream realm. I'd absolutely love to know how many high danger shots our goalies are facing versus the opposition. I still think that despite the team letting up fewer shots that teams are still getting the same amount of high chance shots off. I just have a hard time buying we've never found a replacement for Cam, sure hindsight in our remembrance of these goalies they all sucked but that's not how all of them came in.

 

 

I heard this guy Kevin Woodley on XM talking about some of the advanced stats about a month ago.  They have 34 points of data for every shot taken.  You can imagine how complicated it is, but it is fascinating.  Must be how much screen there was, where the goalie was positioned, how he was standing, etc.   It's not just shot location.

 

He also spent a lot of time explaining how the defense and goalie have to have a common system of play to be successful, i.e. the goalies style needs to be in concert with how the defense defends.  For example, Vegas coached Fleury to play way out of his crease this season and the defense had all responsibility to prevent cross ice passes.  This is why Washington lit him up, they were able to break that down and get those passes across. 

 

So there is so much more involved than simply the goalie playing well and making saves.  When it is working right, the goalie doesn't have to do it all himself.

 

He even talked about how some goalies like to peek over a specific shoulder of a dman when looking through screens and how dmen need to know that and try to funnel the play that way.  Fascinating.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone on this board used to joke about Chad LaRose hitting the center of the chest perfectly on every shot.  The proprietary stats guys would know this.  :)

 

I suggest if anyone is interested in how this kind of works, go to a Mudcats or Burlington Royals game and sit behind one of the numerous stats takers.  They are easy to spot.  At the Mudcats, you can just walk over and peek over their shoulders.  I happened to be at a Royals game and sat next to the guy.  EVERY pitch had multiple parameters entered.  Every ball in play had more parameters entered, foul or otherwise.  And if a player reaches base, even more.

 

You can imagine for hockey this is a bit harder to do.  The drill is similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Canesfanforever said:

True  .  but it's not that they are entirely without  NHL experience  when you have a good  defensive pairings that could come in and help out that end if things  are tough for them some what .

Less than 20 games between them is the same a NO NHL experience. Not an arguable point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is zero doubt that plus-minus, by its very nature, is subject to being worse than it should be for guys who happen to be on bad teams and, often, better than is warranted for some guys on good teams.

 

The real value in the stat, to me, is for guys on teams in the middle--which, as all here know all too well, has been the Canes for much too long a time. I have zero doubt that Skinner stopped playing D last year. I didn't need to see his +/- to know it, but the stat sure confirms it. I also have zero doubt that Justin Faulk made a lot of terrible choices last year that led to goals--again, purely by the eye test. But the stat again confirms it, particularly in light of what all the other Dmen (save one, who has been traded) were able to do.  

 

I've said for a long time that when your minus is as bad as Justin's as consistently as it has been, on a team that has usually been in the discussion until the deadline (and sometimes longer) there must be something to it. Justin has been deep in the double digits in minus in five of his seven years in the league, a +1 in the strike-shortened season, and a -9 in the other. Skinner's been in the double-digits in four of his eight seasons. He was +3 in his rookie season and not awful (-8) the following year. Then he had three straight years of turrible. But he turned it around for the next two, then put up his worst ever (-27) last year. That is nothing like the consistency of Justin's suck, which has been the rule regardless whom he's been paired with. With Skinner, when you look at his good years, it's clear that line mates made a big difference.

 

All of which is to say that +/- is not a useless stat. It is, however, the one that requires the most consideration of other factors if one is to make sense of it.  

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, top-shelf-1 said:

There is zero doubt that plus-minus, by its very nature, is subject to being worse than it should be for guys who happen to be on bad teams and, often, better than is warranted for some guys on good teams.

 

The real value in the stat, to me, is for guys on teams in the middle--which, as all here know all too well, has been the Canes for much too long a time. I have zero doubt that Skinner stopped playing D last year. I didn't need to see his +/- to know it, but the stat sure confirms it. I also have zero doubt that Justin Faulk made a lot of terrible choices last year that led to goals--again, purely by the eye test. But the stat again confirms it, particularly in light of what all the other Dmen (save one, who has been traded) were able to do.  

 

I've said for a long time that when your minus is as bad as Justin's as consistently as it has been, on a team that has usually been in the discussion until the deadline (and sometimes longer) there must be something to it. Justin has been deep in the double digits in minus in five of his seven years in the league, a +1 in the strike-shortened season, and a -9 in the other. Skinner's been in the double-digits in four of his eight seasons. He was +3 in his rookie season and not awful (-8) the following year. Then he had three straight years of turrible. But he turned it around for the next two, then put up his worst ever (-27) last year. That is nothing like the consistency of Justin's suck, which has been the rule regardless whom he's been paired with. With Skinner, when you look at his good years, it's clear that line mates made a big difference.

 

All of which is to say that +/- is not a useless stat. It is, however, the one that requires the most consideration of other factors if one is to make sense of it.  

 

 

From a Analytics point of view   Jeff Skinner in his Career  has  579 games .  204 goals .  175 assist .  379 points  and a minus 96  

 

I we were to round out that math Skinner has had 3 times he played a full 82 game season ,   and has had 3 times with a  70+  game seasons  1 time with a   64 game season and  1 time for a 42  game season due to lockout .  So all together  that makes him  very capable of playing healthy . 

 

Here is where the Math rounds out .    The  +/-  Stat  takes into account when a player is on ice and a goal is scored ,  it is a plus  when your teams scores and is a minus when the other team scores  .   

 

If you were to count against  the -96 stat of Jeff Skinner   towards his goals  then you  end up with 108 goals back in a 579 game span 

For his Assist   it would be  79 

If you were to  be  his total points it would then be  283

 

283 of contribution   vs  579 games   . , If you were to minus all that then you would have 296 points given back to the team .  

 

In the end it is a negative stat   but not far behind  on a team that has been losing  for 9 years straight   with the amount of games Skinner has had . 

 

Typically players on winning teams  change this stat all together  and it is quite possible Skinners stats might be very different on a winning team . 

 

But if you are doing things that prevent other teams from scoring on you  then you can be the benefactor of changing  what your  +/-   stat ends up being on the team .   You are Correct  Top Shelf   !

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on +-  (I have an MS in statistics which informs my opinion, although it certainly doesn't make it gospel):

 

The concept of how many goals a team scores vs. gives up when a certain player is on the ice can have merit, but needs to be considered very carefully and in context.  The problem with +- is that it contains a lot of "noise" (extraneous variation), which can easily lead to false conclusions.  That could be mitigated by adjusting a players goal differential to account for some of that variation, e.g.:

  • +- for a player relative to his teams overall goal differential
  • even better (but not easy to calculate), adjusting to account for teammates on the ice at the time goals are scored
  • adjusting for zone deployment
  • I'm sure there are other factors, e.g. teams play differently depending on score at the time, etc.

Large sample size would help as well (the law of large numbers holds that the more data you have, the closer your stat will be to the "true" average), but for +-, if you're talking about comparing across teams, I'm thinking it wouldn't be enough on it's own without making at least cursory adjustments as per the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, LakeLivin said:

My take on +-  (I have an MS in statistics which informs my opinion, although it certainly doesn't make it gospel):

 

The concept of how many goals a team scores vs. gives up when a certain player is on the ice can have merit, but needs to be considered very carefully and in context.  The problem with +- is that it contains a lot of "noise" (extraneous variation), which can easily lead to false conclusions.  That could be mitigated by adjusting a players goal differential to account for some of that variation, e.g.:

  • +- for a player relative to his teams overall goal differential
  • even better (but not easy to calculate), adjusting to account for teammates on the ice at the time goals are scored
  • adjusting for zone deployment
  • I'm sure there are other factors, e.g. teams play differently depending on score at the time, etc.

Large sample size would help as well (the law of large numbers holds that the more data you have, the closer your stat will be to the "true" average), but for +-, if you're talking about comparing across teams, I'm thinking it wouldn't be enough on it's own without making at least cursory adjustments as per the above.

 

Agree.

 

The proprietary stats folks go further.  For example, if you have a certain player who is predominantly slotted against all the other team's best snipers, this washes out in their analysis because they adjust for that.  It is pretty slick.  Within the team, this player may look bad against others on his own team.  But in the league, if he had the most time against the best scorers of the year, that will be adjusted for...  Etc.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well .......at least we only have to wait until the end of the month to vote for our new goal song!  Earlier in the summer, we solicited suggestions for the Canes' new goal song and received around 1,500 entries. We've compared that to an initial internal list we put together, and we're narrowing down the selections to a final 5-10 for a fan vote that should launch before the end of the month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...