twabby
Registered User
- Mar 9, 2010
- 14,116
- 15,596
No, the Blackhawks actually won the expected cups trophy in 2010. They also won some other less important trophy.
Speculation: Caps General Discussion (Coaching/FAs/Cap/Lines etc) - 2021 "Season" Pt. 3
- Thread starter Calicaps
- Start date
- Status
No, the Blackhawks actually won the expected cups trophy in 2010. They also won some other less important trophy.
Hell, it wasn’t even a few calling for his head. There was a poll and like 90% of the posters here wanted him canned. It was a mob grabbing the pitchforks and torches and storming the castle.
@EroCaps — where were you in that poll? I’d check but I’m lazy.
Last edited:
No, Peter Hassett simply doesn't know how to read a table, or do simple division. From Natural Stat Trick (Player Season Totals - Natural Stat Trick):
So it looks like Kuznetsov allows more like 1 in 6 shots to be high danger. Same with Backstrom. Same with basically the entire team. I have no idea where he is getting 1 in 4 and 1 in 9, respectively.[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Player CA HDCA % HDCA Alex Ovechkin 373 65 17.43% Nicklas Backstrom 379 60 15.83% T.J. Oshie 304 51 16.78% Richard Panik 245 43 17.55% Jakub Vrana 278 39 14.03% Conor Sheary 236 45 19.07% Lars Eller 220 36 16.36% Nic Dowd 300 48 16.00% Garnet Hathaway 275 45 16.36% Carl Hagelin 271 41 15.13% Evgeny Kuznetsov 194 33 17.01% Tom Wilson 269 38 14.13% Daniel Sprong 140 24 17.14%
But not only that, even if he didn't mess up the numbers I think Peter Hassett made a huge mistake interpreting the numbers. Focusing on the proportion of shots that are high danger rather than the absolute number that are high-danger is uh highly misguided!
For instance, suppose Player A gave up 4 shots every 60 minutes, but 1 of them was high danger. Suppose Player B gave up 90 shots every 60 minutes, but 10 of them were high danger. Ignoring other context, who would you assume is doing better at suppressing chances?
Peter is saying that Player B is better, because only 1 in 9 are high danger shots vs. Player A who is allowing 1 in 4 shots against to be high danger.
Of course, this is nonsense.
On a per 60 basis, Backstrom gives up more high danger chances than Kuznetsov this season. He gives up more scoring chances per 60. He gives up more shots per 60. He gives up more goals per 60 (actual goals, the goals that matter to everyone). He gives up more expected goals per 60.
Does that mean that Kuznetsov is a better defensive player? No, not on its own. But it certainly doesn't show that he is a weaker defensive player either. A deeper analysis is needed to tackle that question, which he doesn't do.
Furthermore, he mentions the "cost" of sheltering Kuznetsov is that Dowd and the 4th line are putting up bad numbers in an absolute sense. He, again, I believe is very mistaken.
Dowd is currently sporting a 48% xGF%. Not great, but better than Backstrom, Ovechkin, and Wilson at this point. Here is Dowd's picture:
View attachment 408053
As mentioned, Dowd gets heavy defensive zone usage, only starting 16% in the offensive zone.
And here is Dowd's competition:
So to summarize Nic Dowd: he is facing very difficult competition in heavy D zone usage and is almost breaking even with expected goals. I think Dowd is actually doing a fantastic job in his 4th line role.
Peter's note about Dowd and Hathaway taking penalties is duly noted, but they've taken penalties their entire career and this year isn't really out of whack. In fact, Hathaway has taken fewer minor penalties on a per 60 basis this year than last year. Same with Hagelin. Dowd's is up, but it very well could be incidental.
I also think Peter has cause and effect mixed up. He thinks Dowd is getting such difficult matchups because Kuznetsov isn't being trusted with them. I see quite the reverse: I think Kuznetsov (and Backstrom, and Eller) are getting easier matchups because Dowd is being trusted with such difficult matchups. And with Dowd's results absorbing this tough competition, the strategy seems like a sound one. It's allowing the top 9 to be in a better position to score goals. Indeed, the team is the best in the NHL at 5v5 goals per 60.
I mentioned this in an earlier post, but Laviolette's usage of the 4th line reminds me a lot of how the Blackhawks used their 4th line in 2012-13, but especially in 2014-15. Marcus Kruger got 24% offensive zone starts and faced difficult competition, allowing more offensively gifted players like Jonathan Toews (60%), Patrick Sharp (72%), and Patrick Kane (78%) to feast on easier deployments. I don't need to remind you who won the Stanley Cup in 2013 and 2015 either.
TLDR: Peter Hassett can't read numbers from a chart or can't do division or both. And even if he could, he's interpreting the numbers in a really bad way. And I think he's confusing cause and effect with Dowd and Kuznetsov, especially since Backstrom, Oshie, Wilson, and Eller are also getting easy zone starts and no one would claim they are huge defensive liabilities. All of the top 9 is benefitting from Dowd getting those hard matchups and it seems to me to be a strategy that can win a Stanley Cup as evidence by it being a strategy that was employed on at least 2 Stanley Cup winners in the past decade.
Great, I am firmly back on the Kuzy bandwagon.
ALLCAPSALLTHETIME
Great Dane! Love that Eller feller.
No, Peter Hassett simply doesn't know how to read a table, or do simple division. From Natural Stat Trick (Player Season Totals - Natural Stat Trick):
So it looks like Kuznetsov allows more like 1 in 6 shots to be high danger. Same with Backstrom. Same with basically the entire team. I have no idea where he is getting 1 in 4 and 1 in 9, respectively.[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Player CA HDCA % HDCA Alex Ovechkin 373 65 17.43% Nicklas Backstrom 379 60 15.83% T.J. Oshie 304 51 16.78% Richard Panik 245 43 17.55% Jakub Vrana 278 39 14.03% Conor Sheary 236 45 19.07% Lars Eller 220 36 16.36% Nic Dowd 300 48 16.00% Garnet Hathaway 275 45 16.36% Carl Hagelin 271 41 15.13% Evgeny Kuznetsov 194 33 17.01% Tom Wilson 269 38 14.13% Daniel Sprong 140 24 17.14%
But not only that, even if he didn't mess up the numbers I think Peter Hassett made a huge mistake interpreting the numbers. Focusing on the proportion of shots that are high danger rather than the absolute number that are high-danger is uh highly misguided!
For instance, suppose Player A gave up 4 shots every 60 minutes, but 1 of them was high danger. Suppose Player B gave up 90 shots every 60 minutes, but 10 of them were high danger. Ignoring other context, who would you assume is doing better at suppressing chances?
Peter is saying that Player B is better, because only 1 in 9 are high danger shots vs. Player A who is allowing 1 in 4 shots against to be high danger.
Of course, this is nonsense.
On a per 60 basis, Backstrom gives up more high danger chances than Kuznetsov this season. He gives up more scoring chances per 60. He gives up more shots per 60. He gives up more goals per 60 (actual goals, the goals that matter to everyone). He gives up more expected goals per 60.
Does that mean that Kuznetsov is a better defensive player? No, not on its own. But it certainly doesn't show that he is a weaker defensive player either. A deeper analysis is needed to tackle that question, which he doesn't do.
Furthermore, he mentions the "cost" of sheltering Kuznetsov is that Dowd and the 4th line are putting up bad numbers in an absolute sense. He, again, I believe is very mistaken.
Dowd is currently sporting a 48% xGF%. Not great, but better than Backstrom, Ovechkin, and Wilson at this point. Here is Dowd's picture:
View attachment 408053
As mentioned, Dowd gets heavy defensive zone usage, only starting 16% in the offensive zone.
And here is Dowd's competition:
So to summarize Nic Dowd: he is facing very difficult competition in heavy D zone usage and is almost breaking even with expected goals. I think Dowd is actually doing a fantastic job in his 4th line role.
Peter's note about Dowd and Hathaway taking penalties is duly noted, but they've taken penalties their entire career and this year isn't really out of whack. In fact, Hathaway has taken fewer minor penalties on a per 60 basis this year than last year. Same with Hagelin. Dowd's is up, but it very well could be incidental.
I also think Peter has cause and effect mixed up. He thinks Dowd is getting such difficult matchups because Kuznetsov isn't being trusted with them. I see quite the reverse: I think Kuznetsov (and Backstrom, and Eller) are getting easier matchups because Dowd is being trusted with such difficult matchups. And with Dowd's results absorbing this tough competition, the strategy seems like a sound one. It's allowing the top 9 to be in a better position to score goals. Indeed, the team is the best in the NHL at 5v5 goals per 60.
I mentioned this in an earlier post, but Laviolette's usage of the 4th line reminds me a lot of how the Blackhawks used their 4th line in 2012-13, but especially in 2014-15. Marcus Kruger got 24% offensive zone starts and faced difficult competition, allowing more offensively gifted players like Jonathan Toews (60%), Patrick Sharp (72%), and Patrick Kane (78%) to feast on easier deployments. I don't need to remind you who won the Stanley Cup in 2013 and 2015 either.
TLDR: Peter Hassett can't read numbers from a chart or can't do division or both. And even if he could, he's interpreting the numbers in a really bad way. And I think he's confusing cause and effect with Dowd and Kuznetsov, especially since Backstrom, Oshie, Wilson, and Eller are also getting easy zone starts and no one would claim they are huge defensive liabilities. All of the top 9 is benefitting from Dowd getting those hard matchups and it seems to me to be a strategy that can win a Stanley Cup as evidence by it being a strategy that was employed on at least 2 Stanley Cup winners in the past decade.
Thanks, Twabby. That was very thorough and well written.
Hivemind
We're Touched
I generally like both RMNB and hockey analytics, but RMNB bungles analytics articles as often as they find something insightful. Japer's tends to do far better.
Great job Twabby.
Im normally whining big about advanced statology and fuming when someone on main boards just links an data sheet and calls it a day, but this is how insightful thinking process with the help of statistical data really has advantages, and it actually backs up the eye test.
Im normally whining big about advanced statology and fuming when someone on main boards just links an data sheet and calls it a day, but this is how insightful thinking process with the help of statistical data really has advantages, and it actually backs up the eye test.
Coldplay619
Registered User
- Oct 17, 2010
- 2,840
- 878
RMNB definitely has a bias.
Once they're dead set on something they'll find the numbers to support the narrative.
Once they're dead set on something they'll find the numbers to support the narrative.
g00n
Retired Global Mod
- Nov 22, 2007
- 31,226
- 15,788
Thanks, Spock. I'm sure you got the joke.
g00n
Retired Global Mod
- Nov 22, 2007
- 31,226
- 15,788
No, Peter Hassett simply doesn't know how to read a table, or do simple division. From Natural Stat Trick (Player Season Totals - Natural Stat Trick):
So it looks like Kuznetsov allows more like 1 in 6 shots to be high danger. Same with Backstrom. Same with basically the entire team. I have no idea where he is getting 1 in 4 and 1 in 9, respectively.[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Player CA HDCA % HDCA Alex Ovechkin 373 65 17.43% Nicklas Backstrom 379 60 15.83% T.J. Oshie 304 51 16.78% Richard Panik 245 43 17.55% Jakub Vrana 278 39 14.03% Conor Sheary 236 45 19.07% Lars Eller 220 36 16.36% Nic Dowd 300 48 16.00% Garnet Hathaway 275 45 16.36% Carl Hagelin 271 41 15.13% Evgeny Kuznetsov 194 33 17.01% Tom Wilson 269 38 14.13% Daniel Sprong 140 24 17.14%
But not only that, even if he didn't mess up the numbers I think Peter Hassett made a huge mistake interpreting the numbers. Focusing on the proportion of shots that are high danger rather than the absolute number that are high-danger is uh highly misguided!
For instance, suppose Player A gave up 4 shots every 60 minutes, but 1 of them was high danger. Suppose Player B gave up 90 shots every 60 minutes, but 10 of them were high danger. Ignoring other context, who would you assume is doing better at suppressing chances?
Peter is saying that Player B is better, because only 1 in 9 are high danger shots vs. Player A who is allowing 1 in 4 shots against to be high danger.
Of course, this is nonsense.
On a per 60 basis, Backstrom gives up more high danger chances than Kuznetsov this season. He gives up more scoring chances per 60. He gives up more shots per 60. He gives up more goals per 60 (actual goals, the goals that matter to everyone). He gives up more expected goals per 60.
Does that mean that Kuznetsov is a better defensive player? No, not on its own. But it certainly doesn't show that he is a weaker defensive player either. A deeper analysis is needed to tackle that question, which he doesn't do.
Furthermore, he mentions the "cost" of sheltering Kuznetsov is that Dowd and the 4th line are putting up bad numbers in an absolute sense. He, again, I believe is very mistaken.
Dowd is currently sporting a 48% xGF%. Not great, but better than Backstrom, Ovechkin, and Wilson at this point. Here is Dowd's picture:
View attachment 408053
As mentioned, Dowd gets heavy defensive zone usage, only starting 16% in the offensive zone.
And here is Dowd's competition:
So to summarize Nic Dowd: he is facing very difficult competition in heavy D zone usage and is almost breaking even with expected goals. I think Dowd is actually doing a fantastic job in his role. Anyone clamoring for Jay Beagle to come back and replace him is on some sort of substance.
Peter's note about Dowd and Hathaway taking penalties is duly noted, but they've taken penalties their entire career and this year isn't really out of whack. In fact, Hathaway has taken fewer minor penalties on a per 60 basis this year than last year. Same with Hagelin. Dowd's is up, but it very well could be incidental.
I also think Peter has cause and effect mixed up. He thinks Dowd is getting such difficult matchups because Kuznetsov isn't being trusted with them. I see quite the reverse: I think Kuznetsov (and Backstrom, and Eller) are getting easier matchups because Dowd is being trusted with such difficult matchups. And with Dowd's results absorbing this tough competition, the strategy seems like a sound one. It's allowing the top 9 to be in a better position to score goals. Indeed, the team is the best in the NHL at 5v5 goals per 60.
I mentioned this in an earlier post, but Laviolette's usage of the 4th line reminds me a lot of how the Blackhawks used their 4th line in 2012-13, but especially in 2014-15. Marcus Kruger got 24% offensive zone starts and faced difficult competition, allowing more offensively gifted players like Jonathan Toews (60%), Patrick Sharp (72%), and Patrick Kane (78%) to feast on easier deployments. I don't need to remind you who won the Stanley Cup in 2013 and 2015 either.
TLDR: Peter Hassett can't read numbers from a chart or can't do division or both. And even if he could, he's interpreting the numbers in a really bad way. And I think he's confusing cause and effect with Dowd and Kuznetsov, especially since Backstrom, Oshie, Wilson, and Eller are also getting easy zone starts and no one would claim they are huge defensive liabilities. All of the top 9 is benefitting from Dowd getting those hard matchups and it seems to me to be a strategy that can win a Stanley Cup as evidenced by it being a strategy that was employed on at least 2 Stanley Cup winners in the past decade.
Jumping into the middle of this convo so sure to have missed some context, but if Kuzy is getting like 80% O-zone starts and Backstrom is getting 65%, wouldn't you EXPECT a much higher volume of high-danger scoring chances, and shots/chances in general, against Backstrom?
Why is that noted for Dowd but not Backstrom when you're trying to dismiss the HDCA ratio? Or did I miss it?
We have Sprong under team control next year too if we want him since he’s an RFA until 2022, I think. Probably safe to assume he’s not going to continue shooting 30% like he has been this year but he’s looking like a solid depth signing.
twabby
Registered User
- Mar 9, 2010
- 14,116
- 15,596
Pat Holden used to be decent at them, much better than Peter Hassett at least. But I don't think Holden writes for RMNB any more.
Jon Press at JapersRink is usually pretty good.
twabby
Registered User
- Mar 9, 2010
- 14,116
- 15,596
Yes, if defensive talent was equal you would expect Kuznetsov's numbers to be better than Backstrom's due to his easier deployment (though it's really not that much easier. Both have faced middling competition, Backstrom's slightly tougher, and Backstrom has 72% o-zone starts, Kuznetsov 89%). How much better Kuznetsov's defensive numbers should be is a more difficult question, and one Hassett doesn't even attempt to answer.
The HDCA ratio is largely irrelevant because:
1. It ignores medium and low danger shots against. Though they are lower danger shots, they still have a chance of going in. Instead of ignoring them, they should be properly weighted. That's what expected goals does.
2. It ignores volume. The HDCA ratio doesn't address how many dangerous chances are allowed, just the proportion of the overall shots that are high danger.
Again, the example of Player A allowing only 4 shots per 60, 1 of which being high danger vs. Player B allowing 90 shots total per 60, 10 of which are high danger should be a simple illustration of why this is a bad way to evaluate defensive play.
The point of this isn't to say Backstrom is bad defensively, or worse than Kuznetsov defensively. I don't believe either of those statements to be true. The point of this is to show that Hassett's conclusion that Kuznetsov has done poorly defensively this year is not supported by any of his reasoning, both because he bungles simple facts and because his rationale based on the numbers he was trying to use is faulty.
Devil Dancer
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2006
- 18,590
- 5,799
Ok, ok, I'm sold. Post a link to twabbysrink or whatever you call your inevitable blog and I promise I'll read it.
RMNB is great at human interest pieces and making the game more fun and accessible for fans (especially new or very casual fans) but they're pretty brutal at the analytics side of the house. They have their narratives and they will jam round-peg numbers into that square-hole thesis all else be damned in order to make the point they want to make. I don't think there's a ton of actual hockey experience be it playing or coaching so they lack context which is why some of their strong opinions on players or situations are head-shakers.
Ovechkins Wodka
Registered User
Can they stop re posting everything from Ovies wife about his son. Its hitting a creepy stalker level.
Last edited:
tenken00
Oh it's going down in Chinatown
- Jan 29, 2010
- 9,939
- 10,198
Sprong has 3 goals 4 points in the 5 games he has filled in for Wilson. Talk about nailing the audition.
twabby
Registered User
- Mar 9, 2010
- 14,116
- 15,596
In an attempt to try to figure out how to judge Kuznetsov's xGF% based on zone start ratio, I made a scatterplot based on data from Evolving Hockey:
This is every player-season from 2014-15 until now, with a minimum of 250 minutes played (since Kuznetsov is just above 250 minutes this year at 5v5, that is why I chose the cutoff at 250).
The x-axis is the zone start ratio. Players further to the left get heavy defensive zone starts, and players on the right get a lot of offensive zone starts.
The y-axis is the xGF%. Higher is better, 50% is average.
Circled in red is Kuznetsov from this season. He is certainly getting a ton of o-zone starts, but based on the rest of the plot doesn't it seem like despite getting these soft starts he's doing well with them? At the very least it seems difficult to make the case that he's doing poorly with these starts.
This is every player-season from 2014-15 until now, with a minimum of 250 minutes played (since Kuznetsov is just above 250 minutes this year at 5v5, that is why I chose the cutoff at 250).
The x-axis is the zone start ratio. Players further to the left get heavy defensive zone starts, and players on the right get a lot of offensive zone starts.
The y-axis is the xGF%. Higher is better, 50% is average.
Circled in red is Kuznetsov from this season. He is certainly getting a ton of o-zone starts, but based on the rest of the plot doesn't it seem like despite getting these soft starts he's doing well with them? At the very least it seems difficult to make the case that he's doing poorly with these starts.
Last edited:
Calicaps
NFA
Y'all, I cannot stand it for another second. I do not come here for math lessons. Please ... PLEEEAAASE ... if you're going to post charts and graphs and long stat explanations, take it to the stat thread or at least use collapse tags.
Hivemind
We're Touched
Perhaps there should be a thread for those who refuse to read analytics, rather than attempting to stifle legitimate roster discussion? The stat haters can have their own safe space.
g00n
Retired Global Mod
- Nov 22, 2007
- 31,226
- 15,788
I work with numbers every day. Big numbers. It's not about hating stats it's about knowing the place for them, and respecting that most people are here to talk hockey not take a quiz on terms/methods that a much smaller number of posters are even familiar with.
Plus, there is still much debate about how accurate or useful many of these stats and data points are. That's why we created a thread for it. Otherwise every discussion turns into 2-3 people posting graphs and arguing with everyone else about how meaningful they are.
CapitalsCupReality
It’s Go Time!!
- Feb 27, 2002
- 66,245
- 21,240
I don’t know about you....but my eyes immediately glaze over....
Hivemind
We're Touched
Given how much of an outlier his deployment is, we don’t really have much context on how well he should be doing. It’s in Quenville-levels of deployment shifting.
twabby
Registered User
- Mar 9, 2010
- 14,116
- 15,596
I agree with this. It's easy enough to scroll past a post you don't care to read. I realize that as a moderator @Calicaps probably can't put me on ignore, but all non-moderators are free to do so if they want as well.
It seems like it's more a way to stifle discussion than anything. If someone says something in here that I disagree with, am I not allowed to use analytics to support my case? Do I have to say "I disagree with you, come to the stat thread to see why!" in order to show my case?
TheLegendOfPatPeake
Registered User
twabby
Registered User
- Mar 9, 2010
- 14,116
- 15,596
This is a fair statement. But of course it's tough to make the case that he is doing poorly given the zone start context as well. I think it's more likely than not he's doing well given his context, but I suppose it's still up for debate.
Another thing that is missing from ZSR is that it completely ignores on-the-fly zone starts, which make up the vast majority of every player's shift starts, and also neutral zone starts. While Kuznetsov's ZSR is 88%, only 24% of his shifts start in the offensive zone on a faceoff. 16% start in the neutral zone, 3% start in the defensive zone, and 57% start on the fly.
- Status
