Cole Caufield breaking out

[tarheelhockey]

Meh, it's a tenuous assumption at best and falls apart when you actually think about the numbers

Since I was looking at his EV shot shares, to maintain his rate of 11shots/60 from previous years he would have to be at 30 shots instead of 22 that he's at rn.

He's at 2.4 expected goals, so we'll give him 3 there. To suggest that A) the goalie wouldn't have frozen the puck on the save, and B) he would have gotten 8 shots on the let's say 3 shifts extended by 10-20 seconds each is ridiculous.

But it’s not ridiculous to say all 10 of those shifts were influenced by the stoppage for a goal, rather than carrying on and collecting follow-up shots. Like any other shortened shift, a whistle with a line change and faceoff at center ice reduces the shooting rate to 0 whereas otherwise it would have been [insert whatever the shooting rate is toward the end of a shift… it’s definitely >0].

As I said, it’s a partial factor. No reason to dismiss it out of hand.

 

[dgibb10]

But it’s not ridiculous to say all 10 of those shifts were influenced by the stoppage for a goal, rather than carrying on and collecting follow-up shots. Like any other shortened shift, a whistle with a line change and faceoff at center ice reduces the shooting rate to 0 whereas otherwise it would have been [insert whatever the shooting rate is toward the end of a shift… it’s definitely >0].

As I said, it’s a partial factor. No reason to dismiss it out of hand.

Again, I didn't dimiss it outhand, I thought about it, looked into it, and then realized that it was ridiculous.

The 4 goals on the PP are irrelevant to his EV shot generation.

I think you overestimate how often even elite players generate shots.

The assumption that the difference between a center ice draw and an ozone draw/loose puck over 3 partial shifts (at most around 1 minute of hockey that we are talking about being effected by this shooting heater), would lead to 8 shots, not even for a team, but for an individual.

You realize to make up that difference Caufield would have to generate ADDITIONAL shots (relative to a center ice draw) at 8 shots/minute EV.

For context, the biggest volume shooter in the league generates 13 shots/60 EV (pasta). You are suggesting this minute would lead to shots at about 40x this rate

 

[tarheelhockey]

Again, I didn't dimiss it outhand, I thought about it, looked into it, and then realized that it was ridiculous.

The 4 goals on the PP are irrelevant to his EV shot generation.

I think you overestimate how often even elite players generate shots.

The assumption that the difference between a center ice draw and an ozone draw/loose puck over 3 partial shifts (at most around 1 minute of hockey that we are talking about being effected by this shooting heater), would lead to 8 shots, not even for a team, but for an individual.

You realize to make up that difference Caufield would have to generate ADDITIONAL shots (relative to a center ice draw) at 8 shots/minute EV.

For context, the biggest volume shooter in the league generates 13 shots/60 EV (pasta). You are suggesting this minute would lead to shots at about 40x this rate

Why are you suggesting it needs to account for 8 shots?

I’ve said twice now that shortened shifts may be a partial factor, not a complete holistic explanation. Certainly it’s a non-zero factor, statistically speaking. Given that we’re talking about projecting a tiny sample size across an entire season, any non-zero factor is going to have an inflated meaning.

 

[dgibb10]

Why are you suggesting it needs to account for 8 shots?

I’ve said twice now that shortened shifts may be a partial factor, not a complete holistic explanation. Certainly it’s a non-zero factor, statistically speaking. Given that we’re talking about projecting a tiny sample size across an entire season, any non-zero factor is going to have an inflated meaning.

If you read the post you'd see.

8 shots is the difference between his current shot generation rate and his previous rate.

You could maybe at best stretch it to convince yourself that he'd get 1 shot.

At which point there is still a decreased shot generation to be concerned about.

 

[SirloinUB]

isn't his on ice expected goals for % at like 30% and the habs are getting caved when he is on the ice?

 

[Sniper99]

It's more about utilizing the asset for something that is more of a pressing need rather than just getting rid of him.

I don't think the leafs really need a caufield, or at least it wouldn't be near the top of the list.

Habs probably don't want to invest their future in a guy like marner who seems to have issues when the chips are down. Talented player but you got to spend wisely in a cap world.

Its something the Leafs havent been known to do in the last 5-10 years.

 

[tarheelhockey]

If you read the post you'd see.

8 shots is the difference between his current shot generation rate and his previous rate.

You could maybe at best stretch it to convince yourself that he'd get 1 shot.

At which point there is still a decreased shot generation to be concerned about.

Again though, I’m saying for the fourth time that it could be a partial effect.

Say it’s 1/8. Is that not 13% and very statistically relevant? So why brush it off as “ridiculous” and not worth talking about even in concept? Seems a strangely “don’t think outside this box” attitude to adopt regarding advanced stats.

Of course the root of all these issues is that it’s all being derived from a tiny sample size. His goal scoring pace likely won’t stand up, and his decreased shot generation likely won’t stand up either. It’s all an object lesson in trying to project a small selection of largely random events into some overarching pattern, and getting into arguments about it.