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.

 

[dgibb10]

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.

Again, I thought about it, it's just not a meaningful impact to the point of being worth considering.

Getting lost in thinking through every meaningless piece of noise is a waste of time.

Again, you are talking about 60 seconds, or about 0.5% of his ice time, and even that 60 seconds, assumes he wasn't going to be taken off at the whistle anyway when the goalie covers (assuming they make the save), or that those additional seconds had significantly better opportunity for shot generation.

Saying 1 shot was a way to make you feel better.

Hence why, instead of wasting time looking at every tiny factor (next should I take a look at time of period to see how fresh the ice is, or time since the shoveling crew last went out), it is simpler to simply acknowledge the % for error.

for example, hey, his 22-23 and 23-24 shot generation numbers are pretty similar.

However, we look and see a pretty significant decrease this year. That is now something to think about.

With the same linemates and very similar usage, a gap like this is MEANINGFUL.

In summary, think high level. Don't bog yourself down trying to think about the impact of meaningless things with virtually no statistical impact or relevance.

If you want to do a very deep statistical dive into your favourite player, I'd say sure, go look at all the little things you want.