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.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

But you’re just making up those numbers. There’s no statistical basis (at least, you haven’t mentioned one) for saying it’s worth half a shot, or 1 shot, or 2. Which is a pretty big difference when you’re extrapolating from such tiny data sets.

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.
View attachment 926781


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.

Again though, there is no real purpose in “big picture thinking” when talking about a handful of events across 12 games of data and projecting it out as though it were relevant to 82-game pace. It’s just as silly to talk about a player’s shot chance pace being down as it is to talk about his goalscoring pace being up. The only reason I brought up shift length in the first place was to half-seriously point out that there are HUGE ripple effects attached to marginal events when projecting from this small a sample.

 

[dgibb10]

But you’re just making up those numbers. There’s no statistical basis (at least, you haven’t mentioned one) for saying it’s worth half a shot, or 1 shot, or 2. Which is a pretty big difference when you’re extrapolating from such tiny data sets.




Again though, there is no real purpose in “big picture thinking” when talking about a handful of events across 12 games of data and projecting it out as though it were relevant to 82-game pace. It’s just as silly to talk about a player’s shot chance pace being down as it is to talk about his goalscoring pace being up. The only reason I brought up shift length in the first place was to half-seriously point out that there are HUGE ripple effects attached to marginal events when projecting from this small a sample.

Again, just say you don't understand statistics and move on.

The average NHL shift length is about 40 seconds. Since we are talking about mid shift, I cut in half for simplicity. (again, your failure to follow comes over your obsession with the most miniscule of details that have virtually 0 statistical relevance).

You could cut this down to 0 seconds for a shift that was already ending, or up to 35ish seconds for a shift that had just started. It really doesn't matter.

Again, cutting Caufields EV goal production with the assumption of normal shooting results (the scenario we are talking about) would lead to 3 extra saves by a goalie.

Now, let's generously pretend that every one of these 3 goals happened at the exact beginning of a shift.

You'd then be looking at the difference between an ozone start and a center ice start for shots/minute, and about a minute and a half of ice time.


Considering the highest shots/minute in the NHL is about 0.22

Let's say that's an INCREDIBLY generous gap of 0.3 from ozone starts, and 0.1 from center ice starts (a VERY generous assumption equivalent to 0 shots vs David Pastrnak level shooting volume), that is 0.22 per minute, or about 0.3 shots total in the most generous of scenarios.

Now, to help illustrate how stupid this miniscule difference is, let me highlight something that would be boosting Caufields shot totals.

MTL has played 7 home games vs 5 road games. Teams get advantages at home. Therefore his shot totals are inflated.

You could do this for 8 million different meaningless things if you wanted to. But again, you would get so lost in bullshit that would all end up cancelling out anyway.

But from what I can see from your posts, it appears to simply be some kind of weird kick you're on about how stats are fake and probably something something eye test