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

 

[Wayfarer13]

Oh god I can't wait for this.

Let me guess, you're going to pretend that the 25 game shooting cooler last year is never gonna happen again, and the 30 game shooting cooler to start 21-22 will not happen again or the other 30 game shooting cooler at the beginning of last year isn't gonna happen again?

That's 40% of his career games lmao.

Crazy how Caufield was able to shoot at the start of last year, then magically was injured for the next 30 games, but then was able to shoot again for a month, but then got injured so he couldn't shoot again for another month, then finally could shoot again at the end of the year.

He is a streaky shooter

What can I guarantee here. 100% he will never be 20 years old again. If you disagree with me on that please let know the secret on that.The team was a mess with injuries to a point where they had to call up Cam Hillis from the ECHL to fill out a roster to play Florida leaving 1 healthy body in the minors.Think I will give him a pass on that one. A change in management and coaching rebounded with along with the team in his last 38 games with 22 goals prorated 47 goal pace.
The 22-23 season he scored 26 goals in 46 games prorated 46 goals pace with an injured shoulder that was going to require surgery to correct that was going to take at least a year for recovery. The consensus at the time was if he had continued to play that there was minimum risk in playing out the season to the shoulder.They decided that doing the surgery early made more sense then waiting for the off season which would have wiped the entire 23-24 season out scoring wise.I take you are a sport medicine doctor and know more than they do. Go make a fortune there buddy. So going into tonight he has played 217 games divide that into lots the you focus on the 102 game sample where he scored 21 goals which would be a prorated 17 pace and the 115 game sample where he has scored 70 goals for a 50 goal pace. Not bad for a 23 year old as he trails only Jack Hughes from the 2019 draft by 27 goals playing 104 fewer games. Now you having been jumping up and down over the shooting percentage numbers and and there answers other than a hot streak to consider here.He is 23 now and not 20. He came up as a goal scorer with pre NHL numbers being elite. The shoulder is healthy. You come across as some one who has never competed in sports with an injury that required surgery to correct. It sucks and recovery takes time. Now here is another point to consider in regards to shooting percentage and shots taken. I suggest that on a shift where he takes say 3 shots that he is scoring more goals on the first shot hence the second and third just does not arise inflating the shooting perentage.
Now the streaky part in the 217 games played he has had 9 multi goal games with one hat trick.I see consistency there leaving open the potential for more goals.

 

[Wayfarer13]

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

Yah know if he is scoring on his first shot as apposed to ether the second or third in a shift more often that is going to lower shot generation numbers.

 

[dgibb10]

Yah know if he is scoring on his first shot as apposed to ether the second or third in a shift more often that is going to lower shot generation numbers.

How often do you think players get multiple shots on the same shift 5v5?

 

[dgibb10]

I suggest that on a shift where he takes say 3 shots that he is scoring more goals on the first shot hence the second and third just does not arise inflating the shooting perentage.

Caufield doesn't generate 2 shots EV a game right now, let alone 3 a shift.

What can I guarantee here. 100% he will never be 20 years old again. If you disagree with me on that please let know the secret on that.The team was a mess with injuries to a point where they had to call up Cam Hillis from the ECHL to fill out a roster to play Florida leaving 1 healthy body in the minors.Think I will give him a pass on that one. A change in management and coaching rebounded with along with the team in his last 38 games with 22 goals prorated 47 goal pace.

He was 21 for half of 21-22, and did not play a single second on the ice with Cam Hillis

So going into tonight he has played 217 games divide that into lots the you focus on the 102 game sample where he scored 21 goals which would be a prorated 17 pace and the 115 game sample where he has scored 70 goals for a 50 goal pace. Not bad for a 23 year old as he trails only Jack Hughes from the 2019 draft by 27 goals playing 104 fewer games.

LMAO YOU DID THE THING WHERE YOU PRETEND HALF HIS GAMES DON'T EXIST

Now the streaky part in the 217 games played he has had 9 multi goal games with one hat trick.I see consistency there leaving open the potential for more goals.

Streaky as in he'll go 10 games shooting at 4% then 10 shooting at 20%, and you guys convince yourself any time he's on a shooter cooler it doesn't count.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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

I get where you’re coming from, but I think we’re approaching this from different angles when it comes to small-sample stats. I’m not saying shortened shifts explain the whole drop in shot rates — again, it’s a partial factor, and in a 12-game sample, even small influences can end up meaningful when we’re projecting across an entire season.

Your numbers assume goal-shortened shifts only generate around 0.3 shots, but that’s based on broad averages that don’t necessarily reflect the shot-generation potential in specific situations, especially for high-volume shooters. Using league-wide or /60 averages glosses over subtleties in how a higher impact player like Caufield actually generates chances over certain shifts (easy examples being rebound generation, extending shifts, etc). By the nature of being a better than average player, Caufield is going to generate higher than average impacts on these kinds of metrics. And, again, most importantly we are talking about a 12-game sample here — pulling any conclusions from it would inherently be ill advised.

Beyond the statistical argument and operating from principle, think it’s a little dismissive to call partial factors “ridiculous” when we’re drawing from such a tiny sample size. Analytics should be about evaluating marginal influences, not pre-emptively dismissing them or attacking the person suggesting them. There’s no need to invent a precise number for the impact of shortened shifts to acknowledge that, yes, it could be a minor but non-zero factor here.

All I’m saying is that we shouldn’t reject plausible factors out of hand in a 12-game window just because they’re partial. Yes, his shot generation is down. But acknowledging marginal effects as part of that isn’t nonsense; it’s part of keeping a full picture of what’s going on. The accumulation of a lot of “ridiculous” minor factors could very well add up to a noticeable impact, especially when projecting from a small sample.

Edit: also, even more broadly, maybe re-read this thread with some self-awareness about your tone when speaking with other people. Just from the past couple of pages:
“Pointing to them as meaningful changes in a players level is stupid.”
“Oh god I can't wait for this.”
“Meh, it's a tenuous assumption at best and falls apart when you actually think about the numbers”
“Again, I didn't dimiss it outhand, I thought about it, looked into it, and then realized that it was ridiculous.”
“If you read the post you'd see.”
“Getting lost in thinking through every meaningless piece of noise is a waste of time.”
“Saying 1 shot was a way to make you feel better.”
“Again, just say you don't understand statistics and move on.”
“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”
“LMAO YOU DID THE THING WHERE YOU PRETEND HALF HIS GAMES DON'T EXIST”

This constant digging at people and dismissing their point of view doesn’t exactly project you as the smartest guy in the room, just the most arrogant.

 

[dgibb10]

I get where you’re coming from, but I think we’re approaching this from different angles when it comes to small-sample stats. I’m not saying shortened shifts explain the whole drop in shot rates — again, it’s a partial factor, and in a 12-game sample, even small influences can end up meaningful when we’re projecting across an entire season.

Your numbers assume goal-shortened shifts only generate around 0.3 shots, but that’s based on broad averages that don’t necessarily reflect the shot-generation potential in specific situations, especially for high-volume shooters. Using league-wide or /60 averages glosses over subtleties in how a higher impact player like Caufield actually generates chances over certain shifts (easy examples being rebound generation, extending shifts, etc). By the nature of being a better than average player, Caufield is going to generate higher than average impacts on these kinds of metrics. And, again, most importantly we are talking about a 12-game sample here — pulling any conclusions from it would inherently be ill advised.

Beyond the statistical argument and operating from principle, think it’s a little dismissive to call partial factors “ridiculous” when we’re drawing from such a tiny sample size. Analytics should be about evaluating marginal influences, not pre-emptively dismissing them or attacking the person suggesting them. There’s no need to invent a precise number for the impact of shortened shifts to acknowledge that, yes, it could be a minor but non-zero factor here.

All I’m saying is that we shouldn’t reject plausible factors out of hand in a 12-game window just because they’re partial. Yes, his shot generation is down. But acknowledging marginal effects as part of that isn’t nonsense; it’s part of keeping a full picture of what’s going on. The accumulation of a lot of “ridiculous” minor factors could very well add up to a noticeable impact, especially when projecting from a small sample.

Edit: also, even more broadly, maybe re-read this thread with some self-awareness about your tone when speaking with other people. Just from the past couple of pages:
“Pointing to them as meaningful changes in a players level is stupid.”
“Oh god I can't wait for this.”
“Meh, it's a tenuous assumption at best and falls apart when you actually think about the numbers”
“Again, I didn't dimiss it outhand, I thought about it, looked into it, and then realized that it was ridiculous.”
“If you read the post you'd see.”
“Getting lost in thinking through every meaningless piece of noise is a waste of time.”
“Saying 1 shot was a way to make you feel better.”
“Again, just say you don't understand statistics and move on.”
“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”
“LMAO YOU DID THE THING WHERE YOU PRETEND HALF HIS GAMES DON'T EXIST”

This constant digging at people and dismissing their point of view doesn’t exactly project you as the smartest guy in the room, just the most arrogant.

Cole Caufield generates 0.136 shots per shift in his career EV. Also again, for most of the numbers I didn't use league averages, I used the highest shot generator in the league in David Pastrnak as a reference point.

This is such a minute detail we are talking about. "if on 3 half shifts that he may not even get he may be in a slightly better starting position to maybe get another shot/shot attempt"

Context is valuable. Miniscule stuff like this is not statistically relevant. And if you worry so much about it, you will get lost in the weeds.


Over the last 2 years he generated EV shot attempts at a rate 50% better than he has so far this year. This is something significant to note and you are obsessing over the minute details.

Again, if someone provides a meaningful piece of context, such as if he were, for example moved off of Nick Suzuki's line, that would be important to consider. But you have not provided any meaningful context that would explain the drop.

So therefore, unless and until that real, meaningful context is provided, I will note the significant drop in shot generation so far as something to be wary of and watch out for.

And again, if you want to do a real in depth statistical analysis of 1 player, go ahead with every tiny little thing like this.

 

[TBF1972]

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.

have you looked at the goals from caufield? did they actually occurred early in the shift? all of them? and he didn't return to the ice? they might even prolonged his shifts. just with neutral zone face off.

 

[tarheelhockey]

have you looked at the goals from caufield? did they actually occurred early in the shift? all of them? and he didn't return to the ice? they might even prolonged his shifts. just with neutral zone face off.

No, this level of analysis hasn’t been performed and to his point, would be silly given how small of a sample we’re talking about here. Even if all of his goals occurred 3 seconds after he stepped on the ice, preventing many additional shots from occurring, the impacts of that effect wouldn’t be meaningfully projectible into an 82-game sample.

That was my original point in throwing the idea out there, an example of how thinly shaved the arguments become when dealing with a 12-game sample, but we got hung up in treating it as a 100% serious hypothesis.

 

[TBF1972]

No, this level of analysis hasn’t been performed and to his point, would be silly given how small of a sample we’re talking about here. Even if all of his goals occurred 3 seconds after he stepped on the ice, preventing many additional shots from occurring, the impacts of that effect wouldn’t be meaningfully projectible into an 82-game sample.

That was my original point in throwing the idea out there, an example of how thinly shaved the arguments become when dealing with a 12-game sample, but we got hung up in treating it as a 100% serious hypothesis.

i mean if the goal happened 3 seconds into his shift he would most likely remain on ice. shortening the shift is most likely only happening in case the score happened between 20 to 35 seconds into a normal shift. shorter he might remains on ice. longer he would have come of the ice most likely anyway as soon as possible.

 

[tarheelhockey]

i mean if the goal happened 3 seconds into his shift he would most likely remain on ice. shortening the shift is most likely only happening in case the score happened between 20 to 35 seconds into a normal shift. shorter he might remains on ice. longer he would have come of the ice most likely anyway as soon as possible.

This is dependent on who has first line change and in any case, again, this is treating the subject with more seriousness than intended. Nothing about it is meaningfully projectable.