Curious Statistical Case of Carolina Hurricanes

[Hatter of the Beach]

Is the meaningful difference between their home and away numbers? If yes, could there be something odd in shot counting in Carolina?

I was going to ask this too. Just from anecdotal memory I remember the past few games the Wings (my team) played in Raleigh, the shot totals seemed very generous

 

[Seanaconda]

Their forwards are bad.

They had 4 or 5 breakaways against the Bruins but not one guy even tried a deke, all just shot five hole for easy saves.

Maybe they are just taking shots that would go in during practice but against good goalies none of them go in .

Ward for being their best goalie forever had a pretty awful five hole I'm pretty sure

 

[Identity404]

Maybe they are just taking shots that would go in during practice but against good goalies none of them go in .

Ward for being their best goalie forever had a pretty awful five hole I'm pretty sure

I honestly think this is a small part of the problem.

But overall our forwards pretty much lack any type of finish.

 

[lomiller1]

NHL is human activity and human activity is almost impossible to analyze like that.

You realize that there is an entire branch of mathematics dedicated to this and that it is routinely and successfully used to analyze human activity?

A play like this isn't repeatable, but it is a human decision that decided the outcome of the game.

The point is that it’s not a play you can depend on to win/loose games. Odd things can happen, but in the long run the only way you can control game outcomes is with repeatable, predictable things. Good coaches focus on how process is the most important thing and if they keep following the process success will eventually follow. Of course the process they are coaching needs to be good as well.

 

[Seanaconda]

I honestly think this is a small part of the problem.

But overall our forwards pretty much lack any type of finish.

Yeah skinner was the only guy who had a really high level shot and he didn't mesh with any of your centers ever but if they had a better goalie to practice with maybe they would improve their in game shooting percentage a bit , cuz you would think even with average shooters they should score more just from quantity .

Maybe get svech higher in the lineup ?

 

[Mickey Marner]

They have no finishing or goaltending. Same as every other year. Their corsi gets somewhat inflated by their low PDO.

 

[talitintti]

You realize that there is an entire branch of mathematics dedicated to this and that it is routinely and successfully used to analyze human activity?

Not in the manner that the advanced stats are used in hockey community, no. Their methods would get laughed out of any scientific statistics seminar.

The point is that it’s not a play you can depend on to win/loose games. Odd things can happen, but in the long run the only way you can control game outcomes is with repeatable, predictable things. Good coaches focus on how process is the most important thing and if they keep following the process success will eventually follow. Of course the process they are coaching needs to be good as well.

You are treating the players without agency, but they do have agency. A coach will obviously want to effect things that he can control, but that doesn't mean that the factors beyond their control are a "lottery".

You cannot call human activity a lottery.

Nothing to do with advanced stats being useless. Everything to do with calling everything that doesn't work out by the way they predict a "lottery".

We are though approaching a deep philosophical guestion of free will and human agency in general. Is it losing in lottery or a decision of a wicked individual if there is a mass shooting in your school?

 

[garnetpalmetto]

I was going to ask this too. Just from anecdotal memory I remember the past few games the Wings (my team) played in Raleigh, the shot totals seemed very generous

Asked, answered, and addressed. They're a grand total of 0.66 shots/game higher in Raleigh than on the road:

This was addressed after the 11/21/18 game against Toronto when the Maple Leafs broadcast team (and subsequently their fans) accused whomever counts shots at PNC of being a bit heavy handed. I took a look at our home shot count versus away shot count. Here's that data with updates from the games since then.

First, the home games:

Date	Opponent	CAR Shots	OPP Shots
10/4/18	NYI	46	20
10/7/18	NYR	40	24
10/9/18	VAN	33	25
10/20/18	COL	43	22
10/26/18	SJS	41	23
10/28/18	NYI	39	20
10/30/18	BOS	44	31
11/10/18	DET	52	32
11/12/18	CHI	40	35
11/17/18	CBJ	31	24
11/18/18	NJD	25	34
11/21/18	TOR	45	32
11/23/18	FLA	39	35
11/30/18	ANA	34	29
12/11/18	TOR	30	29

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

And away

Date	Opponent	CAR Shots	OPP Shots
10/5/18	CBJ	35	32
10/13/18	MIN	57	23
10/14/18	WPG	43	26
10/16/18	TBL	40	27
10/22/18	DET	39	21
11/2/18	ARI	51	25
11/3/18	VGK	34	25
11/6/18	STL	39	20
11/8/18	CHI	34	38
11/24/18	NYI	27	19
11/27/18	MTL	22	49
12/2/18	LAK	34	35
12/5/18	SJS	40	23
12/7/18	ANA	39	19

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

And now the averages:

CAR Average Shots (Home) - 38.8 shots/game
CAR Average Shots (Away) - 38.14 shots/game

CAR Home/Away Shot Differential - 0.66 shots

OPP Average Shots Allowed (@ PNC Arena) - 27.67 shots/game
OPP Average Shots Allowed (Away) - 27.28 shots/game

OPP Home/Away Shot Differential - 0.39 shots

It's been a long while since I've taken a stats course and calculated statistical significance, but I have a feeling a difference of 0.66 shots between their home and away performance isn't significant.

 

[thebus88]

These "numbers" and "stats" are the worst thing to happen to logical analysis and intelligent discussion on this site.

There are so many variables these "models" cannot account for.

Most of the terms that are associated with these "numbers", "stats", or "facts" are literally made up by the people who came up with said models.

 

[Seanaconda]

These "numbers" and "stats" are the worst thing to happen to logical analysis and intelligent discussion on this site.

There are so many variables these "models" cannot account for.

Most of the terms that are associated with these "numbers", "stats", or "facts" are literally made up by the people who came up with said models.

What ? Most of the numbers and terms are definitely not made up they are mostly based on shots and goals or are those advanced stats . Also finish reading the OP .

 

[Filthy Dangles]

I'm not sure how to phrase this but ill try. Is the reason their CF is so high because they can't put the puck in the net? If they could just finish the play off, those extra CF would cease and that number would (*might) not be so high. I mean you still have to be a good team to pounce on those rebounds and loose pucks and generate a subsequent shot, I guess.

But how much of their CF is due to them not finishing an offensive play or sequence off where they should have? Is there some formal name for such a phenomenon in statisitics?

Hope that makes some sense.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

Another explanation that has been bandied about is a "lack of shooting talent" in Carolina, this sounds more plausible however I looked at recent players that have come into Carolina or moved out from Carolina to see how their shooting % was affected and there seems to be a significant negative "Carolina effect" on the shooting %s

(For players with long NHL careers (Williams, Semin, Stempniak) I only looked at their last 3 years before coming to Carolina)

This is by no means an exhaustive list of players, just the "big name forwards" that came to my mind but the drop in sh% when they play for the Hurricanes is striking and these are not bad players.

As I posted a few weeks back, most of those can be explained outside of Carolina's system. Skinner is on one of his hot streaks and Eichel is playing a role in driving it. Lindholm is basically tied to Gaudreau's hip right now. E. Staal got hurt and fell into a funk at the tail end of his run in Carolina. Semin had wrist surgery; he couldn't shoot anymore. Williams played on some really potent Capital teams. Look at his post-lockout (12-13) years in L.A. and his Carolina number is close.

J. Staal is an interesting case. He's played with better linemates at times than he had in Pittsburgh at. Sometimes, they were worse (remember Gerbe and Dwyer.) It could be a function of a shoot-happy system. It could also be that he peaked early in his career. Look at his last three years in Pittsburgh prior to his breakout (07-08 - 09-10) and it's pretty close to his Carolina average.

...

Carolina is a team that brings A+ effort without the skill to match. It's been this way for a while. Watch the team play. The skill gap on many nights is obvious. Going back to the beginning of the Bill Peters' era and the depth scoring talent was pretty solid. The high-end talent wasn't there. Fast forward to now and the Canes have a skill player close to a PPG, but the rest of the forward group is mediocre as hell.

The FO overestimated what an 18 year old Svechnikov could do and/or underestimated the importance Skinner to what was a bad offense. This was a preventable outcome. I don't care so much about the Calgary trade; I saw enough of Lindholm to know that he wouldn't replicate what he's doing in Calgary in Carolina. I'm satisfied with Ferland. The Skinner trade, though, really irritates me. Those trade assets weren't needed. They could have afforded to let him walk as a UFA.

 

[Mats13]

They shoot from everywhere. Looks good on a stats sheet, but in reality has very little likelihood of going in the net.

Essentially they lack talent so they throw the puck on net from everywhere.

 

[Paperbagofglory]

I honestly think this is a small part of the problem.

But overall our forwards pretty much lack any type of finish.

Try some Swede's then, that might solve it.

 

[thebus88]

What ? Most of the numbers and terms are definitely not made up they are mostly based on shots and goals or are those advanced stats . Also finish reading the OP .

Well, he shoulda put the disclaimer at the beginning. I've spent/wasted a lot of time debating these "numbers" with folks on the CBJ board. I understand these numbers are just mainly shot numbers categorized and divided in different ways, but there are MANY different "advanced" stats nowadays. And yes, so much "math" and calculator work is done to get these "stats" that I would consider THEM "made up". Not to mention the "expected" numbers.

When you try to tell me "scoring chances" and "high danger scoring chances" are not the same, along with "tips" and "deflections" being different, while your "models" and most of the people who follow them either CAN'T or have serious issues reading player intent or many others variables on the ice. AND THEN most of these people don't say, "hey, this is interesting", they simply claim it "proves" whatever narrative they are trying to push.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

You realize that there is an entire branch of mathematics dedicated to this and that it is routinely and successfully used to analyze human activity?

The point is that it’s not a play you can depend on to win/loose games. Odd things can happen, but in the long run the only way you can control game outcomes is with repeatable, predictable things. Good coaches focus on how process is the most important thing and if they keep following the process success will eventually follow. Of course the process they are coaching needs to be good as well.

Statistics isn't a branch of mathematics

 

[Seanaconda]

Well, he shoulda put the disclaimer at the beginning. I've spent/wasted a lot of time debating these "numbers" with folks on the CBJ board. I understand these numbers are just mainly shot numbers categorized and divided in different ways, but there are MANY different "advanced" stats nowadays. And yes, so much "math" and calculator work is done to get these "stats" that I would consider THEM "made up". Not to mention the "expected" numbers.

When you try to tell me "scoring chances" and "high danger scoring chances" are not the same, along with "tips" and "deflections" being different, while your "models" and most of the people who follow them either CAN'T or have serious issues reading player intent or many others variables on the ice. AND THEN most of these people don't say, "hey, this is interesting", they simply claim it "proves" whatever narrative they are trying to push.

Yeah if people are crazy about it then they are annoying but as a loose guideline I don't mind them .

Obv unless someone judges every single shot themselves it won't be close to perfect but combined with watching / combining different stats they can be useful

They just turn bad when people twist them to push a narrative

 

[aufheben]

NHL is human activity and human activity is almost impossible to analyze like that. A play like this isn't repeatable, but it is a human decision that decided the outcome of the game. Had Laine done this in game 7 OT in Stanley Cup finals, maybe you could relieve your fellow fans by the fact that it wasn't Laine's fault because it wasn't "repeatable".


An elite goaltender makes a terrible mistake at a crucial moment in a playoff series which he doesn't do 99,9% of the time - that's just a statistical error, right? Nope, it's a human decision, human mistake, human who decided the outcome of the game - not luck.

Isn’t this doing exactly that?

 

[lomiller1]

Statistics isn't a branch of mathematics

Statistics - Wikipedia


Statistics is a branch of mathematics dealing with data collection, organization, analysis, interpretation and presentation.[1][2] In applying statistics to, for example, a scientific, industrial, or social problem, it is conventional to begin with a statistical population or a statistical model process to be studied. Populations can be diverse topics such as "all people living in a country" or "every atom composing a crystal". Statistics deals with all aspects of data including the planning of data collection in terms of the design of surveys and experiments.[1]

 

[lomiller1]

They shoot from everywhere. Looks good on a stats sheet, but in reality has very little likelihood of going in the net.

Essentially they lack talent so they throw the puck on net from everywhere.

Already shown to be wrong, they produce the most shots in the best scoring area.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Statistics - Wikipedia


Statistics is a branch of mathematics dealing with data collection, organization, analysis, interpretation and presentation.[1][2] In applying statistics to, for example, a scientific, industrial, or social problem, it is conventional to begin with a statistical population or a statistical model process to be studied. Populations can be diverse topics such as "all people living in a country" or "every atom composing a crystal". Statistics deals with all aspects of data including the planning of data collection in terms of the design of surveys and experiments.[1]

Statistics uses math, like plenty of disciplines like chemistry, engineering, and even accounting, but it is not mathematics itself. Math has answers that are absolute because the discipline is fundamentally based on logic. Statistics uses parts of math like probability as it is utilized to find the likelihood of something occurring that we know little about.

Saying that statistics is in any way part of mathematics is wrong, as it suggests that the results of any statistical survey are axiomatic, which is misleading at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.

 

[VoluntaryDom]

As someone who is into advanced stats, I find Carolina Hurricanes absolutely fascinating. Year after year they under-perform their underlying metrics by a ludicrous amount. This season they have cartoonishly good, 07-08 Detroit Red Wings level shot and shot quality numbers yet their actual goal differential lags far behind.

So over the last 5 seasons the Hurricanes actual 5 on 5 Goals For % has under performed their Corsi For % on average by -7.69% and under performed their Expected Goals For % by -7.49%.

This is at a point where it can no longer reasonably be attributed to "small sample size" or "puck luck", so there needs to some explanation to Carolina Hurricanes. Goaltending has been blamed as the reason for this wide divergence but atleast at 5 on 5, goaltending seems to only be smallish fraction of the problem:

This shows that underperforming their goal for is a far bigger problem then than goaltending. This season esp the Carolina goalies are stopping about what you'd expect at 5 on 5 but their shooters are already 30+ goals below expected just barely over a 3rd of the way into the season. That's insane!

In the past some blamed the "Bill Peters system" for inflating shot totals, yet now with the new coach the problem is worse than ever and Bill Peters is having no such issues on his new team in Calgary where that team's GF% pretty much aligns with their xGF% and Corsi stats (ironically enough Calgary under-performed their Goals For at a level similar to previous Carolina seasons last season under Glen Gulutzen but it appears the problem has been "fixed" under Bill Peters). So I don't know how much blame can be put on "coaching" or "the system".

Another explanation that has been bandied about is a "lack of shooting talent" in Carolina, this sounds more plausible however I looked at recent players that have come into Carolina or moved out from Carolina to see how their shooting % was affected and there seems to be a significant negative "Carolina effect" on the shooting %s

(For players with long NHL careers (Williams, Semin, Stempniak) I only looked at their last 3 years before coming to Carolina)

This is by no means an exhaustive list of players, just the "big name forwards" that came to my mind but the drop in sh% when they play for the Hurricanes is striking and these are not bad players.

So with all that said, what exactly is going on in Carolina? I don't think either "the system" or "bad shooters" narrative explains it. I almost think that if you put Alex Ovechkin on the Hurricanes he would become a 30 goal scorer. Whenever I watch them play, my eye test aligns with the numbers, they generate a good amount of high quality chances. Clearly it seems we are missing something with this team that makes them stand out like a sore thumb advanced stats wise, anyone have any ideas?

(And if your contribution to this thread is going to be "this is why these stats are meaningless" then please move on, the Canes are very much an exception to this rather than a rule)

The phenomenon interests me as well

 

[VoluntaryDom]

Well, he shoulda put the disclaimer at the beginning. I've spent/wasted a lot of time debating these "numbers" with folks on the CBJ board. I understand these numbers are just mainly shot numbers categorized and divided in different ways, but there are MANY different "advanced" stats nowadays. And yes, so much "math" and calculator work is done to get these "stats" that I would consider THEM "made up". Not to mention the "expected" numbers.

When you try to tell me "scoring chances" and "high danger scoring chances" are not the same, along with "tips" and "deflections" being different, while your "models" and most of the people who follow them either CAN'T or have serious issues reading player intent or many others variables on the ice. AND THEN most of these people don't say, "hey, this is interesting", they simply claim it "proves" whatever narrative they are trying to push.

Expected goals for should be renamed adjusted fenwick to stop posts like this from completely misunderstanding what it is

 

[OviTaughtMe]

And Caps are the opposite every season. Outperform metrics by a lot

I think both cases are due to talent. Caps have exceptional finishing talent while the Canes are severely lacking

 

[thebus88]

Expected goals for should be renamed adjusted fenwick to stop posts like this from completely misunderstanding what it is

Actually, any "stat" or "number" involved with or named "FENWICK", will not get a positive response from me.

Like I've said, many of the "terms", "numbers", and/or "stats" involved with advanced statistics, are made up.