Toggle sidebar

Derek Stepan Version 2.0

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue Blooded said:
Well it depends on the chosen sample, if you include players who have played 200+ minutes of ES TOI he's only 2nd. #1? Mats Zuccarello.

I like their HART rating more though. It's an average of their HARO and HARD ratings which are basically how much more/less did the team score vs. expectation, and how much less/more did they concede vs. expectation when the player was on the ice.

It's sort of a +/- adjusted for quality of teammates and opposition.

Stepan is "only" 4th in that, behind Crosby, Toews, and freakin Rozsival!

Again, if we allow players with 200 mins, Zuccarello is just wiping the floor with the competition with a HART of 82.8%. Crosby's is 65.1.

Source: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...0&teamid=0&type=goals&sort=HARTp&sortdir=DESC
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what "over expectations" means.

The GF%, I figured out is a metric of overall game. Basically, +25 for the guy that scores less but gives up less is more impressive on a relative basis. This is similar to the concept in the recent "what is a blowout" thread? People were saying it depends on what the score is. A 4-1 win means you scored 4 times the goals of the opposition, 6-3, means twice. Despite both being +3. You can argue that "relatively" 4-1 is more impressive.
 
SnowblindNYR said:
I'm not sure what "over expectations" means.

The GF%, I figured out is a metric of overall game. Basically, +25 for the guy that scores less but gives up less is more impressive on a relative basis. This is similar to the concept in the recent "what is a blowout" thread? People were saying it depends on what the score is. A 4-1 win means you scored 4 times the goals of the opposition, 6-3, means twice. Despite both being +3. You can argue that "relatively" 4-1 is more impressive.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I get the point of GF% and I concur it's arguably more useful than +/-.

For reference, this is HART:
One should interpret HARO ratings to mean that when the player was on the ice his team had x% (where x is his rating) more goals for than expected (as determined by his quality of team mates and quality of competition). This means that a positive value means more goals were scored than expected and a negative value means less goals were expected. A positive value indicates the player boosted his teams offensive performance while a negative value means he was a drag to his teams offense.

For defensive HARD ratings the effect is opposite. One should interpret the HARD ratings to mean that when the player is on the ice his team gave up x% (where his rating is x) fewer goals than expected (as determined by quality of teammates and opposition).

So, a 10 HARO rating indicates the player boosted his teams expected goal scoring rate by 10% and a 10 HARD rating indicates the player reduced his teams expected goals against rate by 10%.

The HART ratings are simply the average of the HARO and HARD ratings.
Click to expand...

The one I listed was goal HART, there are also shot, fenwick and corsi HART ratings, but I left those out for simplicity.

I guess the way they calculate "expected goals" is done through pooling the HARD and HARO rating of every player on the ice at every given moment.

So if you are playing against players with a high HARO rating and manage to prevent them from scoring, your HARD will be higher than if you played against low HARO guys. The entire system is dynamic, but I'm not sure if the ratings are based upon the oppositions ratings at the time of the game or their eventual season totals. I think it is the latter.
 
Last edited:
Blue Blooded said:
Absolutely, I get the point of GF% and I concur it's arguably more useful than +/-.

For reference, this is HART:


The one I listed was goal HART, there are also shot, fenwick and corsi HART ratings, but I left those out for simplicity.
Click to expand...


That is a wonderful example of statistics out of control.
Hurts my brain.
 
Nyrfan25 said:
That is a wonderful example of statistics out of control.
Hurts my brain.
Click to expand...

HART is definitely a stat that cannot be looked upon and said: this guy is better than that guy because his rating was .001 better! Too many variables. It's hard to accurately project the impact of the quality of the players on the ice on a players' stats. However, not doing it could perhaps distort the picture even more.

I usually only try to compare players that have been used similarly when using adv. stats, unless there is too great a difference in some key stats where one could say that player A has been superior to player B.

But a good rating is definitely not a negative in any case!

Like Snowblind's example of GF%; if Stepan is #1 and Ribeiro is #200 it is hard to dispute that Stepan has been a superior ES player.

HART among skaters with 500+ minutes: Stepan #3, Ribeiro #204, Bäckström #115, Richards #50, Brassard #78.
 
Blue Blooded said:
HART is definitely a stat that cannot be looked upon and said: this guy is better than that guy because his rating was .001 better! Too many variables. It's hard to accurately project the impact of the quality of the players on the ice on a players' stats. However, not doing it could perhaps distort the picture even more.

I usually only try to compare players that have been used similarly when using adv. stats, unless there is too great a difference in some key stats where one could say that player A has been superior to player B.

But a good rating is definitely not a negative in any case!

Like Snowblind's example of GF%; if Stepan is #1 and Ribeiro is #200 it is hard to dispute that Stepan has been a superior ES player.

HART among skaters with 500+ minutes: Stepan #3, Ribeiro #204, Bäckström #115, Richards #50, Brassard #78.
Click to expand...

You know it's nice to look at, and it's also nice to be able to brag that our 3rd line center had a significantly higher HART than their super ultra elite #1 center, however as you said "too many variables". Too many variables means you get things like a solid but unspectacular defenseman on the best team in the league is 3rd. Just too much chance for error. Too many possible loose correlations. Too many factors that affect each of the variables. That's why I like GF% because it reduces the variables and thus chances for weird results.
 
SnowblindNYR said:
You know it's nice to look at, and it's also nice to be able to brag that our 3rd line center had a significantly higher HART than their super ultra elite #1 center, however as you said "too many variables". Too many variables means you get things like a solid but unspectacular defenseman on the best team in the league is 3rd. Just too much chance for error. Too many possible loose correlations. Too many factors that affect each of the variables. That's why I like GF% because it reduces the variables and thus chances for weird results.
Click to expand...

True. It's a problem with these "overall play" ratings, sometimes you feel that it is unclear what they are actually measuring, and how they are doing it. GVT for example is extremely complex and includes some assumptions that I'm not 100% sure I agree with.

I looked at the bottom of the HART chart and found that both Lee Stempniak and Matt Stajan (two of the top forwards in DGVT) had HARD ratings in the negative 100's. It seems like for HARD, a bad goaltender can destroy your rating pretty easily (Kiprusoff had by far the worst GVT in the league).

As with all of these "overall play" ratings, take the results with a pinch of salt. They are likely an indicator, but you will also likely need other data for proper context.
 
It'd usually be tough for me to admit that a player has clearly taken the next step in a lockout shortened season, but Stepan's performance was too good to shrug off with the smaller sample size.

Its time for him to prove it in the playoffs now.
 
BTW, just for fun. GF%

Brassard 101st (most came on the Blue Jackets before they got hot)

Super Elite Monster: Backstrom 88th

Super Elite Top 5 Center who is better than Stepan: Ribeiro 201st
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
It'd usually be tough for me to admit that a player has clearly taken the next step in a lockout shortened season, but Stepan's performance was too good to shrug off with the smaller sample size.

Its time for him to prove it in the playoffs now.
Click to expand...

Hasn't done it in 1st 2 games
 
msv957 said:
The series is still young. Step will produce. He has been clutch and produced at every level of hockey. Having Nash on his line certainly will help.
Click to expand...

Considering he has 4 games to help us not get swept and hasn't done anything of note in 2 so far, it is incredibly worrying.
 
It's the playoffs. Scoring goes down. Yes he has alot of games under his belt but you gotta remember he was hurt last year and 25 of his playoff games were before he took the next step.

He will come around. He's still playing well defensively and had some really good chances through the first two games. Hagelin puts that puck under the crossbar and Stepan finishes on that backhander infront and we're sitting here saying he's been a PPG so far in the playoffs. He is being targeted by the caps. Hopefully Brassard's 3 point game opens up some more space for him next game.

He is also playing a whooping 24 minutes a game at forward. Only Girardi is averaging more at 26.
 
RussMac316 said:
So....is he the best ever now? :laugh:
Click to expand...

He seems to slowly be getting more acclimated to the post season this year.

Was invisible in the first two games, not all that great in game 3 until the GW but looked much better tonight. Progress is always good.
 
Bob Richards said:
He seems to slowly be getting more acclimated to the post season this year.

Was invisible in the first two games, not all that great in game 3 until the GW but looked much better tonight. Progress is always good.
Click to expand...

Awful in the first two games, honestly.

He was great tonight and noticeable in game 2. When he plays like that we have a legitimate offense.
 
I think he was good in game 1 but Holtby stoned him on a few separate plays. He also set up Hagelin's crossbar shot so a little puck luck and he's a PPG here. He was great tonight though.
 
Him and Callahan are beautiful on the PK together. They're so great at generating chances by pressuring the Caps at the points and neutral zone. They're fun to watch on the PK. Team USA should look at them for a PKing unit in the Olympics coming up :P
 
Pugs35 said:
I think he was good in game 1 but Holtby stoned him on a few separate plays. He also set up Hagelin's crossbar shot so a little puck luck and he's a PPG here. He was great tonight though.
Click to expand...

Yep had good chances in game 1 and should have had an assist. He was only awful in game 2, as was the whole team. It's perplexing, in such an important game.
 
Said this guy was the key to our success this postseason a few pages back.

And would ya look at that. Who has both of our GWG? :handclap: Stepan making me proud!
 
Affinity said:
Him and Callahan are beautiful on the PK together. They're so great at generating chances by pressuring the Caps at the points and neutral zone. They're fun to watch on the PK. Team USA should look at them for a PKing unit in the Olympics coming up :P
Click to expand...
Remember when everyone last year said they looked terrible on the PK together (they, admittedly, did)? Everyone called Torts out for not splitting them up when they clearly had no chemistry together.
 
Thank goodness he did not hurt his left arm/elbow when ovechkin launched himself at him. That could have been a severe injury.
 
Black Aces said:
Thank goodness he did not hurt his left arm/elbow when ovechkin launched himself at him. That could have been a severe injury.
Click to expand...

I partially dislocated my elbow on a play like that, opposing player shouldered my arm, most pain I ever felt until I broke my ankle in 3 places years later. But I never missed a shift ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom