A statistical look at line combos and D pairings

[Kovaz]

There's been a fair bit written about our play as a team, and specifically how our results have lagged behind our play. Any time you're not scoring as much as you should be, a variety of explanations get thrown around. "We're shooting too much from the perimeter." "We're not getting the bounces." etc. You also see a lot of vitriol thrown at specific players or lines. So, I thought I'd take a closer look, line-by-line, to see which combos are driving trends in our overall results. All data taken from corsica.hockey.

Before I get into the charts, some quick explanations. These are based on my belief that you can break generating goals into three separate factors: shot volume, shot quality, and finishing.

• Shot Volume being the total number of shot attempts directed towards the net. This is a reasonable proxy for offensive zone time, so a high shot volume implies consistent zone entries and good puck retrieval and forechecking. I used Shot Attempts per 60 minutes as my metric for this.
• Shot Quality being the likelihood that any given shot attempt will score. This should ideally measure the ability of a line to generate good scoring chances when they have the puck in the offensive zone. I used Expected Goals per Shot Attempt to attempt to measure this.
• Finishing is simply how often a line is actually scoring on the chances they are getting. A line that's getting lucky bounces and picking corners will have a high finishing score, where a line that's hitting posts and getting robbed will have a low finishing score. I used Goals per Expected Goal to measure this.

The nice part about using those 3 stats in particular is if you multiply the 3 of them together, you get:

(Shot Attempts / 60 minutes) X (Expected Goals / Shot Attempt) X (Goals / Expected Goal) = (Goals / 60 minutes)

Which is exactly the thing we want to maximize. So essentially, we're starting with each line's goals for and against, and using those 3 metrics to explain what's driving a high or low goal rate. Defensively I used the same 3 metrics - the only difference being that I labeled Finishing "Goaltending (inverse)".

The likely biggest shortcoming of this approach is the quality of the Expected Goals calculation. It's quite possible that it doesn't completely capture shot quality - so there's likely some shot quality effects in the finishing scores I calculated. That said, it's the best I'm aware of, and the results were interesting.

NOTES

• All values in the charts are normalized against the league average
• Shot Volume and Goals are display as rates per 60 minutes of ice time
• All values are setup so that a bigger bar = more goals (so for offensive stats, to the right is good. Defensive stats, to the left is good)
• EDIT: All numbers are 5v5

First, the team as a whole:

We generate significantly more shot volume than we allow, while shot quality is pretty much a wash - we generally keep shot quality low in both directions. However, our finishing has been pretty bad while our goaltending has been pretty much league average overall.

The top line is above the team numbers in shot volume, shot quality, and finishing overall - unsurprising for our runaway offensive leaders. Defensively, they allow a lower volume but a higher quality than the rest of the team, but they've gotten some excellent goaltending to bail them out. Overall unsurprising numbers, and they support the eye test so far.

Here's where things start to get interesting. The 3M line generates a completely ridiculous shot volume, which should be unsurprising considering they have the puck about 75% of every shift. However, their shot quality is significantly below the team average, AND they can't score a goal to save their lives. They're easily the biggest drivers of our team's low finishing numbers, and that also explains Frolik's drop in scoring pace. Them turning it around offensively could be all we need to make a jump 5v5

The final 2 lines that met the ice time cutoff. The Hathaway line is absolutely shooting the lights out, while the Jagr version was a bit snake-bitten. With Hathaway they've been much stronger defensively while generating more shot volume - whereas with Jagr their shot quality was through the roof. Looking at this, I'd be in no rush to bump Hathaway off that line. Also I'd add the caveat that easier zone starts and competition could be a factor here.

The 4th liners

None of our 4th line combinations have stuck together long enough to meet the ice time cutoffs, so I looked at just their individual stats. The big theme here is lack of offense, in particular the finishing. I think it's pretty much a given that our 4th line is going to get out-shot with the personnel we have available, but I think the defensive stats are at least encouraging. Stajan in particular has put up respectable numbers - if my 4th line is suppressing both shot volume and shot quality I'm pretty happy. This also confirms some of what my eye test was telling me: specifically that Versteeg's 5v5 play has left a lot to be desired, and F. Hamilton is our weakest player.

The top pair's numbers are similar to the team as a whole: crazy high shot volume, ok shot quality, poor finishing. They also suppress both shot volume and quality quite well, but they've been let down a bit by the goaltending.

The second pair's poor start is echoed by the underlying numbers, but it's not as bad as it could be. Defensively, they've been about league-average but have received some excellent goaltending. However, offensively their shot quality leaves a lot to be desired and our finishing with them on the ice has been even worse.

After years of having the 3rd pair be a total tire fire, it's so nice to have a 3rd pair with a positive goal differential and strong underlying numbers. The only somewhat sore spot is the shot volume against, but if your 3rd pair is above league average you're in a great spot.

A popular request for a 2nd pairing, and there's some merit to it. Brodie-Stone have massively stronger offensive numbers than Brodie-Hamonic, while defensively they're a bit weaker due to much higher shot volume against, offset largely by lower shot quality.

The final pair with enough ice time to make the list, Bartkowski-Stone simply couldn't generate a thing offensively. Defensively the numbers were ok at least, with a very high shot volume against but solid shot quality suppression. But it's night and day when you replace Bartkowski with Kulak.


So there you have it. When you break it down by line, I think there are some interesting nuggets of information hidden in there. The biggest conclusions I'd draw are:

• We need the 3M line to start scoring again. They are almost singlehandedly driving our "played well, but lost" feeling as of late
• Keep Hathaway with Bennett-Jankowski. That line has excellent stats across the board, and it wouldn't shock me if they could handle some tougher competition
• The 4th line is going to be a weakness any way you slice it, but at the very least they haven't been as bad defensively as I thought. Their poor numbers are more due to a lack of finishing talent than anything (although they still get hemmed in their own zone more often than I'd like)
• I think Brodie-Hamonic as a pair are improving as of late, and I'd like to take a closer look at the trends in their numbers, but Brodie-Stone have definitely had better numbers to this point in the season
• Replacing Bartkowski with Kulak on the 3rd pair has fixed one of our biggest achilles heels over the last few years

Also I'm open to feedback on the charts, data presented, process, etc.

[zuluking]

Great analysis! In my opinion, at this level, these stats start to converge with the eye test, although there are some interesting surprises. (My wife has been ticked off with Backlund's and Frolik's lack of finish for a while now. I'll have to show her these stats!)

I'd be interested to see Jagr's individual stats like you did with the 4th liners. It could be interesting to help predict the success (or not) of the current 4th line (Brouwer, Stajan, Jagr). Will he help them improve offensively? Will they struggle defensively with him?

Again, great work!

[CsInMyBlood]

Great post Kovaz! A very interesting look at how the lines are breaking down. Thanks for this.

I have no doubts that the 3M line will start having them go in, they are creating chances every game. Only a matter of time IMO.

[Groot]

Great analysis! I would also be interested to see how the Gio/Brodie pairing from a couple seasons ago compares to the Gio/Hamilton pairing we see now. I know the coaching staff is dead-set on having a L/R combo on every pairing and it's not a direct comparison (systems, personnel differ etc) but I would still be curious how they compare.

[united]

Awesome job! I really like how you translated everything visually. What does Brodie-Stone from last season looks like? That's a better sample.

Regarding 3M's lack of finishing, I posted this in the other thread:

Given the Tkachuk - Backlund - Frolik trio has a shooting percentage of 4.0% this season, you can see why some think they aren't playing good. But, unless you think the three of them collectively have the shooting accuracy of a lumbering defensive defenseman, you can expect a bit of puck luck to go their way by season's end.

To further illustrate their poor luck, here is a list of forwards who played over 100 games with a shooting percentage below 5.0: https://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...oints_per_game

[gilligans_off]

Lazar sure making the other teams goalie look good. Hope the kid figures it out. It would be nice to have one of these recent reclamation projects actually turn out.

[edslunch]

Really nice analysis. One thing that doesn’t look right is the team goals for and against. Assuming league average goals for and against are the same, this suggests the flames are scoring more than they give up which is not true

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Really nice analysis. One thing that doesn’t look right is the team goals for and against. Assuming league average goals for and against are the same, this suggests the flames are scoring more than they give up which is not true

Special teams

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Special teams

Oh ok, these are 5on5 numbers? Makes sense.

[neo45]

Even on this site, there have been very few complaints about 5on5 play outside of a few overpaid players generating zero offense. This sort of confirms the general narrative around here that special teams and non-existent 4th line scoring is hurting us.

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by zuluking

I'd be interested to see Jagr's individual stats like you did with the 4th liners. It could be interesting to help predict the success (or not) of the current 4th line (Brouwer, Stajan, Jagr). Will he help them improve offensively? Will they struggle defensively with him?

To be honest, I struggled with whether or not to even include the 4th liners, because I think it's somewhere between tough and impossible to isolate an individual's contribution from his line as a whole. Jagr's played on the top line, he's played on the 3rd line, and now he's played a bit on the 4th line. His numbers are obviously going to be better than the other 4th liners, but how much of that is Jagr, and how much is Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, and Jankowski?

Originally Posted by edslunch

Really nice analysis. One thing that doesn’t look right is the team goals for and against. Assuming league average goals for and against are the same, this suggests the flames are scoring more than they give up which is not true

We're actually +2 at 5v5 right now. As Five-hole mentioned above, it's special teams that are dragging down our goal differential.

[Bunk]

We lack finish. Maybe we need a Finnish player or two.

Excellent analysis. Thank you!

[DJones]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Really nice analysis. One thing that doesn’t look right is the team goals for and against. Assuming league average goals for and against are the same, this suggests the flames are scoring more than they give up which is not true

We have a positive goal differential 5 on 5

[DatSOOKin]

Signed in just to thank this. Very well thought-out and presented.

The backlund line has looked off this season (highlighted by the drop in production). I've noticed they seem to put things on net from crazy angles quite frequently with nobody nearby to clean up rebounds, and this analysis only affirms that to me. Perhaps their finishing would spike if they start crashing and banging around the net more often, instead of focusing on the perimeter/behind the net cycle.

[GranteedEV]

I would like to see Frolik swapped for Jagr or a callup like Mangiapane or Poirier. Would also bolster line four in the process.

[BloodFetish]

Great job presenting your statistics for us non-nerds.

I wish Frolik was a more selective with his shots. It always seems like the 3M line controls possession, but then Frolik fires it at the unscreened goalie's feet from the side boards for an easy stoppage in play.

[Flamefan1]

For our two pp units we:

Gio, Hamilton, Johny, Mono & Ferly
Brodie, Stone, Bennett, Tkachuk & Janko

I think Gully and all will be pleasantly surprised how our pp improves with Stones shot from the point. Only Ferly has a shot that compares. Why we have not tried Stone continues to amaze me. The coaching staff is either very stubborn or very unintelligent.

[Fire]

Stone can't hit the broad side of a barn. Not a good playmaker either. It's not difficult to know why he isn't on the PP.

[Greybeard]

Great analysis. Like Jankowski Bennett Hathaway right now. As they continue to gel with a large number of offensive zone starts we could see them become a consistent threat. The 3M line will come right.

[djsFlames]

Looks like the backlund line needs a finisher. Aka a frolik upgrade offensively. He's not scoring like last season.