Not to worry; this won't last says Myrtle

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Maintaining those kind of numbers just isn't really possible unless you've got a line or two with superstar players, and even then over 10% for a whole team is almost unheard of in an 82 game season.

The trick is to look for explanations in related data.

Datum: The Flames' even-strength shooting percentage is over 10%, which is ridiculous.

Related: The Flames' total shots for are well down in the basement of the league.

Related (general observation): There is an inverse correlation between shooting percentage and number of shots on goal. Usually the only way to deliberately increase your shots for is to shoot from the perimeter or from bad angles.

Posit: The Flames are passing instead of taking low-percentage shots. (Supported by several people's firsthand observation in this thread.)

Conclusion: The team's shooting percentage is not reflective of either skill OR luck, but is a matter of deliberate strategy as they cherry-pick when to shoot. With four puck-moving defencemen and Johnny Gaudreau on the roster, this could be a viable strategy over the whole season.

It remains to be seen how other teams will adjust to these tactics as the season goes on. Also, how the Flames will counter-adjust. It's possible that they will have to start taking more outside shots, which would lower their shooting percentage without reducing total goals scored.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by JetsFlamesFan

I'm tired of people thinking they can predict everything that will happen using a few fancy stats. There are in fact many different stats, but they are so intertwined you can't derive a formula from them that will predict everything that happens.

We're not trying to predict "everything".

We are predicting ONE thing.

That the Flames are not going to finish the season in 2nd place in the Western Conference.

[Resolute 14]

Beyond that, direct observation and "basic stats" tells us similar things. We're not going to keep winning at a .650 clip if we consistently get outshot. Nor are we going to have a .400 winning percentage when trailing after the second period when this season ends.

Enjoy the hell out of this ride, but realize that the Flames need to continue to get better if they expect to maintain their standing.

[Regorium]

I also apologize if this has been posted, but I think we should set the baseline as to why "advanced" stats are useful.

http://corsihockeyleague.com/2014/11...-the-playoffs/

If you have a score-adjusted Fenwick of >=50%, you have an 80% chance of making the playoffs. <=50% and it's 26%. The author seems to have double counted 50% making the two percentages not add up to 100.

That's a significant deviation from an expected random result of 53% chance of making the playoffs. A sample size of 210 (30 teams from the past 7 seasons) is more than enough to show a significant statistical deviation of greater than 25 percentage points.

It seems pretty obvious that higher possession scores correlate well with success. Why are people having a hard time accepting it?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Regorium

It seems pretty obvious that higher possession scores correlate well with success. Why are people having a hard time accepting it?

Because the Flames is below 50%

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Regorium

It seems pretty obvious that higher possession scores correlate well with success. Why are people having a hard time accepting it?

Because shots fired at the general direction of the net is a poor indicator of "possession".

Taking 5 shots off a defenceman's shins during a power play doesn't mean you're controlling the puck more efficiently than passing the puck around and waiting for a quality shot.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Because shots fired at the general direction of the net is a poor indicator of "possession".

Taking 5 shots off a defenceman's shins during a power play doesn't mean you're controlling the puck more efficiently than passing the puck around and waiting for a quality shot.

Fenwick, as he referenced above, doesn't count blocked shots (like corsi does)

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Related (general observation): There is an inverse correlation between shooting percentage and number of shots on goal. Usually the only way to deliberately increase your shots for is to shoot from the perimeter or from bad angles.

This is untrue. It has been proven that more shots lead to more goals, whereas more shots does not correlate well to a lower shooting percentage.

Here's the data for 2013. http://www.sportingcharts.com/nhl/st...rcentage/2013/

If you plot shots vs. shot%, and shots vs. goals, you'll find that the latter has a much stronger correlation than the former.

This is one thing that's great about statistics. What you said is very reasonable and intuitive, but is not backed up by the numbers.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Fenwick, as he referenced above, doesn't count blocked shots (like corsi does)

Either way, firing shots at the net doesn't mean you control play more efficiently.

I'm still not sure why possession isn't measured as minutes with the puck.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Either way, firing shots at the net doesn't mean you control play more efficiently.

I'm still not sure why possession isn't measured as minutes with the puck.

It should be.
It will be in the future.
Technology will make that happen.

I don't see these 'fancy' numbers as anything more or less than any other stat. And they are not predictive, except in hindsight - where data will always show that higher 'possession' leads to higher position in standings (all other things being equal, on average) - the catch words that should be included in any stats based discussion.
That said, there are always exceptions.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Either way, firing shots at the net doesn't mean you control play more efficiently.

I'm still not sure why possession isn't measured as minutes with the puck.

The analysis of actual possession showed the best surrogate was shots. That's why it's used. Certainly there's exceptions, but it's actually pretty close.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Regorium

This is untrue. It has been proven that more shots lead to more goals, whereas more shots does not correlate well to a lower shooting percentage.

Here's the data for 2013. http://www.sportingcharts.com/nhl/st...rcentage/2013/

If you plot shots vs. shot%, and shots vs. goals, you'll find that the latter has a much stronger correlation than the former.

This is one thing that's great about statistics. What you said is very reasonable and intuitive, but is not backed up by the numbers.

Just ran the number for everything since the lockout and you are correct.

Correlation(Shots, Goals) = 0.84
Correlation(Shots, Shooting %) = -0.01

The former is obvious. The latter is surprising to me. There is virtually zero correlation between shots and shooting %.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The analysis of actual possession showed the best surrogate was shots. That's why it's used. Certainly there's exceptions, but it's actually pretty close.

But see that's just it. It's a surrogate. It's a projection of possession, but it in no way indicates possession.

Teams play different styles of game. To try to project their possession numbers using one metric (which in no way indicates possession, but rather attempts to make a correlation) is simply puzzling.

And last year, Pittsburgh, Montreal and Minnesota all had low Fenwick percentages while Vancouver, New Jersey and Florida were all above average. We all know how the first group did compared to the second group.

[GioforPM]

Does anyone know the percentage of the Wings in the heyday of their possession game, where Lidstrom, Datsyuk and Zetterberg would control forever and then pass for a great chance? They were considered a great puck possession team, but my completely unsupported sense is they weren't a high shot taking one.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by _Q_

But see that's just it. It's a surrogate. It's a projection of possession, but it in no way indicates possession.

Teams play different styles of game. To try to project their possession numbers using one metric (which in no way indicates possession, but rather attempts to make a correlation) is simply puzzling.

And last year, Pittsburgh, Montreal and Minnesota all had low Fenwick percentages while Vancouver, New Jersey and Florida were all above average. We all know how the first group did compared to the second group.

Right - it's only an indicator of possession, and there will always be exceptions.

But as good an example you would get would be on the Flames. When Giordano and Brodie are on the ice, the Flames outshoot the opposition by a pretty wide margin. It goes with it that the Flames mostly carry the play when they are on the ice. Which is why their corsi/fenwick numbers (particularly relative) are so so high. This also passes the eye test.
And it's pretty simple (not advanced) stuff. The Flames outshoot and therefore outscore the opposition by a wide margin when that defensive pairing is on the ice, and Corsi/fenwick reflects how good they are.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Does anyone know the percentage of the Wings in the heyday of their possession game, where Lidstrom, Datsyuk and Zetterberg would control forever and then pass for a great chance? They were considered a great puck possession team, but my completely unsupported sense is they weren't a high shot taking one.

Detroit's Fenwick-Close

2007: 1st (59%)
2008: 1st (57%)
2009: 4th (58%)
2010: 8th (52%)
2011: 3rd (54%)

I would assume 2005 and 2006 data would be very similar.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Because shots fired at the general direction of the net is a poor indicator of "possession".

Taking 5 shots off a defenceman's shins during a power play doesn't mean you're controlling the puck more efficiently than passing the puck around and waiting for a quality shot.

The counter to "if you're just passing it around without shots you're not getting credit for Fenwick possession numbers" is "if you're just passing it around the other team is not taking shots and therefore not hurting your Fenwick possession numbers".

I haven't run any numbers along with watching games with a stopwatch, but my gut tells me those two effects net off and make shots attempted a pretty good proxy for possession across various styles of play.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Regorium

It seems pretty obvious that higher possession scores correlate well with success. Why are people having a hard time accepting it?

If advanced stats existed in a vacuum I'm sure people would be all over them.

But they don't exist in a vacuum.

By the time the advanced stats crowd has enough data on a season, I would guess most hockey fans could hit that 80% mark of predicting playoff teams right based purely on standings, goal differential and watching the games.

I will start caring about advanced stats the day they predict something interesting.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

The counter to "if you're just passing it around without shots you're not getting credit for Fenwick possession numbers" is "if you're just passing it around the other team is not taking shots and therefore not hurting your Fenwick possession numbers".

Irrelevant. Fenwick numbers are expressed as a percentage of total shots taken, so if you're not getting credit for part of your possession time, you're going to get a skewed picture from what's left.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Itse

If advanced stats existed in a vacuum I'm sure people would be all over them.

But they don't exist in a vacuum.

By the time the advanced stats crowd has enough data on a season, I would guess most hockey fans could hit that 80% mark of predicting playoff teams right based purely on standings, goal differential and watching the games.

I will start caring about advanced stats the day they predict something interesting.

Stats don't predict. They give probabilities. I know a lady who smoked until she died at age 93. Doesn't mean we throw out what we know about smoking and health