Not to worry; this won't last says Myrtle

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

My read of the shot quality arguments are that they tend to come out in the wash at least over a season long sample. There's very little statistical difference between total shots and shot quality.

Are you aware of a meaningful correlation between Shooting % and Distance from which the shot was taken?

If so, it would seem to be a way to layer shot quality onto Corsi/Fenwick and other shot or possession type measures.

[djsFlames]

Let's get one thing straight - the biggest anomaly in the league is, bar none, the Habs.

What a joke that that team has a 3 point cushion on the top of the standings. They are a mere mediocre .500 against western teams, which begs the question: exactly how bad is the overall quality of eastern conference teams, to be continually rolling over for that team? The Flames convincingly trampled them in both games they played. The first in which Price was the full difference in them stealing a point out of it. We're playing great this year, but in no way should we be beating a true #1 team in the league in that fashion. Habs are a pig 3 inches deep with lipstick, riding on Price's back.

I honestly think they'd be on the level of the Jets in the western conference, maybe slightly better.

The thread comments should've been directed at Montreal, not Toronto. We can expect a fall from Toronto every year. It's no surprise to any one anymore.

[Gaudfather]

What would the advance analytics analysts do with this:

Randy Sportak @SUNRandySportak · 2 hrs 2 hours ago
#Flames stat that makes you go hmm: They’ve been outshot 182-148 in 3rd periods this season, but outscored the opposition 24-11.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Gaudfather

What would the advance analytics analysts do with this:

Randy Sportak @SUNRandySportak · 2 hrs 2 hours ago
#Flames stat that makes you go hmm: They’ve been outshot 182-148 in 3rd periods this season, but outscored the opposition 24-11.

Probably ask what the scores have been in those periods. All other things being equal, teams trailing tend to take more shots than teams leading.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Gaudfather

What would the advance analytics analysts do with this:

Randy Sportak @SUNRandySportak · 2 hrs 2 hours ago
#Flames stat that makes you go hmm: They’ve been outshot 182-148 in 3rd periods this season, but outscored the opposition 24-11.

They would probably say its flukey. Although with the Flames winning most of their games they are defending and deal with team's who are pushing rather than going all out to score themselves.

[PeteMoss]

Good discussion in here as well.

[indes]

The flames entire style in the defensive zone is to box the other team out with all 5 players. If you watch they basically play the PK at ES.

The flames continuously give free shots from the outside while clogging the middle and blocking shots. It does hinder their breakout which is why we see so many stretch passes, as the forwards go up from the middle instead of the wall.

Honestly our PDO comes mostly from our defensive system where we encourage other teams to shoot from the outside. Plenty of shots and plenty of easy saves.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by indes

The flames entire style in the defensive zone is to box the other team out with all 5 players. If you watch they basically play the PK at ES.

The flames continuously give free shots from the outside while clogging the middle and blocking shots. It does hinder their breakout which is why we see so many stretch passes, as the forwards go up from the middle instead of the wall.

Honestly our PDO comes mostly from our defensive system where we encourage other teams to shoot from the outside. Plenty of shots and plenty of easy saves.

I remember a Calgary Dallas game several years ago, in which the Flames won 1-0, despite being outshot by around double.

The Stars "dominated" possession, by a huge amount in that game, and had many shots on goal. However, almost all the shots were from a long ways away, with noone in front of the net. I think they really only had one true scoring oppurtunity in the whole game, which happened with the two man advantage.

It's games like that can really skew advanced stats. Any advanced stat would tell you that Dallas dominated that game. However, from watching it, they didn't dominate at all. Calgary let them shoot long distance, unscreened shots at will, but that by no means that Dallas dominated.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I'd blame the 3-11-1 stretch more on Giordano being hurt than bad luck.

That and mediocre goaltending. Ramo was worse the first half of last year and Berra let in some real untimely ones.

Our goaltending is a lot more solid this season.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It's been looked at a few times I believe and your read was upheld.

While in small sample sizes shot quality may vary, by the time a reasonable sample is there it's all equal

So, and I am honestly asking, is it off base to say our sport requires more of a long term look to establish the legitimacy of advance stats?

Is it more advantageous to ignore them until game 70...well maybe not all of them but some of them, such as shot quality?

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Then we're watching different coverage. 90 per cent of the commentary about the Flames this year has been highly positive. The universal praise of the work ethic of the team. The excitement over Gaudreau. All the praise for Giordano.

But one or two commentators make one or two remarks that the team success might not last, and it's time to circle the wagons against all those mean guys in the media who hate the Flames.

Christ we have a thin-skinned fanbase.

And let's be honest guys - if advanced stats analysis earmarked the Flames as one of the better teams in the league, this forum would be nodding in agreement at the predictive quality of advanced stats.

This....is not news Cliff lol.

We have little brother syndrome in a big way...it's what makes us awesome....or not awesome, I can't decide.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

His full-time job is hockey analyst. I assume most people on this forum have jobs that keep them busy 40+ hours a week, and maybe even leisure activities outside watching hockey.

If that's not the case, then you fall into the 10 per cent. Congratulations. You're devoting as much time and energy into analyzing hockey as full-time journalists. And not getting paid for it. Give yourself a pat on the back.

Whoooosh!!!

[Frequitude]

I really like war-on-ice's Team Hextally tool. It basically breaks down the types of shots teams take and allow from various points on the ice. Link here. Here's a blog post explaning the tool in more detail.

To demonstrate some of the discussions above (Calgary's system, that Calgary vs Edmonton game), I pulled the two teams shot rates for and against from different areas relative to league averages.


Calgary



Edmonton




Basically, red areas are associated witbh above average rates and have numbers in excess of 1.0. Blue areas are associated witbh below average rates and have numbers lower than 1.0.


Some conclusions that can be drawn from these charts:
-Most of Calgary's shot's for numbers are less than 1 which supports that we're getting drastically outshot.
-The few areas where Calgary is above average is in the low slot (a good thing)
-Calgary allows a lot of shots right around the net (a bad thing?) but not just in front of the net (a good thing?). We also seem to keep most of our shots against above the faceoff dots (a good thing?)
-Edmonton's shots are taken from the point (Shultz I assume) and quite a few down low in close which good for them.
-Edmonton allows a lot of shots from the low slot in the middle of the ice (a bad thing)


Disclaimer is clearly that I am an engineer and hockey fan who has never actually played a game of organized hockey in my life. So these are just my takes. Go in and play around though. Its a great tool.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

So, and I am honestly asking, is it off base to say our sport requires more of a long term look to establish the legitimacy of advance stats?

Is it more advantageous to ignore them until game 70...well maybe not all of them but some of them, such as shot quality?

The advanced stats are not useful for determining the outcome of a particular game, but are useful for identifying long-term trends. For example, you'll find that teams who have very high Fenwick close numbers tend to go deep in the playoffs.

Does this mean that a team with a low Fenwick can't, or that a high Fenwick is guaranteed to? Of course not, no more than it guarantees a guy with a .120 batting average will strike out facing Kershaw.

When a team is experiencing success and has good fancy-stat numbers, we can say that it is likely their success will continue, when a team is having success but poor fancy-stat numbers, the likelihood is that their success will end, but it is only a probability, not a guarantee. The worse the fancy-stats, the higher the probability.

There was a site - I think it was extraskater.com, which is gone now - that was doing rolling 10-game Fenwick and Corsi. That is the stat I would look at if I were going to make an argument about what a team's short-term prospects for success would be, as it's slightly more indicative of current performance.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

You're wrong, though. I suppose it depends on your qualifier on "outlying", but almost universally a PDO that is significantly higher than 1 will regress to the mean. That's not fallacy, that's fact.

For example. Take any PDO over 1.02 for a season. Now add the season before it. Guess what, whatever sample you chose will now be lower. The top PDO and bottom PDO in the league all get smaller as the sample size gets bigger.

If you are calling a PDO of over 1.02 an outlyer, then yes, for one season that's possible. Colorado did it last year. How did that work out?

I think you are both right, actually.

As the sample gets larger, PDO almost always continues to regress to 1.

However, I would agree that it is fair to say PDO itself is not predictive. Certainly in the arguments I made in response to _Q_'s posts, my belief that certain teams will see a rise or drop in PDO is based off other stats - primarily Corsi and Fenwick, zone starts/finishes, faceoff locations. Basically, where the puck seems to spend much of its time. Those are the ones that are predicting a change in success.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I think you are both right, actually.

As the sample gets larger, PDO almost always continues to regress to 1.

However, I would agree that it is fair to say PDO itself is not predictive. Certainly in the arguments I made in response to _Q_'s posts, my belief that certain teams will see a rise or drop in PDO is based off other stats - primarily Corsi and Fenwick, zone starts/finishes, faceoff locations. Basically, where the puck seems to spend much of its time. Those are the ones that are predicting a change in success.

I disagree a little bit. A high PDO (subjective and contextual) is reasonably predictive of some future events, particularly goal differential

[BACKCHECK!!!]

I don't feel like crunching too many numbers here, but the first team I checked was the Pens, and they've averaged a PDO of 101.4 over a sample size of the past EIGHT YEARS. Only once in that span did they ever dip below 100.

I don't know what more you want than that.

"Well, SURE, I mean ANY team can play over their heads for eight years. But its not SUSTAINABLE."

[Badgers Nose]

Myrtle fails to mention the only thing that matters to real fans.

The way this team plays, even if they were 0-19 they would still be fun to watch. I'll take the hard working kids playing over their heads versus old entitled millionaires who only want to play when scouts for playoff bound teams are in the stands.

Anyone who watched a bunch of games last year knew the odds were good this team would take step forward this year. This season so far is way beyond reasnable expectations coould have predicted in September, but even if it comes back down to earth at the end of the year I am confident all the hard work will mean this team is another step closer to success.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

I don't feel like crunching too many numbers here, but the first team I checked was the Pens, and they've averaged a PDO of 101.4 over a sample size of the past EIGHT YEARS. Only once in that span did they ever dip below 100.

I don't know what more you want than that.

"Well, SURE, I mean ANY team can play over their heads for eight years. But its not SUSTAINABLE."

They have the best player in the world dude. And another who's at least top 5.

[foshizzle11]

What about a stat like scoring chances? Or quality of scoring chances per game. Does that come into play and how are the flames compared to the teams who dominated them this season?