Calgarypuck Advanced Stat Summary

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I see them something like 24th in your link, which stat are you looking at in there?

Better than the season where they are worse than only Buffalo and Colorado, but still pretty bad.

I was looking at the close and not score adjusted... just saw they were around 50% in those.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by tknez16

PDO (Shooting % + Save %) – This isn’t a great stat, but it’s the only one that really says “Is this team playing well?” If you have a high shooting percentage and a high save percentage, then you’ll win lots… and that’s obviously not a coincidence.

What this isn’t, is a proxy for luck. Sure, a team that’s lucky will have a higher PDO, but this also reflects skill, both offensive and defensive. If a team has a very high PDO, then it could be either luck or skill (if it’s high enough, then likely both) that cause it. For the Flames, many pundits will say it’s all luck because the story lines going into the season said that the team would be bad. This take is simply bias, just as all of us Flames fans hating their take is our own bias. Media types don’t want to admit they were wrong about the skill level of the team, while fans will tend to overrate their team’s skill level.

Great post.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I don't think you can say a team is bad even though they are winning because their Corsi doesn't match their results, and then turn around and say a team is lucky because their PDO is too high.

That's selective to me.

How can a person be an analytical mind but base all conclusions that don't meet his model on luck, despite the fact that the subject is now on month 14 of driving the same results in the standings.

A scientist would rethink the hypothesis at this point, not continue to mock their subject for not delivering the results that their formula states is a given.

The Avalance are a great case study. The goaltender is always for some reason removed from the team when a team wins or loses. It must be lonely. If you win and you're goalie is your best player (Kiprusoff) then you aren't really deserving to win. If you win and your first line center is your best player nobody bats an eye. Funny dichotomy.

Last season the Avalance won because Varlamov carried them. Everyone talked about sustainability but Varlamov was coming back and is still employed by the team. So why couldn't they sustain it.

Look at the Senators go up and down year to year depending on Anderson's health.

So now you have the Flames on the other hand that have developed a unique system that;

a) relies on a collapse format and take away all blue chip chances
b) counters with odd many quick moving breakouts that result in high scoring chances
c) employ a team full of players that are more talented than the media has yet to recognize.

The players with the high PDO are all on the roster. It's not one guy. They've done it for over a calendar year. It's becoming more statistically relevant every day.

The best of the analytics group is going to get this soon and find a new way of looking at teams like the Flames.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by polak

Which is useless for a real world use. No organization would use a coefficent of correlation that low for any sort of prediction.

You definitely can, and people often do. The R^ is not the problem here. You can only work with the best R^ that you can get your hands on. The key is understanding how predictive/explanatory your R^ is, and how predictive/explanatory it isn't.

The problem lies with guys like Lambert. They don't seem to understand the implications of an R^ of .4 (or whatever Corsi/Fenwick work out to). They accept the data as some sort of factual and absolute predictor of future success instead of what it is, which is a partial explanation of what is happening.

[Enoch Root]

Resolute: that is a very illustrative chart. But I have one question for Yost: why did he use Corsi instead of Fenwick? Answer (almost certainly) is that Corsi fits his narrative better. A far more useful chart for the Flames would be Fenwick (though all the other short-comings remain).

For those that don't know, the difference between Corsi and Fenwick is that Corsi includes blocked shots and Fenwick doesn't. For a team like the Flames, that plays defense by collapsing and blocking a lot of shots, including them is misleading at best.

Yost chose Corsi because he has an agenda. Scientists/analysts do not try to fit data to their narrative. Stats are supposed to be a tool to explain what is happening. If Yost were the analyst he is pretending to be, he would have compared the two because the difference explains part of the Flames' situation.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good narrative?

[EldrickOnIce]

I think this is where we trot out the correlation does not equal causation, and re-inventing the wheel, etc.

Over that same time period, of those 128 teams(that Yost charts):

10 teams with a negative goal differential made the playoffs.

Unequivocally a far more accurate predictor of making the playoffs (compared to 38 negative corsi teams making it). Goal differential is 92% accurate for predicting, compared to 70% corsi predicting. And, it's a lot easier to glance at it and see what's what.

Also, 10 teams with a positive goal differential missed the playoffs. Seems it's about as certain a predictor as one can get.

Flames are +19, 11th in the league.

[domingo]

[QUOTE=Bingo;5133342]Great post.

"I think you've hit the nail on the head. I don't think you can say a team is bad even though they are winning because their Corsi doesn't match their results, and then turn around and say a team is lucky because their PDO is too high.

That's selective to me."

Reminds me of a doctor I once saw. From my blood test, everything is within range. He proclaimed me healthy, despite my feet were visibly swollen and I was in pain most of the time.

Instead of accepting that the blood test does not work in all cases. I was deemed healthy.

Tunnel vision. The method is simply not good enough, at least yet.

[Enoch Root]

Another massive challenge here is that there is far too much noise in the Corsi/Fenwick data.

One of the first things you do when trying to evaluate the predictive power of a statistic, is to isolate it and eliminate as many other variables as possible. With Corsi, that is pretty much impossible. Every aspect of a game is included in the data: all of the players, all of the bounces, all of the saves, all of the blocked shots, offsides, stumbles, sick or injured players, etc, etc. All of it is wrapped up into one nice big package.

Then predictions are made. The easiest prediction in the world is regression to the mean. If a team or player is scoring a lot of goals, or if a goalie is making a lot of saves, it is not hard to predict that they might slow down at some point.

The challenge is in determining when and why.

Currencies are a good example of what I mean. Everyone likes to predict where the dollar is going. And truth be told, it only has two places to go: up or down. And everyone likes to brag that they called it right. But unless they actually predicted when and why it moves, all they have done is land on the same side as the coin toss. There are an incalculable number of variables that affect currency prices. And all of the known facts/events/expectations are already priced in. So predicting what will happen is essentially impossible. But there are only two outcomes in the simplest sense. So people think they in fact did predict the outcome.

The same sort of thing happens here. People see a high PDO or low Corsi or whatever, on a successful team, and they predict that the success can't continue.

Well, guess what? Of course it can't continue! The most reasonable expectation - in EVERY circumstance - is a regression back to the middle of the pack.

So did Corsi accurately predict that Toronto would fall off a cliff? Maybe. Or maybe some of the myriad of other factors hidden in the data changed. Hard to say.

But their prediction was 'right'. So they are more confident in making their next prediction.

Will Calgary regress? Almost assuredly. But what does that mean? Do they start scoring less on the same number of shots? Do they start taking more shots? Do their goalies get better? Worse? Do they acquire different players and produce different results?

The answer is who knows? Corsi doesn't isolate the variables enough to give us any really useful information to predict when or why something might change or not be sustainable.

But it's the best people have. And people want to do analyses and make predictions and sound smart. And sooner or later, a given team's success will revert to the middle of the pack and everyone who predicted it can say they were right.

[polak]

It's very possible to have a successful system that isn't driven by possession. This is particularly true if you have a small, inexperienced team with young talent (i.e. Flames). For example, Shooting is a skill that is not relative to your opposition. If you can shoot the puck it doesn't matter if you're shooting in an NHL game or alone in a backyard rink, a good shot is a good shot. Possession on the other hand is relative to your opposition. If you're inexperienced and small relative to your opposition, you are likely going to have a hard time maintaining possession. So why dismiss the Flames because they acknowledged this deficiency in size and experience and built their system around shot blocking, conditioning, strong break out rushes and high percentage shots? To me that sounds a lot less like "Luck" and a lot more like awesome coaching. It’s very obvious in the Flames game. They usually lose the puck when battling in the corners or trying to cycle but when they’re passing on the rush , it almost seems like they can’t be stopped.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by polak

It's very possible to have a successful system that isn't driven by possession. This is particularly true if you have a small, inexperienced team with young talent (i.e. Flames). For example, Shooting is a skill that is not relative to your opposition. If you can shoot the puck it doesn't matter if you're shooting in an NHL game or alone in a backyard rink, a good shot is a good shot. Possession on the other hand is relative to your opposition. If you're inexperienced and small relative to your opposition, you are likely going to have a hard time maintaining possession. So why dismiss the Flames because they acknowledged this deficiency in size and experience and built their system around shot blocking, conditioning, strong break out rushes and high percentage shots? To me that sounds a lot less like "Luck" and a lot more like awesome coaching. It’s very obvious in the Flames game. They usually lose the puck when battling in the corners or trying to cycle but when they’re passing on the rush , it almost seems like they can’t be stopped.

Shooting is absolutely a relative stat. Good shot or not, the rate at which it goes in is relative to the team played. You don't really get to choose on your own where you shoot it from our where the goalie puts his body

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yost chose Corsi because he has an agenda.

He does? Perhaps he just feels Corsi is a better metric for future prediction? I haven't gotten any kind of agenda vibe in his writings for TSN.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But why let the facts get in the way of a good narrative?

But definitely let assumptions (like "agendas") inform a good rant?

[Finger Cookin]

The Flames are exceeding expectations this season because of a 10-3 OT/shootout record. Those results are more variable and less repeatable, at least with any of the metrics currently being used. The weird OT results skew a lot of the other numbers being analysed.

The rest is just noise.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Resolute: that is a very illustrative chart. But I have one question for Yost: why did he use Corsi instead of Fenwick? Answer (almost certainly) is that Corsi fits his narrative better. A far more useful chart for the Flames would be Fenwick (though all the other short-comings remain).

I think you are assuming malice where it doesn't exist. Yost does make some silly points in the article, but the thrust of his article was not to trash the Flames. Rather, he was trying to explain them. As to why he chose Corsi, I would suspect it is simply because that stat is the far more commonly used of the two.

I haven't seen a similar chart for Fenwick, but in comparison to last year's Leafs and Avs, our Fenwick doesn't change much relative to our Corsi.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

The Flames are exceeding expectations this season because of a 10-3 OT/shootout record. Those results are more variable and less repeatable, at least with any of the metrics currently being used. The weird OT results skew a lot of the other numbers being analysed.

The rest is just noise.

I would say our intra-divisional record is far more significant than our OT record. In a system where seven teams are fighting for three spots, crushing the other six offers a significant advantage.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Shooting is absolutely a relative stat. Good shot or not, the rate at which it goes in is relative to the team played. You don't really get to choose on your own where you shoot it from our where the goalie puts his body

I mean shooting skill in itself. Not the shot %. Stop thinking statistics for a minute, I'm trying to give some explaination for what Lambart calls "Luck".

If you are good at shooting the puck, you're more likely to score in a tough position then someone who is less talented at shooting the puck, correct?

Obviously a good defensive team is going to stop you from getting in a good scoring position. That's why the Flames aren't 1st overall. But it's still possible to build a system around the idea that we have highly skilled shooters on our team (who are inexperienced and small, and thus have a hard time maintaining a cycle) and thats what the Flames have obivously done. Run and Gun and get back to block shots instead of Cycling until you can get into a scoring position. That's why we see success when we have Johnny and Hudler going end to end instead of them dumping and cycling.

The best part is that it's working. We found a system that works with our skills and makes up for our lack of experience and size.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I would say our intra-divisional record is far more significant than our OT record. In a system where seven teams are fighting for three spots, crushing the other six offers a significant advantage.

Fair point - I wonder how many of out OT/shootout games have been against the division? I'm going to see if I can look that up in a quick/dirty fashion.

EDIT: 6 of our 13 OT/shootout results are against divisional opponents. We are 5-1 in those games.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by polak

I mean shooting skill in itself. Not the shot %. Stop thinking statistics for a minute, I'm trying to give some explaination for what Lambart calls "Luck".

If you are good at shooting the puck, you're more likely to score in a tough position then someone who is less talented at shooting the puck, correct?

Obviously a good defensive team is going to stop you from getting in a good scoring position. That's why the Flames aren't 1st overall. But it's still possible to build a system around that idea and thats what the Flames have obivously done. Run and Gun and get back to block shots instead of Cycling until you can get into a scoring position. That's why we see success when we have Johnny and Hudler going end to end instead of them dumping and cycling.

Possession teams don't "dump and cycle" though. Carrying the puck into the zone is key to high corsi.

I see now what you're saying, but I'm not sure it works. If your team has players with "good shots" then more shots would be better, no? The flames allow the opposition to take a ton of shots from key scoring areas and don't take hardly any shots (talking attempts here). What in that info suggests that this is part of a plan when you have good shooters?

My take is that their breakout is the stretch pass more than other teams. That allows the other team more possession as it doesn't work as often as carrying it in. It increases the likelihood of scoring of the rush as well as having enough players back to block shots and clog lanes. None of that is predicated on the quality of the players' shots.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I think you are assuming malice where it doesn't exist. Yost does make some silly points in the article, but the thrust of his article was not to trash the Flames. Rather, he was trying to explain them. As to why he chose Corsi, I would suspect it is simply because that stat is the far more commonly used of the two.

I haven't seen a similar chart for Fenwick, but in comparison to last year's Leafs and Avs, our Fenwick doesn't change much relative to our Corsi.

Ok, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that Corsi is simply more common.

That doesn't excuse him from the simple and obvious step of analysing blocked shots as an aspect of the Flames' game strategy that would need to be considered in even the most rudimentary analysis of their possession numbers.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Ok, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that Corsi is simply more common.

That doesn't excuse him from the simple and obvious step of analysing blocked shots as an aspect of the Flames' game strategy that would need to be considered in even the most rudimentary analysis of their possession numbers.

It isn't relative to the predictive power of corsi though. While it's an effective strategy in isolation, corsi% is more predictive than Fenwick% so it's not really relevant to the discussion. Especially when you consider that if you look at Fenwick, flames are still right near the bottom.

It still doesn't change the equation or explain anything. In this example (the Flames) it's superfluous.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

My take is that their breakout is the stretch pass more than other teams. That allows the other team more possession as it doesn't work as often as carrying it in. It increases the likelihood of scoring of the rush as well as having enough players back to block shots and clog lanes. None of that is predicated on the quality of the players' shots.

Actually I think that's an even better way of explaining it. I change my answer!!!

My point still fits your support. They built a system around the North South, quick passing game. More likely to end in a turnover then setting up shop but when it does work, it's far more likely to end in a good scoring chance then blasting shots on net.

It's not "luck" like Lambert so eloquently put it.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by polak

Actually I think that's an even better way of explaining it. I change my answer!!!

My point still fits your support. They built a system around the North South, quick passing game. More likely to end in a turnover then setting up shop but when it does work, it's far more likely to end in a good scoring chance then blasting shots on net.

It's not "luck" like Lambert so eloquently put it.

I agree it's not luck. You don't get lucky over a 100 game sample