November 21 2012 07:40AM
We're back! In this edition of the podcast, we discuss the notion that analytical evaluation these days has taken away the ability to be surprised by the events of a game. Has it changed the way stories are being told? Plus, we look into other ideas such as coaches adapting their style based on the personnel they have in front of them, defensemen requiring a longer time to develop, and some of the lesser talked about components of the Corsi metric.
We would love to hear from you, the listener, for suggestions on future topics of discussion. Rather than us just being in our own little world, we'd like to make this as interactive a show as possible. Feel free to tweet at either Dimitri or Cam .
Click Past the Jump to Listen to the Podcast.
November 20 2012 03:17PM
Last month, I looked at something called individual point percentage (IPP) both for forwards and for defensemen. To recap the concept, individual point percentage is a calculation of the number of times an individual player gets a point (either a goal or an assist) relative to the number of total goals scored while he's on the ice. So, for example, if a player is on the ice for fifty goals-for during five-on-five play over the course of the season and he gets a point on forty of them, his individual point percentage at five-on-five would be 80%.
Most forwards end up at about 70% over the long haul, but there are some that buck the trend. Sidney Crosby led the league over the last four seasons with an IPP of 84%. One of the things discussed in the comments to those posts was what kind of impact playing with a guy like Crosby might have. Points are assigned on a zero-sum basis, so if he's getting more, who's getting less?
November 20 2012 01:28PM
This new, regular feature on NHLNumbers will share interesting stats-related posts from around the web almost every day.
Welcome to edition number 13 of the rebooted Number Chains. In this space you will be able to find the best analytical hockey writing from around the internet on a close-to-daily basis. Subject matter will include statistical evaluation, financial analysis, contractual issues, and (sometimes) closely-related tangential works. If you have something you would like to submit for a future edition (your writing or that of someone else) feel free to send it to me via Twitter @JoshL1220 or leave a comment.
Jesse Spector's series of crazy lockout-ending ideas continued yesterday with his craziest idea yet: play hockey while negotiating. He goes on to explain:
Get back on the ice, start collecting ticket revenue again, start selling merchandise again, and put the game front and center instead of posturing, browbeating, and greed. It’s not only the best way to set about repairing the NHL’s image, which believe it or not still has not hit rock bottom, it is the best way to make a deal.
Every observer agrees that the best chance to make progress on a collective bargaining agreement is to take negotiations out of the public eye. What better way to do that than to bring back hockey and move the CBA backstage?
It actually isn't a bad idea. Unfortunately, as Jesse points out, Donald Fehr suggested as much in September. Since the players suggested it the chances of the owners going along with it are slim to none.
More #fancystats, fan insulting, and mediation fail after the jump.
November 20 2012 07:51AM
Tavares, Sedin of the East
Photo by Michael Miller
Whether coaches have zone start trends is another question I find that I'm asking myself as I build my fantasy prediction model. We know, for instance, that Alain Vigneault uses a drastic zone start deployment, where his 3rd liners would yield virtually no value for fantasy hockey (though they certainly have real-life value) because they start so much of their time in the defensive zone. Why is this important for me? Well, having identified a pretty stable indicator of the amount of on-ice shots a player will take in %AttSh, and knowing that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd lines have typically different amounts of shots-for per 60 minutes, we also need to remember that a coach might affect those shots-for per 60 minutes by having drastically different zone deployments. After the jump, I'm going to look at this question and see what I can find (and potentially use).
November 19 2012 02:58PM
Justin Bourne and I got together to discuss a few things in the realm of hockey analysis recently. The full thing can be found here at Backhand Shelf, but here's a taste of the back and forth :
Perhaps we could discuss this from your latest “Thoughts on Thoughts” piece: “Guys who lose a lot of puck battles end up with poor Corsis, and with the (slight) rise in the prevalence of that stat, I think those guys are going to be more exposed than ever.” Is this something you intuited or is it something that’s been studied? I, personally, assume there could be a relationship there and in fact have thought it would be great if we could track puck battles to see if they correlate with possession (like the way Eric did with zone entries).