For completeness: the stats from the final Canadiens game of 20(12)-13:
Showing posts with label Corsi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corsi. Show all posts
Friday, May 10, 2013
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Ottawa-Montreal Game #4:
Possession Statistics
Here they are, the possession stats for last night's debacle. All the goals happened at ES, so this pretty much tells the whole story.
Tuesday, May 07, 2013
Ottawa-Montreal Game #3:
Possession Statistics
Apologies for the delay on this one. Had some responsibilities.
Have a look at this though, it's amusing, you'd never know it was from that one-sided disaster we just saw. Goes once again to show that these stats must always be used with other measures to provide proper context and balance.
Have a look at this though, it's amusing, you'd never know it was from that one-sided disaster we just saw. Goes once again to show that these stats must always be used with other measures to provide proper context and balance.
Saturday, May 04, 2013
Friday, May 03, 2013
Ottawa-Montreal Game #1:
Possession Statistics
You've all seen the standard boxscore for the game. So you now know who scored (in case you forgot) and who got the penalties. But what beyond that?
Well you know how all the geeky fans are referencing things like possession stats, scoring chances and all that? We decided it was high time that a boxscore illuminated us on this information on a game by game basis. Below you'll find the first prototype. The stats included (all for 5-on-5 play) include:
Well you know how all the geeky fans are referencing things like possession stats, scoring chances and all that? We decided it was high time that a boxscore illuminated us on this information on a game by game basis. Below you'll find the first prototype. The stats included (all for 5-on-5 play) include:
Monday, January 09, 2012
Habs By Half:
League-Indexed Shot Metrics
I didn't have the time to do the LIW pie charts for you this time, but thought you'd still all like to see the data. It comes from Behindthenet.ca and shows even strength scoring for and against together with shot metrics (shots, misses, blocks) pooled into attempts on net.
As you'll see, there are colours to indicate where the members of the Canadiens fall amongst the 700+ players that have played 10 or more games this season. It's not a perfect assessment, but it does give some context which is good when looking at single team's worth of numbers.
General notes
Just before the data, some general notes. Behindthenet is best for looking at ES data (and by that I mean only 5-on-5). And the Habs, as bad as they have been in our perception and the unforgiving standings are actually a good even strength (5-on-5) team thus far this season.
The team ranks 10th in goals for at ES/60 and 21st for GA/60, but come out even (with 1 more goal against than for). As a result, the Habs come up in the whole rainbow of colours and seem about an average team -- despite the obvious possibility as suggested by the January 9th standings that they are below average.
Anyway, keep that in mind as you peruse.
Forwards (ranked by ES TOI)
Notes on the forwards:
Who's good? Who's bad? This chart really does contain a lot to both reinforce perception and blow it right out of the water.
Take Scott Gomez. His Corsi number is staggering and it's based on a top-notch offensive generation of attempts, together with a well above average defensive prevention of attempts. It's food for thought for those who still think he's good for nothing. I still contend there's food for thought for those who need to reconcile what we see with this.
The other excellence that shows are Louis Leblanc's and Andreas Engqvist's goals against in only a few games, and Pacioretty and Palushaj's shots for. Of the four stats, I think we should probably only take the Pacioretty attempt generation stat too too seriously. The guy shoots. He didn't use to, but now he does at league leading levels. Unfortunately for Max, he's practically team leader in misses and blocked shots per game too, so his attempts should be viewed with this consideration. Concern perhaps also that for 63 releases of the puck, this goalscorer's line is outside the top 20% of all players in the league for goals per ice time.
ON the negative side of things, Blunden whose low ice time should probably not be questioned despite his recent skill display, and the offensive output of virtually the whole fourth line. Palushaj, either very unlucky or very keen on shooting from the worst possible positions was getting a goal per 100 of his line's league top ten percent chances taken. The word waste might be considered.
The other, and perhaps more surprising, member of the bottom 10% club is Tomas Plekanec at even strength GAA. A relic from the 1980s, his 3.47 must surely be a matter for concern going forward. It takes away attention from the high attempts against number as well, which is practically team worst at this point.
Guys that avail themselves well here: Cole, Leblanc and Engqvist!
Guys that need to pull up their skates (a lot): Plekanec and Nokelainen
And on a team that flutters about the uninspirational average in this area, the rest of the guys display positives, but not too many and negatives, but not too few.
Defencemen (ranked by ES TOI)
Notes on the defence:
St. Denis had an excellent spell. And were it not for just about every other Dman being a rookie on the team, I think he'd get a longer chance. Talk about shielding all you want, one still has to perform under the shield and this AHLer clearly outperformed the lower line NHLers he was put out against.
Gorges has been the best all-rounder, but is painfully average in all but goals for (which if you have to choose one category is probably best).
Campoli is on paper exactly as he is on the ice, a nightmare on the back end, but in the NHL because somehow he involves himself with goalscoring.
Subban deserves credit for his balance sheet, as he plays against the better opponents all the time. His goals are balanced and his shots balance is slightly in favour of offence. He certainly hasn't put on the flash of last playoffs this season, but is becoming a more stable option according to these stats.
The rest are blending a bit. Gill and Kaberle nearly share a profile which is wacky. Showing that Gill is neither as good as he was once was at stopping chances or those that become goals and Kaberle is no longer that great at producing them or the goals.
Emelin, Diaz are learning and have the requisite below average marks, but could be worse. Weber still learning too, perhaps suffering from being at different positions.
As you'll see, there are colours to indicate where the members of the Canadiens fall amongst the 700+ players that have played 10 or more games this season. It's not a perfect assessment, but it does give some context which is good when looking at single team's worth of numbers.
General notes
Just before the data, some general notes. Behindthenet is best for looking at ES data (and by that I mean only 5-on-5). And the Habs, as bad as they have been in our perception and the unforgiving standings are actually a good even strength (5-on-5) team thus far this season.
The team ranks 10th in goals for at ES/60 and 21st for GA/60, but come out even (with 1 more goal against than for). As a result, the Habs come up in the whole rainbow of colours and seem about an average team -- despite the obvious possibility as suggested by the January 9th standings that they are below average.
Anyway, keep that in mind as you peruse.
Forwards (ranked by ES TOI)
Notes on the forwards:
Who's good? Who's bad? This chart really does contain a lot to both reinforce perception and blow it right out of the water.
Take Scott Gomez. His Corsi number is staggering and it's based on a top-notch offensive generation of attempts, together with a well above average defensive prevention of attempts. It's food for thought for those who still think he's good for nothing. I still contend there's food for thought for those who need to reconcile what we see with this.
The other excellence that shows are Louis Leblanc's and Andreas Engqvist's goals against in only a few games, and Pacioretty and Palushaj's shots for. Of the four stats, I think we should probably only take the Pacioretty attempt generation stat too too seriously. The guy shoots. He didn't use to, but now he does at league leading levels. Unfortunately for Max, he's practically team leader in misses and blocked shots per game too, so his attempts should be viewed with this consideration. Concern perhaps also that for 63 releases of the puck, this goalscorer's line is outside the top 20% of all players in the league for goals per ice time.
ON the negative side of things, Blunden whose low ice time should probably not be questioned despite his recent skill display, and the offensive output of virtually the whole fourth line. Palushaj, either very unlucky or very keen on shooting from the worst possible positions was getting a goal per 100 of his line's league top ten percent chances taken. The word waste might be considered.
The other, and perhaps more surprising, member of the bottom 10% club is Tomas Plekanec at even strength GAA. A relic from the 1980s, his 3.47 must surely be a matter for concern going forward. It takes away attention from the high attempts against number as well, which is practically team worst at this point.
Guys that avail themselves well here: Cole, Leblanc and Engqvist!
Guys that need to pull up their skates (a lot): Plekanec and Nokelainen
And on a team that flutters about the uninspirational average in this area, the rest of the guys display positives, but not too many and negatives, but not too few.
Defencemen (ranked by ES TOI)
Notes on the defence:
St. Denis had an excellent spell. And were it not for just about every other Dman being a rookie on the team, I think he'd get a longer chance. Talk about shielding all you want, one still has to perform under the shield and this AHLer clearly outperformed the lower line NHLers he was put out against.
Gorges has been the best all-rounder, but is painfully average in all but goals for (which if you have to choose one category is probably best).
Campoli is on paper exactly as he is on the ice, a nightmare on the back end, but in the NHL because somehow he involves himself with goalscoring.
Subban deserves credit for his balance sheet, as he plays against the better opponents all the time. His goals are balanced and his shots balance is slightly in favour of offence. He certainly hasn't put on the flash of last playoffs this season, but is becoming a more stable option according to these stats.
The rest are blending a bit. Gill and Kaberle nearly share a profile which is wacky. Showing that Gill is neither as good as he was once was at stopping chances or those that become goals and Kaberle is no longer that great at producing them or the goals.
Emelin, Diaz are learning and have the requisite below average marks, but could be worse. Weber still learning too, perhaps suffering from being at different positions.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The Importance of Context
Hockey blogging and stats dredging were born around the same time. Since that time, there has been an expanding following for "advanced" statistics. From the Oilogosphere, the adoption of Corsi, Fenwick, scoring chances and other new ways of twisting the NHL stats record have popped up.
I like to think I was a relatively early adopter of these things. I was excited about the possibilities of Corsi before Toronto missed the playoffs for the 2nd season in a row. I was liking where the future of player analysis was going.
What I've noticed lately, however, is that I am increasingly jaded with the whole lot of them. I still track the numbers and keep a record. I still think there is value to the data. I suppose what I am finding is that I am finding many people to stretch interpretation beyond its bounds. Sometimes simple numbers like shots (on net or off net) are given far too much importance and stretched too thin.
What prompted me to write this piece was a simple segue link from Habs Eyes on the Prize:
In Winnipeg, it was a bit different. The Canadiens scored on their second shot of the game off a steal in the neutral zone. It was a killer play, but in the world of trying to find enough stats in order to create a meaningful sample, it was only a single shot on net, a single positive point towards Corsi. In the context of the game, however, it caused Winnipeg to change gameplan -- something which opened them up to further breakthrough passes.
Remember limitations
You can see the importance of context here. We all watch the Canadiens a fair bit and know that when they get a lead they are not a team that risks much to press for a bigger lead. Their preference is to guard 1-0 or 2-1 than to find breathing room at the risk of leaving that tying goalscoring chance to the opponent.
We may or may not agree with the strategy (my nerves don't agree), but the time for that discussion is later. The point here is that we don't need to leave that observation out of our interpretations of things.
Did Montreal play better against Toronto than they did against Winnipeg? Well, no. If the goal is to win by scoring, the Toronto game for all the defensive poise and nice breakouts did not produce a single seam cutting pass like the Moen PK effort. There was not a rush with a wide open goalscorer getting a clear shot like Pacioretty's goal. There were only shots in volume hoping to go in.
If every win and loss this season follow the pattern of the first two games (unlikely, but bear with me), then let's please not extol the virtues of the positive Fenwick/Corsi man too much. Rather we might need to consider a better way to evaluate a team that buttons up when it's winning and only pours on shots when it's not. Remembering of course that winning is better than not winning.
I still encourage everyone to read up on these stats. I encourage everyone to get their fill of Olivier and Chris Boucher's efforts (and they're big efforts). But if you can be left feeling that the stats do not gibe with what you have just seen, question the statistics as well as observer bias.
The answer to everything has not yet been found. And it's only questioning that will get us there.
To be completely fair to Boucher, his piece is not one of the pieces I am talking about. He approaches his data like a scientist in a discussion section of a published paper. It's all questions and few presumptions. Sorry Chris that it was your piece that set me off then.
Apology aside now. Let's look simply at the Canadiens first two games.
Stats without context
In the first game the Habs lost to the Toronto Maple Leafs yet outshot them and pretty widely outstretched the Leafs in Fenwick and Corsi. If you only looked at that one element of the game then the Habs were the better team. If the Habs played like this all season, we'd hear how good they were and how they were incredibly unlucky not to score.
In their second game, the Habs were widely outshot, their Fenwick was overall worse than the Jets and so was their Corsi. it was the reverse in terms of these statistics of the Toronto game. The Habs should have lost and if they played like this all season we'd be hearing (like we did in the playoffs of 2010) how lucky the team was and how they didn't deserve anything they were getting.
A dash of context
OK, now how about some context.
In the Toronto game, I would take that above analysis for the first period. The Habs did outplay Toronto and were unlucky (somewhat) not to be winning. They'd have been quite unlucky to be losing. They were a bit unlucky to be losing 33 seconds into the second period, in fact, when they allowed a short-handed goal. But after that, the game changed to the observer. The Leafs seemed to find a new gear and the Canadiens mustered almost nothing of threat for 30 minutes or more. For more than half the game, the Canadiens were in fact the far worse team despite the average Corsi. The NHL record says they had 4 shots to the Leafs 8 in the second period. Olivier recorded chances though as 0 to 12.
I like to think I was a relatively early adopter of these things. I was excited about the possibilities of Corsi before Toronto missed the playoffs for the 2nd season in a row. I was liking where the future of player analysis was going.
What I've noticed lately, however, is that I am increasingly jaded with the whole lot of them. I still track the numbers and keep a record. I still think there is value to the data. I suppose what I am finding is that I am finding many people to stretch interpretation beyond its bounds. Sometimes simple numbers like shots (on net or off net) are given far too much importance and stretched too thin.
What prompted me to write this piece was a simple segue link from Habs Eyes on the Prize:
In Winnipeg, it was a bit different. The Canadiens scored on their second shot of the game off a steal in the neutral zone. It was a killer play, but in the world of trying to find enough stats in order to create a meaningful sample, it was only a single shot on net, a single positive point towards Corsi. In the context of the game, however, it caused Winnipeg to change gameplan -- something which opened them up to further breakthrough passes.
Remember limitations
You can see the importance of context here. We all watch the Canadiens a fair bit and know that when they get a lead they are not a team that risks much to press for a bigger lead. Their preference is to guard 1-0 or 2-1 than to find breathing room at the risk of leaving that tying goalscoring chance to the opponent.
We may or may not agree with the strategy (my nerves don't agree), but the time for that discussion is later. The point here is that we don't need to leave that observation out of our interpretations of things.
Did Montreal play better against Toronto than they did against Winnipeg? Well, no. If the goal is to win by scoring, the Toronto game for all the defensive poise and nice breakouts did not produce a single seam cutting pass like the Moen PK effort. There was not a rush with a wide open goalscorer getting a clear shot like Pacioretty's goal. There were only shots in volume hoping to go in.
If every win and loss this season follow the pattern of the first two games (unlikely, but bear with me), then let's please not extol the virtues of the positive Fenwick/Corsi man too much. Rather we might need to consider a better way to evaluate a team that buttons up when it's winning and only pours on shots when it's not. Remembering of course that winning is better than not winning.
I still encourage everyone to read up on these stats. I encourage everyone to get their fill of Olivier and Chris Boucher's efforts (and they're big efforts). But if you can be left feeling that the stats do not gibe with what you have just seen, question the statistics as well as observer bias.
The answer to everything has not yet been found. And it's only questioning that will get us there.
"Chris Boucher's analysis shows the Habs played better against the Toronto Maple Leafs than the Winnipeg Jets."
To be completely fair to Boucher, his piece is not one of the pieces I am talking about. He approaches his data like a scientist in a discussion section of a published paper. It's all questions and few presumptions. Sorry Chris that it was your piece that set me off then.
Apology aside now. Let's look simply at the Canadiens first two games.
Stats without context
In the first game the Habs lost to the Toronto Maple Leafs yet outshot them and pretty widely outstretched the Leafs in Fenwick and Corsi. If you only looked at that one element of the game then the Habs were the better team. If the Habs played like this all season, we'd hear how good they were and how they were incredibly unlucky not to score.
In their second game, the Habs were widely outshot, their Fenwick was overall worse than the Jets and so was their Corsi. it was the reverse in terms of these statistics of the Toronto game. The Habs should have lost and if they played like this all season we'd be hearing (like we did in the playoffs of 2010) how lucky the team was and how they didn't deserve anything they were getting.
A dash of context
OK, now how about some context.
In the Toronto game, I would take that above analysis for the first period. The Habs did outplay Toronto and were unlucky (somewhat) not to be winning. They'd have been quite unlucky to be losing. They were a bit unlucky to be losing 33 seconds into the second period, in fact, when they allowed a short-handed goal. But after that, the game changed to the observer. The Leafs seemed to find a new gear and the Canadiens mustered almost nothing of threat for 30 minutes or more. For more than half the game, the Canadiens were in fact the far worse team despite the average Corsi. The NHL record says they had 4 shots to the Leafs 8 in the second period. Olivier recorded chances though as 0 to 12.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
If Gomez Were Gomez Apologist
Today, we have a "revelation" of a headline following Dave Stubbs interview with Scott Gomez:
Thank goodness for instance that Scott Gomez doesn't count himself among those who seem to believe that Scott Gomez didn't do anything wrong last season (or rather did almost everything he could have to help the Canadiens). Those who would rely on the ever equitable waters of luck lapping once more on his shooting blade.
If Gomez were an apologist for himself like so many, he'd have taken the summer off. He'd be confident in the knowledge that even lifetime 7% shooters won't shoot 4.5% forever. That guys who put up a positive Corsi number should win because they score more goals (at 5:5). He'd rely on his salary to guarantee management wouldn't demote him and his baseline skill to perform the basic duties of a centre better than all but one other available option.
No, Gomez isn't an apologist. He took his apology and did something about not having to issue another one.
The coin flip of shooting luck may well be on his side. But it's good to know he's not counting on it.
Note: I have apologised on Gomez's behalf in the past, but always believed that it was the lack of talent surrounding him that led him to his dead-ends on so many nights. I believe strongly that the option of five wingers ahead of Moen will help, but also that if he ends up playing with Moen or whoever ends up filling the "Pyatt" role again, he'll be looking for that apology speech regardless of Corsi sorting itself out or not.
Montreal Canadiens' Scott Gomez looking to bounce back this seasonThe interview, which I think is sold short by the obvious headline, is very interesting and candid. The interview got me thinking about Scott Gomez.
Thank goodness for instance that Scott Gomez doesn't count himself among those who seem to believe that Scott Gomez didn't do anything wrong last season (or rather did almost everything he could have to help the Canadiens). Those who would rely on the ever equitable waters of luck lapping once more on his shooting blade.
"Normally, Gomez would have charted a path directly home to Alaska, where he enjoys his family and the great outdoors.This isn't a guarantee of change, but it's a sign that Scott took action to back up his end of year apology for his form. It's a sign that he's doing what he can (it's unlikely he'll learn to shoot like Ovechkin in this lifetime) to improve in areas of the game where he can. Perhaps he'll get more space at the end of shifts from better fitness, perhaps he'll win a few more battles for position. That in turn may be all the help he and his line needs to turn what were a lot of errant shots into dangerous chances this year.
Not this summer. He headed to New York and after about one week off he returned to the gym with a personal trainer."
If Gomez were an apologist for himself like so many, he'd have taken the summer off. He'd be confident in the knowledge that even lifetime 7% shooters won't shoot 4.5% forever. That guys who put up a positive Corsi number should win because they score more goals (at 5:5). He'd rely on his salary to guarantee management wouldn't demote him and his baseline skill to perform the basic duties of a centre better than all but one other available option.
No, Gomez isn't an apologist. He took his apology and did something about not having to issue another one.
The coin flip of shooting luck may well be on his side. But it's good to know he's not counting on it.
Note: I have apologised on Gomez's behalf in the past, but always believed that it was the lack of talent surrounding him that led him to his dead-ends on so many nights. I believe strongly that the option of five wingers ahead of Moen will help, but also that if he ends up playing with Moen or whoever ends up filling the "Pyatt" role again, he'll be looking for that apology speech regardless of Corsi sorting itself out or not.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Gorging On Shooting Stats
The other day I read that Josh Gorges better look out at arbitration, because he is in fact the worst defenceman in the entire league at putting shots on net – or at least he was last season.
The stats compiled by Scott Cullen at TSN rely on two statistics – shots on goal and missed shots. Add them together and one can get an idea of how many shots released by a player actually hit the net. Josh Gorges was the worst Dman in the league with a meager 51.3% of his shots actually hitting the net. I’m not sure this will really be the breaking point for Gorges, however, as he only directed 39 shots on or off the net anyway.
Still, the article did inspire me to delve a little deeper into the stats I collected this past season. For your summertime pleasure, then, I present a look into chances, shots and attempts for the 2010-11 Montreal Canadiens (regular season).
Shots on net
Credit to Scott Cullen for a good topical subject. To go further, however, I am going to look at all shots (not just the ones recorded on the NHL’s main page) from the season, including those that were blocked by defenders.
Sadly for Josh Gorges, the news gets worse. When we factor in his 23 blocked attempts, we actually find that he only got 32% of the shots released from his stick on net. I don’t know how the NHL stacks up in this regard, but I can tell you only Andreas Engqvist was worse on the Habs, and he only had 4 attempts.
% shots/attempt
Top tier (>60%): Moen (72%), Lapierre, White, Desharnais, Pouliot
Second tier (51-60%): Dawes, O’Byrne, Pacioretty, Mara, Darche, Gionta, Plekanec, Gomez, Cammalleri, Halpern, Pyatt, Markov, Kostitsyn, Subban
Third tier (41-50%): Palushaj, Nash, Wisniewski, Hamrlik, Eller, Gill, Picard, Boyd
Bottom tier (<40%): Weber, Spacek, Sopel, Gorges, Engqvist (25%)
From this data, I think we can infer a few things. First, forwards have clearer sightlines and so generally convert more of their attempts into shots on net. Second, getting shots on net is not really a great measure of player quality (sorry, Scott Cullen). I think we all watched enough of Travis Moen, Maxim Lapierre and Ryan White to know we’d rather see a few missed shots if it means a player who is actually capable of beating a goalie can have the puck on his stick once in a while.
Chances on net
Just as a blocked shot or a missed shot may be a waste, so too could an ill-advised shot from a bad angle, a low percentage shot.
Thanks to Olivier at En Attendant les Nordiques we now have two seasons worth of analysis on which shots came from dangerous positions.
% chances/attempt
Outlier (>50%): Palushaj (67%)
Top tier (41-50%): Kostitsyn, Cammalleri, Moen, Lapierre, Plekanec, Darche, Desharnais, Eller, Gionta, Pouliot
Second tier (31-40%): Dawes, Halpern, Pacioretty, Gomez, Boyd
Third tier (21-30%): White, Pyatt, Engqvist, Markov
Fourth tier (11-20%): Wisniewski, Subban, Picard
Bottom tier (1-10%): Hamrlik, Gorges, Weber, Gill, Spacek
No chances (0%) Sopel, Mara, Nash, O’Byrne
Kostitsyn and Cammalleri’s presence at second and third is telling because most think of those two as the best pure shooters on the team. Given that a scoring chance in Olivier’s analysis is defined as an attempt (on net, missed or blocked) from a dangerous area, this data shows how these two guys excel at getting in position (or at least in not shooting from bad positions).
Defencemen don’t have the same opportunity to get into “chance” territory. But consider that 22% of Andrei Markov’s attempts were scoring chances … positioning again, and we can just see the PP pinch.
Chances needed to score
A common exclamation in my household is: “How many chances does this guy need to be fed to put one in?” The mark of a scorer is reliability in good positions. But like shooting percentage, this stat gives insight into the luck (good or bad) that was at play as well.
Chances/goal
Top tier (<5): Jeff Halpern (3.73), Subban, Wisniewski, Desharnais, Picard, Gill, Pacioretty
Second tier (5-10): Gorges, Darche, Hamrlik, Boyd, White, Pouliot, Gionta, Plekanec, Markov, Cammalleri, Kostitsyn, Lapierre, Eller
Bottom tier (>10): Moen, Spacek, Gomez, Weber, Pyatt (17.00)
Conspicuous in these lists are players at the top and bottom that are no longer around: Pyatt for his utter futility around the net given good chances and Halpern, Picard and Wisniewski based on the bet they might never replicate this form. Gomez too should be ashamed of his presence on this list, as it’s hard to blame everyone else for one’s poor stats when one take nearly 13 chances to score a goal.
Chance creation while on ice
In fairness to Josh Gorges, his job when he’s on the ice is not shot or chance creation. In fact, when he’s on the ice as part of a 5-man unit, he is usually the 5th (sometimes the 4th) player responsible for that aspect of the game.
To evaluate Gorges contribution to offense is difficult. Really it is about how he creates space for his teammates through quick and crisp defensive play and transition. Of course, there’s not one measure of this. If there were, we wouldn’t need to waste our time with things like Corsi.
One measure that comes close to this is zone shift. Unfortunately, I don’t track that. So my proxy for this activity today will be percentage of attempts that are scored as scoring chances while a player is on the ice – the idea being that each player is ultimately driving to create scoring with his team unit and avoid non-chances, so this percentage gives one look into the quest.
% ChFON/AttFON
Top tier (>50%): Cammalleri (54%)
Second tier (41-50%): Plekanec, Wisniewski, Kostitsyn, Gionta, Subban, Markov
Third tier (31-40%): Desharnais, Gomez, Hamrlik, Darche, Pacioretty, Weber, Gorges, Spacek, Gill, Picard, Moen, Sopel, Lapierre
Fourth tier (21-30%): Boyd, Halpern, Mara, Pouliot, Pyatt, Eller, White, Palushaj
Bottom tier (<20%): O’Byrne, Nash, Dawes, Engqvist (8%)
Maybe it’s the way we watch the game, but it’s uncanny how this list pans out. I think of Cammalleri as really the only undisputed star on the Habs, and there I he is, miles ahead. The next tier lists the guys I would say have better than average offensive instincts. That fourth tier has a lot of “steer clears”.
The big surprise (though obviously not to Habs management) is Pouliot. While he ranked highly in converting his own attempts into scoring chances, it seems those he played with were simply bad. Apparently management didn’t think his hands were clean in this debacle.
This look into shots is no more definitive than Scott Cullen's work, but it does at least give Josh Gorges a little bit of hope. It appears from this at least that shots/attempt is the area in which he performed worst last season. In fact, in some of the other areas he did quite well. And to vindicate management decisions here, he does appear to be better than Mara, Sopel and some of the other former Habs.
Apart from Gorges, there's more insights, I'm sure. Cammalleri looks good in most lists and Markov looks the class at the back end. So at least logic isn't defied. Further than this, I'll leave the conclusions to you all.
The stats compiled by Scott Cullen at TSN rely on two statistics – shots on goal and missed shots. Add them together and one can get an idea of how many shots released by a player actually hit the net. Josh Gorges was the worst Dman in the league with a meager 51.3% of his shots actually hitting the net. I’m not sure this will really be the breaking point for Gorges, however, as he only directed 39 shots on or off the net anyway.
Still, the article did inspire me to delve a little deeper into the stats I collected this past season. For your summertime pleasure, then, I present a look into chances, shots and attempts for the 2010-11 Montreal Canadiens (regular season).
Shots on net
Credit to Scott Cullen for a good topical subject. To go further, however, I am going to look at all shots (not just the ones recorded on the NHL’s main page) from the season, including those that were blocked by defenders.
Sadly for Josh Gorges, the news gets worse. When we factor in his 23 blocked attempts, we actually find that he only got 32% of the shots released from his stick on net. I don’t know how the NHL stacks up in this regard, but I can tell you only Andreas Engqvist was worse on the Habs, and he only had 4 attempts.
% shots/attempt
Top tier (>60%): Moen (72%), Lapierre, White, Desharnais, Pouliot
Second tier (51-60%): Dawes, O’Byrne, Pacioretty, Mara, Darche, Gionta, Plekanec, Gomez, Cammalleri, Halpern, Pyatt, Markov, Kostitsyn, Subban
Third tier (41-50%): Palushaj, Nash, Wisniewski, Hamrlik, Eller, Gill, Picard, Boyd
Bottom tier (<40%): Weber, Spacek, Sopel, Gorges, Engqvist (25%)
From this data, I think we can infer a few things. First, forwards have clearer sightlines and so generally convert more of their attempts into shots on net. Second, getting shots on net is not really a great measure of player quality (sorry, Scott Cullen). I think we all watched enough of Travis Moen, Maxim Lapierre and Ryan White to know we’d rather see a few missed shots if it means a player who is actually capable of beating a goalie can have the puck on his stick once in a while.
Chances on net
Just as a blocked shot or a missed shot may be a waste, so too could an ill-advised shot from a bad angle, a low percentage shot.
Thanks to Olivier at En Attendant les Nordiques we now have two seasons worth of analysis on which shots came from dangerous positions.
% chances/attempt
Outlier (>50%): Palushaj (67%)
Top tier (41-50%): Kostitsyn, Cammalleri, Moen, Lapierre, Plekanec, Darche, Desharnais, Eller, Gionta, Pouliot
Second tier (31-40%): Dawes, Halpern, Pacioretty, Gomez, Boyd
Third tier (21-30%): White, Pyatt, Engqvist, Markov
Fourth tier (11-20%): Wisniewski, Subban, Picard
Bottom tier (1-10%): Hamrlik, Gorges, Weber, Gill, Spacek
No chances (0%) Sopel, Mara, Nash, O’Byrne
Kostitsyn and Cammalleri’s presence at second and third is telling because most think of those two as the best pure shooters on the team. Given that a scoring chance in Olivier’s analysis is defined as an attempt (on net, missed or blocked) from a dangerous area, this data shows how these two guys excel at getting in position (or at least in not shooting from bad positions).
Defencemen don’t have the same opportunity to get into “chance” territory. But consider that 22% of Andrei Markov’s attempts were scoring chances … positioning again, and we can just see the PP pinch.
Chances needed to score
A common exclamation in my household is: “How many chances does this guy need to be fed to put one in?” The mark of a scorer is reliability in good positions. But like shooting percentage, this stat gives insight into the luck (good or bad) that was at play as well.
Chances/goal
Top tier (<5): Jeff Halpern (3.73), Subban, Wisniewski, Desharnais, Picard, Gill, Pacioretty
Second tier (5-10): Gorges, Darche, Hamrlik, Boyd, White, Pouliot, Gionta, Plekanec, Markov, Cammalleri, Kostitsyn, Lapierre, Eller
Bottom tier (>10): Moen, Spacek, Gomez, Weber, Pyatt (17.00)
Conspicuous in these lists are players at the top and bottom that are no longer around: Pyatt for his utter futility around the net given good chances and Halpern, Picard and Wisniewski based on the bet they might never replicate this form. Gomez too should be ashamed of his presence on this list, as it’s hard to blame everyone else for one’s poor stats when one take nearly 13 chances to score a goal.
Chance creation while on ice
In fairness to Josh Gorges, his job when he’s on the ice is not shot or chance creation. In fact, when he’s on the ice as part of a 5-man unit, he is usually the 5th (sometimes the 4th) player responsible for that aspect of the game.
To evaluate Gorges contribution to offense is difficult. Really it is about how he creates space for his teammates through quick and crisp defensive play and transition. Of course, there’s not one measure of this. If there were, we wouldn’t need to waste our time with things like Corsi.
One measure that comes close to this is zone shift. Unfortunately, I don’t track that. So my proxy for this activity today will be percentage of attempts that are scored as scoring chances while a player is on the ice – the idea being that each player is ultimately driving to create scoring with his team unit and avoid non-chances, so this percentage gives one look into the quest.
% ChFON/AttFON
Top tier (>50%): Cammalleri (54%)
Second tier (41-50%): Plekanec, Wisniewski, Kostitsyn, Gionta, Subban, Markov
Third tier (31-40%): Desharnais, Gomez, Hamrlik, Darche, Pacioretty, Weber, Gorges, Spacek, Gill, Picard, Moen, Sopel, Lapierre
Fourth tier (21-30%): Boyd, Halpern, Mara, Pouliot, Pyatt, Eller, White, Palushaj
Bottom tier (<20%): O’Byrne, Nash, Dawes, Engqvist (8%)
Maybe it’s the way we watch the game, but it’s uncanny how this list pans out. I think of Cammalleri as really the only undisputed star on the Habs, and there I he is, miles ahead. The next tier lists the guys I would say have better than average offensive instincts. That fourth tier has a lot of “steer clears”.
The big surprise (though obviously not to Habs management) is Pouliot. While he ranked highly in converting his own attempts into scoring chances, it seems those he played with were simply bad. Apparently management didn’t think his hands were clean in this debacle.
This look into shots is no more definitive than Scott Cullen's work, but it does at least give Josh Gorges a little bit of hope. It appears from this at least that shots/attempt is the area in which he performed worst last season. In fact, in some of the other areas he did quite well. And to vindicate management decisions here, he does appear to be better than Mara, Sopel and some of the other former Habs.
Apart from Gorges, there's more insights, I'm sure. Cammalleri looks good in most lists and Markov looks the class at the back end. So at least logic isn't defied. Further than this, I'll leave the conclusions to you all.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Working Stats
Whatever happens with the score tonight, Oilers fans will find a new stat to show they were the better team.
Tonight the Habs face the Oilers, and their army of stat-generating mathematicians.
I exaggerate, of course. Oilers fans can be very critical of their team. But it remains true that the Oilogosphere is the burning orb around which the new world of NHL statistics was born and now orbits.
We Habs fans are doing a relatively good job catching up, but are a relative Pluto compared to those who have been extolling the virtues of Dustin Penner for years.
If you want to have a different read for this game, and I've noticed other blogs like referring their game prep elsewhere, then having a good trawl through the Oilogosphere is as fun as any other trip you can take. They speak in a different language, sometimes. One where words like Fenwick and Zone starts flow off the tongue. But to any burgeoning stats fan, it's a good read.
Cult of Hockeey - sidebar especially (Dave Staples)
Irreverent Oiler Fans - archives now (Vic Ferrari)
The Copper and Blue (Derek Zona, Jonathan Willis, et al)
Lowetide
mc79 (Tyler Dellow, Colin Campbell whistleblower)
Battle of Alberta (Matt Fenwick, et al)
...
And for the Habs fans with tunnel vision like myself. Stick to the Habs with Olivier's numerical looks at the Habs:
En Attendant les Nordiques (Olivier)
Enjoy the game, and while Corsi may not be kind, let's hope the Habs win the most important statistical category (and least important for goalies...), the normalized win-loss differential.
Tonight the Habs face the Oilers, and their army of stat-generating mathematicians.
I exaggerate, of course. Oilers fans can be very critical of their team. But it remains true that the Oilogosphere is the burning orb around which the new world of NHL statistics was born and now orbits.
We Habs fans are doing a relatively good job catching up, but are a relative Pluto compared to those who have been extolling the virtues of Dustin Penner for years.
If you want to have a different read for this game, and I've noticed other blogs like referring their game prep elsewhere, then having a good trawl through the Oilogosphere is as fun as any other trip you can take. They speak in a different language, sometimes. One where words like Fenwick and Zone starts flow off the tongue. But to any burgeoning stats fan, it's a good read.
Cult of Hockeey - sidebar especially (Dave Staples)
Irreverent Oiler Fans - archives now (Vic Ferrari)
The Copper and Blue (Derek Zona, Jonathan Willis, et al)
Lowetide
mc79 (Tyler Dellow, Colin Campbell whistleblower)
Battle of Alberta (Matt Fenwick, et al)
...
And for the Habs fans with tunnel vision like myself. Stick to the Habs with Olivier's numerical looks at the Habs:
En Attendant les Nordiques (Olivier)
Enjoy the game, and while Corsi may not be kind, let's hope the Habs win the most important statistical category (and least important for goalies...), the normalized win-loss differential.
Monday, September 20, 2010
More Food For Thought: 2008-09 vs. 2009-10 (New Acquisitions)
More looks at how players fared from 2008-09 to 2009-10. This time, I'll share the profiles from all those players who were established NHLers but only joined the Habs last summer or afterwards.
New Acquisitions
Legend
You can find a longer explanation of the charts here.
Scott Gomez
Gomez made a transition with the Habs. From a league-leading shot taker and Corsi man, he fell into negative balance for chances while he was on the ice at ES. Strangely, this led to more GF and a better GF:GA differential at ES. I think we'd all be happier if he was on for less shots against, but can we really imagine him upping the shots for, especially if he's the one taking them?
Brian Gionta
Gionta did very similar things up front as he did in 2008-09. What shows here for him is that he was no longer on the Devils. While many a player looks a defensive specialist in New Jersey, it may be that Brian isn't that good at all at defence. After all, last season, he was among the worst at allowing shots and didn't fare too well in GA either. Still, I'll take the top tier offense with that trade any day.
Mike Cammalleri
Cammalleri too missed his old team here. While he still managed to put his line among league average on shots for and in the top tier for goals for, his chart suggests he was as guilty as anyone for allowing the goalies to be peppered night after night. Perhaps an adjustment will come (we've heard everyone has needed a year to become accustomed to each other), but by my memory of his play, this chart doesn't seem out of whack. Once again, I'll take the top tier goals even at the expense of shots against.
Benoit Pouliot
Pouliot had a stunner, even with a slow finish. Top 20% in the league for GF and chances for at ES is great for the young forward. To top it off, he was stellar in the GA column at ES as well, though the numbers suggest that such a low shooting percentage for his opposition (or high save percentage for his goalie) was a one-off gift.
Travis Moen
Moen was a pretty poor offensive player coming in and he comes out one too. That said, he somehow managed to keep GA down at ES with his linemates, albeit with the same goaltending bonus that Pouliot benefited from.
Mathieu Darche
I've misplaced the 2008-09 data for now, so Darche is without comparators. GF:GA for Darche and you can't complain, he's a winner at ES. But he's a Hab in the shots, offering very few going forward and allowing as many as humanly possible at the back. I think stats guys would suggest that his GF:GA might be a little less rosy if he keeps up the shot dance.
Dominic Moore
No comparator for Moore either, and loads of Panthers data polluting things. Still manages the purple, dark blue bottom half, though. New colours for the Canadiens.
Jaroslav Spacek
Spacek went from being an offensive generator with great Corsi balance to a steadier defenceman with decent Corsi (all relative to the Habs standards, of course). These charts are reflective of the new role that Spacek took on. Whereas in Buffalo, he was the point man on the PP and expected to contribute at ES to the rush, his partnerships in Montreal were more often designed to be steadier. As things go, above average offense and average D is pretty good, and very underrated in Montreal.
Hal Gill
Hal Gill left Pittsburgh and it shows. The offense that used to just happen during his on-ice minutes completely evaporated. That said, he still posted a stunning GA/60 number below 2.00 with the usual Habs methodology of allowing chances.
Paul Mara
Mara nearly managed to be bottom tier in every category. I think we know now he wasn't carrying his partnership in New York when he was on for as little as 2.04 GA/60 at ES. Not back this year, I'd say that's a good decision.
Marc-Andre Bergeron
No comparator again. Bergeron's chart is still interesting. Consider this, when you describe Bergeron, did you ever say "below average offense and average D"? No you didn't. For all his bravado on the PP, I think this chart shows just how much trouble the Montreal defenders had in integrating his style into their group. The purple top corner is living proof of his ability to stifle rushes before they began.
General trend
There were a couple of general trends that came from looking at these. The first and most obvious was the shift every player seemed to have in chances against at ES. This is nothing new to us, and we all knew it happened. However, it's still striking to see in living colour. Gomez, Gionta and Cammalleri went in one season from being top bets for preventing shots to allowing among the most in the league.
The second general trend is stranger. It appears that several players actually got better at preventing goals at ES. A group that included Brian Gionta, Cammalleri, Spacek and Gill. And all this with more chances allowed. Consider now they came from teams backed by Brodeur, Kiprusoff, Miller and Fleury. Shows what a year Habs goalies had, or perhaps how excellent shot concession is as a strategy?
And, because I forgot him last time...
Max Pacioretty
Not much change in the chances for and against department, but the story of Pacioretty's 2009-10 is available in full colour on the top half of these pies. Where he once muddled on offense and defence as a youngster, he went all in on D as a second year posting outstanding GA/60, with pathetic GF/60 at ES. Still think moving him from forward is daft?
New Acquisitions
Legend
You can find a longer explanation of the charts here.
Scott Gomez
| 2008-09 | 2009-10 |
 |  |
Gomez made a transition with the Habs. From a league-leading shot taker and Corsi man, he fell into negative balance for chances while he was on the ice at ES. Strangely, this led to more GF and a better GF:GA differential at ES. I think we'd all be happier if he was on for less shots against, but can we really imagine him upping the shots for, especially if he's the one taking them?
Brian Gionta
| 2008-09 | 2009-10 |
 |  |
Gionta did very similar things up front as he did in 2008-09. What shows here for him is that he was no longer on the Devils. While many a player looks a defensive specialist in New Jersey, it may be that Brian isn't that good at all at defence. After all, last season, he was among the worst at allowing shots and didn't fare too well in GA either. Still, I'll take the top tier offense with that trade any day.
Mike Cammalleri
| 2008-09 | 2009-10 |
 |  |
Cammalleri too missed his old team here. While he still managed to put his line among league average on shots for and in the top tier for goals for, his chart suggests he was as guilty as anyone for allowing the goalies to be peppered night after night. Perhaps an adjustment will come (we've heard everyone has needed a year to become accustomed to each other), but by my memory of his play, this chart doesn't seem out of whack. Once again, I'll take the top tier goals even at the expense of shots against.
Benoit Pouliot
| 2008-09 | 2009-10 |
 |  |
Pouliot had a stunner, even with a slow finish. Top 20% in the league for GF and chances for at ES is great for the young forward. To top it off, he was stellar in the GA column at ES as well, though the numbers suggest that such a low shooting percentage for his opposition (or high save percentage for his goalie) was a one-off gift.
Travis Moen
| 2008-09 | 2009-10 |
 |  |
Mathieu Darche
| 2008-09 | 2009-10 |
 |  |
I've misplaced the 2008-09 data for now, so Darche is without comparators. GF:GA for Darche and you can't complain, he's a winner at ES. But he's a Hab in the shots, offering very few going forward and allowing as many as humanly possible at the back. I think stats guys would suggest that his GF:GA might be a little less rosy if he keeps up the shot dance.
Dominic Moore
| 2008-09 | 2009-10 |
|  |
No comparator for Moore either, and loads of Panthers data polluting things. Still manages the purple, dark blue bottom half, though. New colours for the Canadiens.
Jaroslav Spacek
| 2008-09 | 2009-10 |
 |  |
Spacek went from being an offensive generator with great Corsi balance to a steadier defenceman with decent Corsi (all relative to the Habs standards, of course). These charts are reflective of the new role that Spacek took on. Whereas in Buffalo, he was the point man on the PP and expected to contribute at ES to the rush, his partnerships in Montreal were more often designed to be steadier. As things go, above average offense and average D is pretty good, and very underrated in Montreal.
Hal Gill
| 2008-09 | 2009-10 |
 |  |
Hal Gill left Pittsburgh and it shows. The offense that used to just happen during his on-ice minutes completely evaporated. That said, he still posted a stunning GA/60 number below 2.00 with the usual Habs methodology of allowing chances.
Paul Mara
| 2008-09 | 2009-10 |
 |  |
Mara nearly managed to be bottom tier in every category. I think we know now he wasn't carrying his partnership in New York when he was on for as little as 2.04 GA/60 at ES. Not back this year, I'd say that's a good decision.
Marc-Andre Bergeron
| 2008-09 | 2009-10 |
|  |
No comparator again. Bergeron's chart is still interesting. Consider this, when you describe Bergeron, did you ever say "below average offense and average D"? No you didn't. For all his bravado on the PP, I think this chart shows just how much trouble the Montreal defenders had in integrating his style into their group. The purple top corner is living proof of his ability to stifle rushes before they began.
General trend
There were a couple of general trends that came from looking at these. The first and most obvious was the shift every player seemed to have in chances against at ES. This is nothing new to us, and we all knew it happened. However, it's still striking to see in living colour. Gomez, Gionta and Cammalleri went in one season from being top bets for preventing shots to allowing among the most in the league.
The second general trend is stranger. It appears that several players actually got better at preventing goals at ES. A group that included Brian Gionta, Cammalleri, Spacek and Gill. And all this with more chances allowed. Consider now they came from teams backed by Brodeur, Kiprusoff, Miller and Fleury. Shows what a year Habs goalies had, or perhaps how excellent shot concession is as a strategy?
And, because I forgot him last time...
Max Pacioretty
| 2008-09 | 2009-10 |
 |  |
Not much change in the chances for and against department, but the story of Pacioretty's 2009-10 is available in full colour on the top half of these pies. Where he once muddled on offense and defence as a youngster, he went all in on D as a second year posting outstanding GA/60, with pathetic GF/60 at ES. Still think moving him from forward is daft?
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Putting Corsi In Its Place
The playoff version of the 2010 Canadiens are an affront to well-trained hockey stats gurus everywhere. The team is testing the limits of shots and chances allowed vs shots and chances generated and coming out way behind. Yet, they somehow manage to find a positive balance in goals and wins up to now.
Those who've staked the biggest claim in these stats ventures are digging in their heels now. The Canadiens, they say will fall if they continue with the strategy they used to beat the best team in the NHL.
The problem I have with this argument is that it often relies too heavily on one single parameter (shots), and often isn't accompanied by observation.
Once, I was browsing a popular stats site, and there were questions being asked about how the Canadiens could possibly be winning the games they were.
In a frank and simple response, I suggested the stats man should watch the games.
Naturally, in his own backyard, he took offense. I stand by my advice, though. I don't think it's wrong. Although one can indeed prove that shots directed at the net correlates to more shots and shots in turn correlate to more goals and they in turn to more wins. One also shouldn't forget the exceptions at every step. There will always be teams one needs to watch to understand.
Whenever one takes this argument to the number crunchers, one gets accused of cock-eyed bias, of blind fandom. It's certainly true that fans of a team can ignore the bits they don't like and focus on the positive. Interesting as well, however, is the point to which these some-time name-callers invest the same amount of energy and passion as you and I do into a sports team we like to watch into the very numbers they claim to be objective defenders of. I think at some point the hardest fans of shots directed at goal and Corsi numbers have to realize the cracks in the thing they choose to support with blinders.
The problem with Corsi
I like the Corsi number (or the total shots directed on net plus minus, if you prefer). I think it does give something to think about. But it only gives something extra, not something new and complete for us to ignore everything else, such as actual goals, actual play.
One reason I think it is at times and imperfect stat is that it doesn't often account for what the smart thing to do is. For example, a high Corsi number is easily achieved by bombarding the opposition net with shots (even off net or into defenders) when in the opposition zone. I think we and some of Alexander Ovechkin's Washington teammates from the last round might agree that sometimes taking wild shots from everywhere is actually a bad idea. I think even the staunchest Gomez fans might advise him to stop padding his Corsi and concentrate on what he's great at (passing) a little more often.
The same goes at the other end. A team can allow fewer shots by leaving men in prime position open so that passes are attempted. Even though it's probably better to force players outside and clean that first rebound, Corsi numbers sometimes say that a team would be better off on average by tempting a pass into the net.
If you watch the game, this is less of a problem. One watching understands that a breakdown that results in a 2 on 0 with a post (no shot) is more dangerous than a shot from beside the net (even from 4 feet away). It is a problem for those who don't watch, however, as that missed shot (post) doesn't outstrip the close range exercise in futility.
The quality of shot
Today I read that there is no way that Montreal can continue with their strategy of allowing shots from outside or that Cammalleri can continue to shoot at 26%. While I agree, I also take issue with the complete dismissal of the idea.
What shot counts, blocked shots and missed shots don't record is the quality of the shot. Attempts have been made to approximate the shot quality, but they rely thus far entirely on very shaky ground (the distance of shot release, estimated by an NHL recorder). They do not interpret context (i.e., a shot from 50' when the goalie has fallen and the net uncovered is actually a high percentage chance) and without concerted effort to record these efforts live (like Olivier is doing for the Habs) it cannot really be done very completely at all.
Mike Cammalleri could shoot 26% from now if he only took high success rate shots, for example. A team can let up 35 shots 5% success shots from the perimeter if they score enough on counter attack. It's not a strategy I enjoy watching, particularly, but neither is it completely invalid.
If one doesn't know the quality of shot (i.e., watch the game) then one shouldn't really be making catch-all pronouncements on what happened in that game, or series, or season. Ron MacLean take note.
Fatigue
The real chances in hockey come from breakdowns. Breakdowns can be manufactured in the opposition through skill, or they can start happening on their own when players can't keep up.
I've already said that the Stanley Cup playoffs are probably the most grueling test in sports when it comes to a single trophy. So many games over so little time. Recovery time is short and energy systems are tested.
When looking at the prospects of winning this tournament, fatigue has to come in to consideration. Here the question of game strategy and our friend Mr. Corsi come in yet again. As Jacques Martin has designed his tactics for these two series, he seems to me to have had the fitness of his players at least somewhat in mind. I think that's where the strategy of collapsing and allowing certain shots comes in. A player like Gill running around trying to prevent the puck carrier from passing or shooting, or actually trying to strip the puck at every possession will tire him, much more so that waiting for the low percentage shot and the player to turn it over of his free will.
The same theory has been applied in the offensive zone. The reason we are all fretting that the Canadiens aren't sustaining possession is because they aren't really putting any effort into that game at all.
I am a massive proponent of the possession game. I think that holding the puck is better than chasing it, both from a game and a fatigue standpoint. I am, however, also a realist. If Martin thinks his team is incapable of keeping up with our skill match, then I don't find many arguments for that. I think Cammalleri probably would get burned out if he spent all his energy on the boards fighting it out, I think Gill' energies would be mis-spent pursuing with his skating.
While Corsi says a game plan must seek massive shots for, with few against as the ideal, it doesn't really account for contexts where Tom Pyatt is playing Sidney Crosby or Hal Gill is defending Malkin.
I think that while shot management is important, it is not the whole picture. As stats interpreters must consider lots of numbers, so coaches can't get so streamlined in thinking.
Last game, the Canadiens seemed to conserve energy early on with a pay-off of a tie in the first. Going in, maybe not a good strategy, but coming into the second, it's hard to say that it was a loser. From there, they actually visibly wore on the Penguins. A PP goal turned the Pens into more desperate and less thoughtful shooters and the 3rd goal was available because star players were worn out by the tenacity of the Montreal zone defence.
You can say they lost the shot game, the Corsi game. But they won the game in my opinion because they won in other areas of play undetected by stats. One was energy management.
Those who've staked the biggest claim in these stats ventures are digging in their heels now. The Canadiens, they say will fall if they continue with the strategy they used to beat the best team in the NHL.
The problem I have with this argument is that it often relies too heavily on one single parameter (shots), and often isn't accompanied by observation.
Once, I was browsing a popular stats site, and there were questions being asked about how the Canadiens could possibly be winning the games they were.
In a frank and simple response, I suggested the stats man should watch the games.
Naturally, in his own backyard, he took offense. I stand by my advice, though. I don't think it's wrong. Although one can indeed prove that shots directed at the net correlates to more shots and shots in turn correlate to more goals and they in turn to more wins. One also shouldn't forget the exceptions at every step. There will always be teams one needs to watch to understand.
Whenever one takes this argument to the number crunchers, one gets accused of cock-eyed bias, of blind fandom. It's certainly true that fans of a team can ignore the bits they don't like and focus on the positive. Interesting as well, however, is the point to which these some-time name-callers invest the same amount of energy and passion as you and I do into a sports team we like to watch into the very numbers they claim to be objective defenders of. I think at some point the hardest fans of shots directed at goal and Corsi numbers have to realize the cracks in the thing they choose to support with blinders.
The problem with Corsi
I like the Corsi number (or the total shots directed on net plus minus, if you prefer). I think it does give something to think about. But it only gives something extra, not something new and complete for us to ignore everything else, such as actual goals, actual play.
One reason I think it is at times and imperfect stat is that it doesn't often account for what the smart thing to do is. For example, a high Corsi number is easily achieved by bombarding the opposition net with shots (even off net or into defenders) when in the opposition zone. I think we and some of Alexander Ovechkin's Washington teammates from the last round might agree that sometimes taking wild shots from everywhere is actually a bad idea. I think even the staunchest Gomez fans might advise him to stop padding his Corsi and concentrate on what he's great at (passing) a little more often.
The same goes at the other end. A team can allow fewer shots by leaving men in prime position open so that passes are attempted. Even though it's probably better to force players outside and clean that first rebound, Corsi numbers sometimes say that a team would be better off on average by tempting a pass into the net.
If you watch the game, this is less of a problem. One watching understands that a breakdown that results in a 2 on 0 with a post (no shot) is more dangerous than a shot from beside the net (even from 4 feet away). It is a problem for those who don't watch, however, as that missed shot (post) doesn't outstrip the close range exercise in futility.
The quality of shot
Today I read that there is no way that Montreal can continue with their strategy of allowing shots from outside or that Cammalleri can continue to shoot at 26%. While I agree, I also take issue with the complete dismissal of the idea.
What shot counts, blocked shots and missed shots don't record is the quality of the shot. Attempts have been made to approximate the shot quality, but they rely thus far entirely on very shaky ground (the distance of shot release, estimated by an NHL recorder). They do not interpret context (i.e., a shot from 50' when the goalie has fallen and the net uncovered is actually a high percentage chance) and without concerted effort to record these efforts live (like Olivier is doing for the Habs) it cannot really be done very completely at all.
Mike Cammalleri could shoot 26% from now if he only took high success rate shots, for example. A team can let up 35 shots 5% success shots from the perimeter if they score enough on counter attack. It's not a strategy I enjoy watching, particularly, but neither is it completely invalid.
If one doesn't know the quality of shot (i.e., watch the game) then one shouldn't really be making catch-all pronouncements on what happened in that game, or series, or season. Ron MacLean take note.
Fatigue
The real chances in hockey come from breakdowns. Breakdowns can be manufactured in the opposition through skill, or they can start happening on their own when players can't keep up.
I've already said that the Stanley Cup playoffs are probably the most grueling test in sports when it comes to a single trophy. So many games over so little time. Recovery time is short and energy systems are tested.
When looking at the prospects of winning this tournament, fatigue has to come in to consideration. Here the question of game strategy and our friend Mr. Corsi come in yet again. As Jacques Martin has designed his tactics for these two series, he seems to me to have had the fitness of his players at least somewhat in mind. I think that's where the strategy of collapsing and allowing certain shots comes in. A player like Gill running around trying to prevent the puck carrier from passing or shooting, or actually trying to strip the puck at every possession will tire him, much more so that waiting for the low percentage shot and the player to turn it over of his free will.
The same theory has been applied in the offensive zone. The reason we are all fretting that the Canadiens aren't sustaining possession is because they aren't really putting any effort into that game at all.
I am a massive proponent of the possession game. I think that holding the puck is better than chasing it, both from a game and a fatigue standpoint. I am, however, also a realist. If Martin thinks his team is incapable of keeping up with our skill match, then I don't find many arguments for that. I think Cammalleri probably would get burned out if he spent all his energy on the boards fighting it out, I think Gill' energies would be mis-spent pursuing with his skating.
While Corsi says a game plan must seek massive shots for, with few against as the ideal, it doesn't really account for contexts where Tom Pyatt is playing Sidney Crosby or Hal Gill is defending Malkin.
I think that while shot management is important, it is not the whole picture. As stats interpreters must consider lots of numbers, so coaches can't get so streamlined in thinking.
Last game, the Canadiens seemed to conserve energy early on with a pay-off of a tie in the first. Going in, maybe not a good strategy, but coming into the second, it's hard to say that it was a loser. From there, they actually visibly wore on the Penguins. A PP goal turned the Pens into more desperate and less thoughtful shooters and the 3rd goal was available because star players were worn out by the tenacity of the Montreal zone defence.
You can say they lost the shot game, the Corsi game. But they won the game in my opinion because they won in other areas of play undetected by stats. One was energy management.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Canadiens Shots Allowed
Flawed Implementation Or Implementing Flawed Approach
If you're like me, I think you thought that the addition of Jacques Martin to the fold would be a boon for the goalies, and perhaps ultimately the fans, as the haphazard defensive manner to which we were accustomed would be banished and replaced with simple play and reduced shots.
Now that we've given the system until the New Year (like we said we would), I think it's time to air a grievance: this isn't at all how I thought this would work.
Currently, the Canadiens sit in 11th position for GAA in the league. Not bad, but consider where they'd be without two 0.920 save percentage goalies, as they are also 28th in the NHL in shots allowed per contest. Their total currently stands at 32.8 SA/G (which may sound like a miraculously low total considering the recent onslaughts).
Certainly some of the onus for this high shot total must fall at the feet of the penalty takers (or victims of Chris Lee, if you prefer), since the Habs have given up the most PPs in the league (193). However, that might slightly gloss over the fact that their ES play is actually the bigger contributor to their SA totals. in fact, the Habs are one of the elite teams at preventing shots on the PK (analyse that...), but would allow a massive 31.5 shots per contest if they were penalty free.
Given that Jacques Martin is supposedly in charge of organizing and plotting team strategy for the 5-on-5, I was wondering what on earth was going on. If we don't have possession stats, we certainly have eyes – and those tell me that the Habs trend (espcially lately has been to sit and wait for shots and chances to come). Perhaps the comfort of two good goalies prevents fretting over the defensive pitfalls of this approach, but a look at ES scoring shows that a little more possession for the good guys might help to pad a few leads, win a few more close games.
Chances for and against
As I said, we don't have possession stats per se, but we do have some proxies. One of the better proxies at even strength is the CORSI numbers. However, as you know, though i like the number, I find it often oversimplifies matters. After all, there are several ways to get a good CORSI number: play bad defensively but take a lot of shots (misses and blocked shots count for you), play really well defensively and take shots, play unbelievable defence and take barely more than average shots. In light of that, I like to present the whole story (i.e., chances for and against), and relate those to what the league is doing. I present the status quo for the Habs below, with shots for (SF), chances for (ChF), shots against (SA), chances against (CA), and the differences between offense and defence:
Legend
As you can see, chances for with the Habs is a mixed bag. Gionta, Gomez, Pouliot and Markov generate top tier chances, while the offensive laggards (Laraque and co.), well, lag. I'm sure there's lots to be mined from the numbers and the relationships between them, but not today.
Chances against are more homgenous. They are all blue. It is systematic. This, for me, is most interesting. Once again, the bad players are bad. However, even the players we heap praise on for defensive awareness are allowing above average number of shots to be released from opponents' sticks.
Leaving the offensive stats behind, I delved deeper into the defensive numbers to try and figure out what is happening. I present the numbers for you to consider below for shots against (SA), missed shots against (MA), blocked shots (BF), chances against (ChA) and percentage of shots against making the net (SA%):
Legend
This table is most interesting for those who want to get to the bottom of the Jacques martin system, I think. Column by column, it's pretty consistently league average or below, or league average and above.
The breakdown of chances across the whole team seems to be summed up by lots of shots attempted against, an enormous amount blocked, many opponents forced to shoot wide, but still more than average shots getting to the net.
Shots against (as we noted earlier) is troubling, even if it doesn't result in goals 92% of the time. Most Habs are belowe the league average in preventing shots on their goal.
Blocked shots is an interesting category. It must be the only statistic in the league where the Canadiens could look like such a star outfit. No less than 12 Habs fall into the top 10% of the league in blocked shots at ES while they're on the ice. The rest are above average (only Pouliot, with his Wild numbers incorporated, spoils the whitewash). Missed shots is similar, if not quite as dominant, almost all Habs being above the league average.
Add up below average shot prevention, more than average missed shots and more than average blocked shots and you get the blue mess that follows in chances against. The numbers in that column are sub-optimal by most standards and some are downright abysmal (see >60 ChA/60).
It seems to me (and maybe to you as well, dear readers) that this is a bit of a red flag for the passive approach to defence that is currently being employed by Martin and his boys. While the defensive clogging of the slot is surely leading to some impressive blocked and missed shot totals, it seem to me that the Canadiens aren't perhaps negotiating the next part of the strategy very well at all – which should be making the shot a turnover by recovering the puck.
System performers
So, we've got to the bottom of the system (at least the one used so far). Allow the shot from the outside – block it or force the player to shoot wide – then recover the puck and start an attack. As a system it's not stupid, the team that seems to use it best this season is Pittsburgh who translate above average chances against into below average shots against. However, it must also be said that most teams we think of as defensive outfits don't trust this way of defending. New Jersey, Boston, Detroit, these teams all reduce chances overall and limit the number of shots that have to be blocked or forced wide.
In addition to the Penguins, there are players on the Habs who seem to get this system and can play it with some success. To me, these are the players that have warmer shades in the SA column and top rankings in the missed and blocked columns. The standouts seem to be Glen Metropoilt, Josh Gorges and Roman Hamrlik. All three players (and observation I think would back this up) play their position well and are good at jumping to retrieve the loose stuff after the initial chance.
System failures
Troublingly, the successes are outnumbered by the strugglers. Ignore Markov for now (he's had offense on the mind in his return), but do cast an eye to O'Byrne, Lapierre and Mara. These three players all allow 59 chances an hour or more. They are all on the ice for plenty of blocked shots and missed shots, but the sheer number of reloads they are allowing means they are also on the ice for a shot every 2 minutes or less.
Add to these players, Spacek, Gill, Gomez, Sergei Kostitsyn and even Gionta and we're in trouble.
When to change?
45 games into a season and many players appear on paper (and on TV) to be having significant trouble with a system that demands passivity, patience and then quickness to make it work properly. It begs the question, should Martin persist with this system.
If not, how late is too late to change? After all, it seems to be unravelling more than it is coming together at this point in the season. What's more, i think we've al seen enough proof that it doesn't work as well against good teams as it seems to against the Islanders.
If I were the coach, I'd be having a little think about all this.
I'd like to know what all of you think...
Now that we've given the system until the New Year (like we said we would), I think it's time to air a grievance: this isn't at all how I thought this would work.
Currently, the Canadiens sit in 11th position for GAA in the league. Not bad, but consider where they'd be without two 0.920 save percentage goalies, as they are also 28th in the NHL in shots allowed per contest. Their total currently stands at 32.8 SA/G (which may sound like a miraculously low total considering the recent onslaughts).
Certainly some of the onus for this high shot total must fall at the feet of the penalty takers (or victims of Chris Lee, if you prefer), since the Habs have given up the most PPs in the league (193). However, that might slightly gloss over the fact that their ES play is actually the bigger contributor to their SA totals. in fact, the Habs are one of the elite teams at preventing shots on the PK (analyse that...), but would allow a massive 31.5 shots per contest if they were penalty free.
Given that Jacques Martin is supposedly in charge of organizing and plotting team strategy for the 5-on-5, I was wondering what on earth was going on. If we don't have possession stats, we certainly have eyes – and those tell me that the Habs trend (espcially lately has been to sit and wait for shots and chances to come). Perhaps the comfort of two good goalies prevents fretting over the defensive pitfalls of this approach, but a look at ES scoring shows that a little more possession for the good guys might help to pad a few leads, win a few more close games.
Chances for and against
As I said, we don't have possession stats per se, but we do have some proxies. One of the better proxies at even strength is the CORSI numbers. However, as you know, though i like the number, I find it often oversimplifies matters. After all, there are several ways to get a good CORSI number: play bad defensively but take a lot of shots (misses and blocked shots count for you), play really well defensively and take shots, play unbelievable defence and take barely more than average shots. In light of that, I like to present the whole story (i.e., chances for and against), and relate those to what the league is doing. I present the status quo for the Habs below, with shots for (SF), chances for (ChF), shots against (SA), chances against (CA), and the differences between offense and defence:
| NAME | GP | SFON/60 | ChF/60 | SAON/60 | ChA/60 | Sh Diff | Ch Diff |
| Andrei Kostitsyn | 40 | 24.3 | 49.8 | 27 | 53.8 | -2.7 | -4 |
| Andrei Markov | 9 | 30.4 | 56.2 | 42.5 | 70.6 | -12.1 | -14.4 |
| Benoit Pouliot | 19 | 32.3 | 57.1 | 28.3 | 55.7 | 4 | 1.4 |
| Brian Gionta | 23 | 29.9 | 61.9 | 30.2 | 57.6 | -0.3 | 4.3 |
| Geln Metropolit | 38 | 24.8 | 50 | 26.5 | 58.6 | -1.7 | -8.6 |
| Georges Laraque | 23 | 15 | 32.3 | 28.6 | 68.5 | -13.6 | -36.2 |
| Hal Gill | 30 | 20.9 | 45.6 | 28.5 | 57.1 | -7.6 | -11.5 |
| Jaroslav Spacek | 42 | 26.3 | 54.1 | 29.5 | 59.5 | -3.2 | -5.4 |
| Josh Gorges | 44 | 21.8 | 44.6 | 26.7 | 56.6 | -4.9 | -12 |
| Marc-Andre Bergeron | 37 | 24.5 | 53 | 27.8 | 56.2 | -3.3 | -3.2 |
| Matt D'Agostini | 29 | 20.4 | 48.1 | 27.9 | 55.4 | -7.5 | -7.3 |
| Max Pacioretty | 43 | 25.7 | 52.7 | 28.3 | 56.1 | -2.6 | -3.4 |
| Maxim Lapierre | 44 | 18.4 | 44.5 | 30.5 | 61.5 | -12.1 | -17 |
| Michael Cammalleri | 44 | 25 | 54.2 | 28.9 | 57.8 | -3.9 | -3.6 |
| Paul Mara | 34 | 22.3 | 49 | 30.7 | 59.4 | -8.4 | -10.4 |
| Roman Hamrlik | 37 | 25.1 | 52.4 | 26.4 | 55.8 | -1.3 | -3.4 |
| Ryan O'Byrne | 24 | 20 | 43.7 | 31.3 | 59.4 | -11.3 | -15.7 |
| Ryan White | 13 | 14.4 | 37.1 | 31.1 | 62.6 | -16.7 | -25.5 |
| Scott Gomez | 40 | 28.5 | 56.7 | 30.1 | 56.3 | -1.6 | 0.4 |
| Sergei Kostitsyn | 19 | 21.8 | 44.2 | 31.2 | 59 | -9.4 | -14.8 |
| Tom Pyatt | 19 | 19.2 | 40 | 31 | 63 | -11.8 | -23 |
| Tomas Plekanec | 44 | 23.1 | 47.6 | 28.6 | 58.2 | -5.5 | -10.6 |
| Travis Moen | 44 | 24 | 46.5 | 28.8 | 57 | -4.8 | -10.5 |
Legend
| Top 10% NHL | 11-20% NHL | 21-40% NHL | Average NHL | 61-80% NHL | 81-90% NHL | Bottom 10% NHL |
As you can see, chances for with the Habs is a mixed bag. Gionta, Gomez, Pouliot and Markov generate top tier chances, while the offensive laggards (Laraque and co.), well, lag. I'm sure there's lots to be mined from the numbers and the relationships between them, but not today.
Chances against are more homgenous. They are all blue. It is systematic. This, for me, is most interesting. Once again, the bad players are bad. However, even the players we heap praise on for defensive awareness are allowing above average number of shots to be released from opponents' sticks.
Leaving the offensive stats behind, I delved deeper into the defensive numbers to try and figure out what is happening. I present the numbers for you to consider below for shots against (SA), missed shots against (MA), blocked shots (BF), chances against (ChA) and percentage of shots against making the net (SA%):
| NAME | GP | SAON/60 | MAON/60 | BFON/60 | ChA/60 | SA% |
| Andrei Kostitsyn | 40 | 27 | 11.4 | 15.4 | 53.8 | 50.2% |
| Andrei Markov | 9 | 42.5 | 13.7 | 14.4 | 70.6 | 60.2% |
| Benoit Pouliot | 19 | 28.3 | 13.7 | 13.7 | 55.7 | 50.8% |
| Brian Gionta | 23 | 30.2 | 13.2 | 14.2 | 57.6 | 52.4% |
| Geln Metropolit | 38 | 26.5 | 13.9 | 18.2 | 58.6 | 45.2% |
| Georges Laraque | 23 | 28.6 | 18.6 | 21.3 | 68.5 | 41.8% |
| Hal Gill | 30 | 28.5 | 13.4 | 15.2 | 57.1 | 49.9% |
| Jaroslav Spacek | 42 | 29.5 | 12.2 | 17.8 | 59.5 | 49.6% |
| Josh Gorges | 44 | 26.7 | 12.9 | 17 | 56.6 | 47.2% |
| Marc-Andre Bergeron | 37 | 27.8 | 11.7 | 16.7 | 56.2 | 49.5% |
| Matt D'Agostini | 29 | 27.9 | 9 | 18.5 | 55.4 | 50.4% |
| Max Pacioretty | 43 | 28.3 | 10.7 | 17.1 | 56.1 | 50.4% |
| Maxim Lapierre | 44 | 30.5 | 12.4 | 18.6 | 61.5 | 49.6% |
| Michael Cammalleri | 44 | 28.9 | 12.6 | 16.3 | 57.8 | 50.0% |
| Paul Mara | 34 | 30.7 | 12.3 | 16.4 | 59.4 | 51.7% |
| Roman Hamrlik | 37 | 26.4 | 12.2 | 17.2 | 55.8 | 47.3% |
| Ryan O'Byrne | 24 | 31.3 | 10.6 | 17.5 | 59.4 | 52.7% |
| Ryan White | 13 | 31.1 | 12.7 | 18.8 | 62.6 | 49.7% |
| Scott Gomez | 40 | 30.1 | 12.1 | 14.1 | 56.3 | 53.5% |
| Sergei Kostitsyn | 19 | 31.2 | 11 | 16.8 | 59 | 52.9% |
| Tom Pyatt | 19 | 31 | 13.1 | 18.9 | 63 | 49.2% |
| Tomas Plekanec | 44 | 28.6 | 12.4 | 17.2 | 58.2 | 49.1% |
| Travis Moen | 44 | 28.8 | 11.9 | 16.3 | 57 | 50.5% |
Legend
| Top 10% NHL | 11-20% NHL | 21-40% NHL | Average NHL | 61-80% NHL | 81-90% NHL | Bottom 10% NHL |
This table is most interesting for those who want to get to the bottom of the Jacques martin system, I think. Column by column, it's pretty consistently league average or below, or league average and above.
The breakdown of chances across the whole team seems to be summed up by lots of shots attempted against, an enormous amount blocked, many opponents forced to shoot wide, but still more than average shots getting to the net.
Shots against (as we noted earlier) is troubling, even if it doesn't result in goals 92% of the time. Most Habs are belowe the league average in preventing shots on their goal.
Blocked shots is an interesting category. It must be the only statistic in the league where the Canadiens could look like such a star outfit. No less than 12 Habs fall into the top 10% of the league in blocked shots at ES while they're on the ice. The rest are above average (only Pouliot, with his Wild numbers incorporated, spoils the whitewash). Missed shots is similar, if not quite as dominant, almost all Habs being above the league average.
Add up below average shot prevention, more than average missed shots and more than average blocked shots and you get the blue mess that follows in chances against. The numbers in that column are sub-optimal by most standards and some are downright abysmal (see >60 ChA/60).
It seems to me (and maybe to you as well, dear readers) that this is a bit of a red flag for the passive approach to defence that is currently being employed by Martin and his boys. While the defensive clogging of the slot is surely leading to some impressive blocked and missed shot totals, it seem to me that the Canadiens aren't perhaps negotiating the next part of the strategy very well at all – which should be making the shot a turnover by recovering the puck.
System performers
So, we've got to the bottom of the system (at least the one used so far). Allow the shot from the outside – block it or force the player to shoot wide – then recover the puck and start an attack. As a system it's not stupid, the team that seems to use it best this season is Pittsburgh who translate above average chances against into below average shots against. However, it must also be said that most teams we think of as defensive outfits don't trust this way of defending. New Jersey, Boston, Detroit, these teams all reduce chances overall and limit the number of shots that have to be blocked or forced wide.
In addition to the Penguins, there are players on the Habs who seem to get this system and can play it with some success. To me, these are the players that have warmer shades in the SA column and top rankings in the missed and blocked columns. The standouts seem to be Glen Metropoilt, Josh Gorges and Roman Hamrlik. All three players (and observation I think would back this up) play their position well and are good at jumping to retrieve the loose stuff after the initial chance.
System failures
Troublingly, the successes are outnumbered by the strugglers. Ignore Markov for now (he's had offense on the mind in his return), but do cast an eye to O'Byrne, Lapierre and Mara. These three players all allow 59 chances an hour or more. They are all on the ice for plenty of blocked shots and missed shots, but the sheer number of reloads they are allowing means they are also on the ice for a shot every 2 minutes or less.
Add to these players, Spacek, Gill, Gomez, Sergei Kostitsyn and even Gionta and we're in trouble.
When to change?
45 games into a season and many players appear on paper (and on TV) to be having significant trouble with a system that demands passivity, patience and then quickness to make it work properly. It begs the question, should Martin persist with this system.
If not, how late is too late to change? After all, it seems to be unravelling more than it is coming together at this point in the season. What's more, i think we've al seen enough proof that it doesn't work as well against good teams as it seems to against the Islanders.
If I were the coach, I'd be having a little think about all this.
I'd like to know what all of you think...
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Canadiens Season Preview:
Second Line Offense
Next up, here is the preview of the Canadiens second line:
Latendresse – Plekanec – Cammalleri
Tomas Plekanec
Legend
Stats notes
Had I written this report on Plekanec in either of the seasons previous to this one, it's fair to say it would have been glowing. Though last season was disappointing, the numbers Tomas put up still tell the tale of what kind of player he is and can be:
1) His CORSI number was high relative to his peers
Yes Plekanec had a decline in numbers, but what his Corsi shows me is what I'd read from his play – that actually his play varies little in goalscoring slump or spree. Relative to the team, Tomas was actually a player the Canadiens could count on last season to tip the play (if not goals) in their favour. Team chance differential was 5.2 shots a game more in their favour for the minutes Plekanec was on the ice than not. What that meant in real terms is that when Tomas was on, chances were just about even at both ends, when he was off the Habs were letting the other team drive.
2) 69 goals in 3 seasons – 3 20+ goal seasons
No other Habs player can boast this kind of production, or indeed consistency.
3) 19 assists last season
When The Score Forecaster asked me for a stat to sum up 2008-09 for the Habs, I chose Plekanec's 19 assists as the standout. Can you imagine any other top line centre on a line that ended up scoring 69 goals, who actually prefers passing to shooting, ending a season with 0.25 assists a game? And it really is this aberration that makes Plekanec's season look like the absolute dud that it did. Chip in another ten (which might have happened if Kovalev weren't examining his soul and Kostitsyn undertaking police interviews at the time when Tomas got hottest) and he'd be under his potential, but closer to the ballpark.
For those alarmed that we've entrusted another season of scoring duties to a fading Plekanec, pull up your boots. As the second line centre, 20 goals a season is respectable across this league. What's more less top checking against him has always been a boon for PLeks. The stats don't point to another 2007-08 really, but 20+ goals and 30-40 assists should easily be in the cards.
Tobalev on Plekanec:
Kovalev is gone, Koivu is gone and the list goes on. That means, Tomas, that it is time to step up and be a dominant player/leader on this team. Pleks is no longer a shining prospect or ‘pleasant surprise’, he is now being counted on for real – or else. After what was a hard year for the Czech, he must come into this season with a positive, winning attitude. I am tired of seeing a defeated man after a missed shot or a hanging head following another loss. He has the speed, ability and talent to excel at this level and I think Gainey has got him plenty of help this year to bring all of that out of him.
I expect Pleks to bounce back to 07-08 form this year and forget all about last season. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he actually out-scored Gomez and was indeed our #1 centre. I don’t however, think that will happen, not this year. What I do think, though, is that he will put up 60 (give or take) points and somewhere near 20 goals. I think we’ll see a more confident player than the one that used to live in the shadows and this should translate into a much more balanced attack. I think where we will really notice him this year is on the special teams. I believe that he will be one of our top penalty-killers and I am certain that he will play a regular shift on the PP all season long.
Where Plekanec will start 2009-10: Trade rumour pages
Where Plekanec will end 2009-10: With many more fans on his side
Points: 23 G, 36 A, 59 Pts
Mike Cammalleri
Legend
Stats notes
Unlike Pleks, Mike can look at his numbers from last season and count on flattery. Here is what stands out for me:
1) Superb overall production
3.46 points per 60 minutes for Mike, 1.64 goals per 60, 3.3 goals for his team for every 60 minutes he's on the ice. These numbers stack up with the elite. His 19 powerplay goals would have surpassed the Canadiens at the half-season mark. To think his even strength.
2) Defence I can live with
There's always a trade off with offensive players like this – the expectation that a machine-gunning approach at one end will inevitably lead to lots of goals and chances at the other. The pleasant surprise is that Mike might have learned to tame that in Calgary. He managed to allow less than the average chances slip by with his linemates and even though he was playing in front of the for-once porous Kiprusoff (0.903's not a Vezina submission anymore), he was in the average at GA when on the ice.
3) Similarity between CGY 08-09 and LA 06-07
All this "Can he play without Iginla?" is ridiculous considering he has two 80 point seasons and two 30+ goal seasons in 3 years. His 2008-09 campaign answered the critics for 2006-07, and proved he can be a near 1.5 G/60 type guy. Maybe it's Iginla who should be worrying?
An offensive player through and through, who we hope might have learned something from a year in Sutterton. This year will tell if he's a year-on, year-off type player, and will probably see him settling to the production zone he'll keep up for these prime years. A look further back in his history will show that 19 goals is more anomalous than perhaps 39 or 34 were. Mind you, flirting with even in the +/- might also be out of the ordinary.
Tobalev on Cammalleri
Mike did well to cash out this summer as he really saved his best season for when it counted. I for one hope that he can repeat his 39-goal performance this season, but I can’t really see it happening. It seems that players’ production levels head south when they play for the Habs (Tanguay, Samsonov, Bonk, Johnson etc.) and I think I see it happening all over again. So the question is will the fans and media be happy with 35 goals? 30? My guess is no, so it all comes down to Mike. Kovalev was the perfect player for this environment as he always bounced back from criticism and boos, whereas Samsonov was the polar opposite. I predict that Mike will fall somewhere in between the two; somewhere where his play will be affected by the negativity, but not so much that he won’t score at all.
I would look for Mike to lead our team in goals and be a driving-force on the PP. Don’t expect too much in his own end, however, from the career -30 man. I could see him getting 40+ goals, but I could also see him getting below 30 as it all depends on his start and how the city warms to him. If he can create some chemistry with Gomez, Gionta, Plekanec or Kostitsyn before November 1st then he (as well as all of us) will enjoy his time in Montreal that much more.
Where Cammalleri will start 2009-10: First potential Canadiens 40-goal man in a decade
Where Cammalleri will end 2009-10: PP engine and more rounded ES player
Points: 33 G, 36 A, 69 Pts
Guillaume Latendresse
Legend
Stats notes
You could go many ways in interpreting these stats. Many numbers show clear decline, despite the progress that Gui is touted for. On the other hand, there is some stability within them too. The things to note:
1) Gui shoots straight
It's perhaps not that surprising that the skill that got him to the NHL is the one that stands out. 12.0% in an off year is not a stat I'd ever sneeze at.
2) Good production at even strength, considering
About a goal every 60 minutes of ice time is a good average to carry in you NHL career. Considering Gui's been bumped around lines a lot, not been given primo PP time and played with chance sink Kostopoulos a lot last year, then I find that encouraging. Hopefully he keeps up the pace.
3) Wonky even strength profile
As much as I'd like to think that Gui is one of the best defensive forwards on the team, the fact that I do have eyes helps me over the feeling. His profile shows us the danger of taking things out of context. Last season, Gui played at all the right times and missed the worst Price/Halak had to offer. Has it skewed the profile? Is Guillaume really 2nd best in Corsi? Perhaps the Canadiens lost all those games because he was injured? Impossible to tell for certain in a one-off experiment, but again, we do all have eyes, and sense.
As we've mentioned, 2009-10 is a big season for Latendresse. Because let's face it, another 14-16 goal campaign, while fine, certainly doesn't add to the lustre of the future 30-goal man argument. And, if it is to be 15 goals a year from here on in, then someone, somewhere is bound to surpass him, at least in terms of potential.
His shooting accuracy teamed with a new approach to shooting more should help. His defensive game and any improvement in the purpose of his hitting will make this line a very threatening one.
Tobalev on Latendresse
For some reason I am excited about Latendresse this year. Maybe it is because I see him as the best of the players from my home province, maybe it's because he is one of the longest serving Habs, or maybe it is because I actually sense a big season coming on. Whatever happens with goals and assists, Latendresse is still a player that wants to play for the Habs and generally tries pretty hard, despite some talent shortcomings.
Unfortunately for Gui, however, nothing is guaranteed. There are signs, after all that point to him not having that great of a season. His production levels have been stable for 3 years, he seems to be getting slower and he may very well get crowded out of the top-6/PP.
On the positive side, I think his new status on the team (best Quebecer) will help him, especially early in the season. Many fans and new teammates will look to him now as a leader and not just a prospect. If he can get in Martin’s good books and get himself onto a scoring line early on then I could see him there all year. If he makes the most of these chances when provided, the outlook could brighten in a hurry – I really think he could score 25 goals.
The more likely scenario, however, is that he gets bounced between the top 3 lines and into/out of the PP (thanks to injuries, slumps etc.). This will hurt his production and that is why I think he’ll likely top out at 30-35 points with most of those coming as goals.
Where Latendresse will start 2009-10: Carrying the torch for millions
Where Latendresse will end 2009-10: With a new appreciation for what he can do in this league
Points: 21 G, 24 A, 45 Pts
As a line
Just as Gomez was the point of departure for line #1, so Plekanec is pencilled in first for line #2. Cammalleri is next in, since he's a top line forward, and we opted not to put him on the "#1" line this time. Even so, Cammalleri's profile overall points to him being able to do things independently, and I think that could be a good thing for Plekanec. The difference in approach (i.e., using the puck quickly vs. holding the puck) should also suit PLeks, who's often quick to be in the right place when loose pucks appear.
Third man in to line #2 is the lucky dip. Between Sergei Kostitsyn, D'Agostini, Pacioretty and Latendresse. In the end, Guillaume's profile just stands up like a second liner. His goal rate is good and could improve, his accurate shot could be handy if Cammalleri creates masses of rebounds. Latendresse also adds a bit of size, and maybe even grit if he decides to – something the other three can't offer to the same extent. I feel it's his place to lose in the next few days.
Statistics adapted from nhl.com, behindthenet.ca, Olivier
Latendresse – Plekanec – Cammalleri
Tomas Plekanec
| NHL Season | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | PPG | GWG | G/60 | Pts/60 | Sh | S% | PIM |
| 08-09 (MTL) | 80 | 20 | 19 | 39 | -9 | 6 | 2 | 0.87 | 1.69 | 202 | 9.9 | 54 |
| 07-08 (MTL) | 81 | 29 | 40 | 69 | +15 | 12 | 6 | 1.19 | 2.83 | 186 | 15.6 | 42 |
| 06-07 (MTL) | 81 | 20 | 27 | 47 | +10 | 5 | 1 | 0.93 | 2.18 | 150 | 13.3 | 36 |
| Even-strength profile | |
 |
|
Stats notes
Had I written this report on Plekanec in either of the seasons previous to this one, it's fair to say it would have been glowing. Though last season was disappointing, the numbers Tomas put up still tell the tale of what kind of player he is and can be:
1) His CORSI number was high relative to his peers
Yes Plekanec had a decline in numbers, but what his Corsi shows me is what I'd read from his play – that actually his play varies little in goalscoring slump or spree. Relative to the team, Tomas was actually a player the Canadiens could count on last season to tip the play (if not goals) in their favour. Team chance differential was 5.2 shots a game more in their favour for the minutes Plekanec was on the ice than not. What that meant in real terms is that when Tomas was on, chances were just about even at both ends, when he was off the Habs were letting the other team drive.
2) 69 goals in 3 seasons – 3 20+ goal seasons
No other Habs player can boast this kind of production, or indeed consistency.
3) 19 assists last season
When The Score Forecaster asked me for a stat to sum up 2008-09 for the Habs, I chose Plekanec's 19 assists as the standout. Can you imagine any other top line centre on a line that ended up scoring 69 goals, who actually prefers passing to shooting, ending a season with 0.25 assists a game? And it really is this aberration that makes Plekanec's season look like the absolute dud that it did. Chip in another ten (which might have happened if Kovalev weren't examining his soul and Kostitsyn undertaking police interviews at the time when Tomas got hottest) and he'd be under his potential, but closer to the ballpark.
For those alarmed that we've entrusted another season of scoring duties to a fading Plekanec, pull up your boots. As the second line centre, 20 goals a season is respectable across this league. What's more less top checking against him has always been a boon for PLeks. The stats don't point to another 2007-08 really, but 20+ goals and 30-40 assists should easily be in the cards.
Tobalev on Plekanec:
Kovalev is gone, Koivu is gone and the list goes on. That means, Tomas, that it is time to step up and be a dominant player/leader on this team. Pleks is no longer a shining prospect or ‘pleasant surprise’, he is now being counted on for real – or else. After what was a hard year for the Czech, he must come into this season with a positive, winning attitude. I am tired of seeing a defeated man after a missed shot or a hanging head following another loss. He has the speed, ability and talent to excel at this level and I think Gainey has got him plenty of help this year to bring all of that out of him.
I expect Pleks to bounce back to 07-08 form this year and forget all about last season. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he actually out-scored Gomez and was indeed our #1 centre. I don’t however, think that will happen, not this year. What I do think, though, is that he will put up 60 (give or take) points and somewhere near 20 goals. I think we’ll see a more confident player than the one that used to live in the shadows and this should translate into a much more balanced attack. I think where we will really notice him this year is on the special teams. I believe that he will be one of our top penalty-killers and I am certain that he will play a regular shift on the PP all season long.
Where Plekanec will start 2009-10: Trade rumour pages
Where Plekanec will end 2009-10: With many more fans on his side
Points: 23 G, 36 A, 59 Pts
Mike Cammalleri
| NHL Season | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | PPG | GWG | G/60 | Pts/60 | Sh | S% | PIM |
| 08-09 (CGY) | 81 | 39 | 43 | 82 | -2 | 19 | 6 | 1.64 | 3.46 | 255 | 15.0 | 44 |
| 07-08 (LA) | 63 | 19 | 28 | 47 | -16 | 10 | 1 | 0.91 | 2.26 | 210 | 9.0 | 30 |
| 06-07 (LA) | 81 | 34 | 46 | 80 | +5 | 16 | 5 | 1.40 | 3.28 | 299 | 11.4 | 48 |
| Even-strength profile | |
 |
|
Stats notes
Unlike Pleks, Mike can look at his numbers from last season and count on flattery. Here is what stands out for me:
1) Superb overall production
3.46 points per 60 minutes for Mike, 1.64 goals per 60, 3.3 goals for his team for every 60 minutes he's on the ice. These numbers stack up with the elite. His 19 powerplay goals would have surpassed the Canadiens at the half-season mark. To think his even strength.
2) Defence I can live with
There's always a trade off with offensive players like this – the expectation that a machine-gunning approach at one end will inevitably lead to lots of goals and chances at the other. The pleasant surprise is that Mike might have learned to tame that in Calgary. He managed to allow less than the average chances slip by with his linemates and even though he was playing in front of the for-once porous Kiprusoff (0.903's not a Vezina submission anymore), he was in the average at GA when on the ice.
3) Similarity between CGY 08-09 and LA 06-07
All this "Can he play without Iginla?" is ridiculous considering he has two 80 point seasons and two 30+ goal seasons in 3 years. His 2008-09 campaign answered the critics for 2006-07, and proved he can be a near 1.5 G/60 type guy. Maybe it's Iginla who should be worrying?
An offensive player through and through, who we hope might have learned something from a year in Sutterton. This year will tell if he's a year-on, year-off type player, and will probably see him settling to the production zone he'll keep up for these prime years. A look further back in his history will show that 19 goals is more anomalous than perhaps 39 or 34 were. Mind you, flirting with even in the +/- might also be out of the ordinary.
Tobalev on Cammalleri
Mike did well to cash out this summer as he really saved his best season for when it counted. I for one hope that he can repeat his 39-goal performance this season, but I can’t really see it happening. It seems that players’ production levels head south when they play for the Habs (Tanguay, Samsonov, Bonk, Johnson etc.) and I think I see it happening all over again. So the question is will the fans and media be happy with 35 goals? 30? My guess is no, so it all comes down to Mike. Kovalev was the perfect player for this environment as he always bounced back from criticism and boos, whereas Samsonov was the polar opposite. I predict that Mike will fall somewhere in between the two; somewhere where his play will be affected by the negativity, but not so much that he won’t score at all.
I would look for Mike to lead our team in goals and be a driving-force on the PP. Don’t expect too much in his own end, however, from the career -30 man. I could see him getting 40+ goals, but I could also see him getting below 30 as it all depends on his start and how the city warms to him. If he can create some chemistry with Gomez, Gionta, Plekanec or Kostitsyn before November 1st then he (as well as all of us) will enjoy his time in Montreal that much more.
Where Cammalleri will start 2009-10: First potential Canadiens 40-goal man in a decade
Where Cammalleri will end 2009-10: PP engine and more rounded ES player
Points: 33 G, 36 A, 69 Pts
Guillaume Latendresse
| NHL Season | GP | G | A | Pts | +/- | PPG | GWG | G/60 | Pts/60 | Sh | S% | PIM |
| 08-09 (MTL) | 56 | 14 | 12 | 26 | +4 | 1 | 2 | 1.10 | 2.05 | 117 | 12.0 | 45 |
| 07-08 (MTL) | 73 | 16 | 11 | 27 | -2 | 2 | 3 | 1.07 | 1.81 | 116 | 13.8 | 41 |
| 06-07 (MTL) | 80 | 16 | 13 | 29 | -20 | 5 | 3 | 0.95 | 1.73 | 121 | 13.2 | 47 |
| Even-strength profile | |
 |
|
Stats notes
You could go many ways in interpreting these stats. Many numbers show clear decline, despite the progress that Gui is touted for. On the other hand, there is some stability within them too. The things to note:
1) Gui shoots straight
It's perhaps not that surprising that the skill that got him to the NHL is the one that stands out. 12.0% in an off year is not a stat I'd ever sneeze at.
2) Good production at even strength, considering
About a goal every 60 minutes of ice time is a good average to carry in you NHL career. Considering Gui's been bumped around lines a lot, not been given primo PP time and played with chance sink Kostopoulos a lot last year, then I find that encouraging. Hopefully he keeps up the pace.
3) Wonky even strength profile
As much as I'd like to think that Gui is one of the best defensive forwards on the team, the fact that I do have eyes helps me over the feeling. His profile shows us the danger of taking things out of context. Last season, Gui played at all the right times and missed the worst Price/Halak had to offer. Has it skewed the profile? Is Guillaume really 2nd best in Corsi? Perhaps the Canadiens lost all those games because he was injured? Impossible to tell for certain in a one-off experiment, but again, we do all have eyes, and sense.
As we've mentioned, 2009-10 is a big season for Latendresse. Because let's face it, another 14-16 goal campaign, while fine, certainly doesn't add to the lustre of the future 30-goal man argument. And, if it is to be 15 goals a year from here on in, then someone, somewhere is bound to surpass him, at least in terms of potential.
His shooting accuracy teamed with a new approach to shooting more should help. His defensive game and any improvement in the purpose of his hitting will make this line a very threatening one.
Tobalev on Latendresse
For some reason I am excited about Latendresse this year. Maybe it is because I see him as the best of the players from my home province, maybe it's because he is one of the longest serving Habs, or maybe it is because I actually sense a big season coming on. Whatever happens with goals and assists, Latendresse is still a player that wants to play for the Habs and generally tries pretty hard, despite some talent shortcomings.
Unfortunately for Gui, however, nothing is guaranteed. There are signs, after all that point to him not having that great of a season. His production levels have been stable for 3 years, he seems to be getting slower and he may very well get crowded out of the top-6/PP.
On the positive side, I think his new status on the team (best Quebecer) will help him, especially early in the season. Many fans and new teammates will look to him now as a leader and not just a prospect. If he can get in Martin’s good books and get himself onto a scoring line early on then I could see him there all year. If he makes the most of these chances when provided, the outlook could brighten in a hurry – I really think he could score 25 goals.
The more likely scenario, however, is that he gets bounced between the top 3 lines and into/out of the PP (thanks to injuries, slumps etc.). This will hurt his production and that is why I think he’ll likely top out at 30-35 points with most of those coming as goals.
Where Latendresse will start 2009-10: Carrying the torch for millions
Where Latendresse will end 2009-10: With a new appreciation for what he can do in this league
Points: 21 G, 24 A, 45 Pts
As a line
| Line #2 | Effect O/D | |
| C – Tomas Plekanec |  |
|
| RW – Mike Cammalleri |  |
|
| LW – Guillaume Latendresse | |
|
Just as Gomez was the point of departure for line #1, so Plekanec is pencilled in first for line #2. Cammalleri is next in, since he's a top line forward, and we opted not to put him on the "#1" line this time. Even so, Cammalleri's profile overall points to him being able to do things independently, and I think that could be a good thing for Plekanec. The difference in approach (i.e., using the puck quickly vs. holding the puck) should also suit PLeks, who's often quick to be in the right place when loose pucks appear.
Third man in to line #2 is the lucky dip. Between Sergei Kostitsyn, D'Agostini, Pacioretty and Latendresse. In the end, Guillaume's profile just stands up like a second liner. His goal rate is good and could improve, his accurate shot could be handy if Cammalleri creates masses of rebounds. Latendresse also adds a bit of size, and maybe even grit if he decides to – something the other three can't offer to the same extent. I feel it's his place to lose in the next few days.
Statistics adapted from nhl.com, behindthenet.ca, Olivier
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)