[Prior to the beginning of the season, a broad assumption was made by many a fan that the career of Tomas Kaberle was at an end, a mere 6 month wait away from a buyout.
But then a funny thing happened, a rookie GM went over his own deadline in signing his RFA and Kaberle saw the light of day. He played in 5 of the 6 games before the erstwhile defender returned and then stood in as a spare part for the game of the return itself.
Showing posts with label Goals created. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Goals created. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Habs Week 3 in Review: Precipice
Wow, all that positivity must have caught up with us. This week (beginning with the game identified as a litmus test) really gave fans, players and management a lot to think about.
I think the question one has to ask (as before, though more people are open to the suggestion now) is: which team is the 2013 Habs? Weeks 1 and 2 had us all thinking that our faded memories of Markov were mollified by time and that maybe all the off-season griping over moves made and not was for naught. I think a week later, we find all that right back on the doorstep.
I wish there were a lesson other than anything can happen, but there may not be. Here then is a more downbeat weekly review of the Habs play than we've become accustomed to.
I think the question one has to ask (as before, though more people are open to the suggestion now) is: which team is the 2013 Habs? Weeks 1 and 2 had us all thinking that our faded memories of Markov were mollified by time and that maybe all the off-season griping over moves made and not was for naught. I think a week later, we find all that right back on the doorstep.
I wish there were a lesson other than anything can happen, but there may not be. Here then is a more downbeat weekly review of the Habs play than we've become accustomed to.
Monday, February 04, 2013
Habs Week 2 in Review
One good week is nice, a couple in a row in this shortened season is a serious head start for the playoffs.
I have to own up to being more negative than positive about this season, but factors which I could not understand (Bourque morphing into a player to be held as an example to all, Gallagher and Galchenyuk outmatching some serious competition by such a wide margin, Markov not only reviving the PP, but making it better than ever before) have conspired to make the team I was analyzing into another proposition altogether.
This is the review of the second week in which more players had multiple goals games, the PP kept ticking and the start goalie didn't lose.
I have to own up to being more negative than positive about this season, but factors which I could not understand (Bourque morphing into a player to be held as an example to all, Gallagher and Galchenyuk outmatching some serious competition by such a wide margin, Markov not only reviving the PP, but making it better than ever before) have conspired to make the team I was analyzing into another proposition altogether.
This is the review of the second week in which more players had multiple goals games, the PP kept ticking and the start goalie didn't lose.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Habs Week 1 in Review
After allowing the inauspicious start of first goal allowed on first shot to national rival on the big return to hockey on national TV, the Habs have really rebounded. Barring the rest of that mostly unwatchable game, the team has been an exciting combination of speed and efficiency, of system and flair.
For posterity, I am going to provide a short review of the week and what traces it left in the subjective and objective records.
For posterity, I am going to provide a short review of the week and what traces it left in the subjective and objective records.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Lion of December
The Real Player of the Month
It won't necessarily be pretty, but they'll be handing out the returning Canadiens the player of the month award tonight at the Bell Centre. If the team stays true to fan voting, then it could be close. I can't find the total ballots as I did last season (maybe the team is trying to conceal the fact that only 200 people vote a game), but based on fan stars, Price (on a so-so season for him) will continue the sweep.
The fans chose Price first star twice, second star once and third star twice over his 13 starts. Next best was Erik Cole who got three seconds and a third. The NHL version of events has Price with his two first, but a less generous one third to go with. Cole on the other hand got a first star nod from the experts and three seconds. By conventional scoring Cole wins media.
It's always hard to choose the best player over a bad month. The Habs this month turned 14 games into 11 points by going 4-7-3. This meant even with the serious bias of Canadiens fans, they still only awarded stars to 25 of a possible 42 recipients.
I think this month was poor enough that consideration should also be given to those players who played well in losing efforts as well as wins. Thus we look to other elements.
This should be painful: Lion of the Month.
Cole
Let's start with conventional stats. He scored 9 goals in 14 games. He assisted on 4 others. He scored those goals in 9 different games, so it's not like we're overvaluing the Ottawa game here.
In terms of goals created, we assessed that Cole created 6.00 goals on his own. This may not sound like much, but consider that means we think he is responsible for 1/6th of the offensive output for the whole team over a month. Noting that he could only ever be 1/6th of the team on at most goalscoring times, even if he played every minute. Exceptional, in other words. He's doing things on and off the puck to make his line a threat most of the time.
Cole was on the ice for 99 chances in December, including 29 of his own. Both clear highs for a forward on the team. Is it sustainable? Perhaps not the goal completion rate, but for the rest he's shown it's just part of the way he plays -- I'd say yes.
Price
If you look purely on the dome/no dome dichotomy Price did enough to win this nod. I wonder though, did he just do enough enough times, however?
We awarded him the player of the game 4 time in his 13 starts. In those games, Price had a 2-1-1 record with a 1.97 GAA and a 0.935 SV%. Good, but the best in the league post this as their average performance. The flip side were his other 9 games where he was 2-5-2 with a 3.19 GAA and an 0.897 SV%.
It's always hard to fault a goalie and often we give the benefit of the doubt to the player in the last line of defence who has been left to fend for himself. Witness 8 domes for that record in 9 games above. Yet, averages are informative because they help us to spot trends and importantly start to compare against other goalies or past performance.
A crude measure of shot quality is shot location. As you know, Olivier of En Attendant les Nordiques goes far to track this aspect with his scoring chance data. When we filter out missed shots we get high quality shots (or at least shots from high quality locations). This year, I have been doing this and finding that of the shots Price faces, about 42% are of this higher quality. Unfortunately I didn't do this last season, but going on the proportion of missed shots that make the scoring chance record this season (76%), this number is up from last season when he was facing about 36% shots from quality areas. All last season, he'd have been saving about 79% of these shots, identical to this December as it happens.
So, to be absolutely fair to Carey, the evidence is mounting that the Habs have been hanging out to dry.
Diaz
A bit of an honourable mention, perhaps. Diaz, 20-odd games into an NHL career has had a month of great growth actually.
Diaz claimed 6 domes from a possible 12, and tied for the most of any defenceman. We do recall that sometimes this was for not being totally awful, but that is on a par with Price, isn't it?
What specifically drew my eye to Diaz were a few little stats. +2 - Diaz has been rather stingy at ES, a team-leading 1.71. This may be due in part to Carey's heroism or luck when he's been on, but it still stands out. As does his ability to keep chances on net off target (misses or blocks) more than others.
He's also been a big cog on the still putrid (but improving PP). The Habs scored 9 PP goals in December on 55ish PPs. It's not a good percentage, but it's better than before. Diaz's increasing comfort at the point is part of that. It's a shame he can't score, but he does have 6.18 Pts/60 for December, a team high. While he was on, the team scored 9.27 goals per 60 minutes of time as well (or about double the team rate), which was also a team high. Obviously one can't do this conversion and take it seriously, but for fun, this goal rate might convert to a 27.8% efficiency rating (based on an avg PP length of 1:48, or 9 minutes over 5 PPs to score 1 goal).
Lion of November: Erik Cole
Diaz wasn't really in the league of the other two, but that speaks volumes about the team as a whole, doesn't it?
I give the nod to Erik Cole. Price had a good month, but you'd always want to add the words "considering the circumstances" after that statement. Cole just had a good month, even an exceptional one. While team tightening and sways in luck will see this future battle likely go to Price as it did in November, one can't just ignore 9 important goals.
As I've aid, this month's battle was a huge disappointment. Diaz, the legitimate #3 is nowhere near vying for this honour. The two realistic contenders are the same two as November. One must start asking where the rest of the team is.
Cole has very good been individually, but his ability to lead or stir his teammates must come next. Desharnais is producing more than he should/would, but Cole has to be used to somehow now re-infect Plekanec, Pacioretty, Kostitsyn, Cammalleri, Eller, Darche, Moen and eventually Gionta to be something better than average at peak performance.
It's a lot to ask of the free agent Hab, but he'll be doing it for himself. That's because if he wants playoff hockey over this contract, the Habs current group with some fire look the better bet than his old mates in Carolina.
The fans chose Price first star twice, second star once and third star twice over his 13 starts. Next best was Erik Cole who got three seconds and a third. The NHL version of events has Price with his two first, but a less generous one third to go with. Cole on the other hand got a first star nod from the experts and three seconds. By conventional scoring Cole wins media.
It's always hard to choose the best player over a bad month. The Habs this month turned 14 games into 11 points by going 4-7-3. This meant even with the serious bias of Canadiens fans, they still only awarded stars to 25 of a possible 42 recipients.
I think this month was poor enough that consideration should also be given to those players who played well in losing efforts as well as wins. Thus we look to other elements.
This should be painful: Lion of the Month.
Cole
Let's start with conventional stats. He scored 9 goals in 14 games. He assisted on 4 others. He scored those goals in 9 different games, so it's not like we're overvaluing the Ottawa game here.
In terms of goals created, we assessed that Cole created 6.00 goals on his own. This may not sound like much, but consider that means we think he is responsible for 1/6th of the offensive output for the whole team over a month. Noting that he could only ever be 1/6th of the team on at most goalscoring times, even if he played every minute. Exceptional, in other words. He's doing things on and off the puck to make his line a threat most of the time.
Cole was on the ice for 99 chances in December, including 29 of his own. Both clear highs for a forward on the team. Is it sustainable? Perhaps not the goal completion rate, but for the rest he's shown it's just part of the way he plays -- I'd say yes.
Price
If you look purely on the dome/no dome dichotomy Price did enough to win this nod. I wonder though, did he just do enough enough times, however?
We awarded him the player of the game 4 time in his 13 starts. In those games, Price had a 2-1-1 record with a 1.97 GAA and a 0.935 SV%. Good, but the best in the league post this as their average performance. The flip side were his other 9 games where he was 2-5-2 with a 3.19 GAA and an 0.897 SV%.
It's always hard to fault a goalie and often we give the benefit of the doubt to the player in the last line of defence who has been left to fend for himself. Witness 8 domes for that record in 9 games above. Yet, averages are informative because they help us to spot trends and importantly start to compare against other goalies or past performance.
A crude measure of shot quality is shot location. As you know, Olivier of En Attendant les Nordiques goes far to track this aspect with his scoring chance data. When we filter out missed shots we get high quality shots (or at least shots from high quality locations). This year, I have been doing this and finding that of the shots Price faces, about 42% are of this higher quality. Unfortunately I didn't do this last season, but going on the proportion of missed shots that make the scoring chance record this season (76%), this number is up from last season when he was facing about 36% shots from quality areas. All last season, he'd have been saving about 79% of these shots, identical to this December as it happens.
So, to be absolutely fair to Carey, the evidence is mounting that the Habs have been hanging out to dry.
Diaz
A bit of an honourable mention, perhaps. Diaz, 20-odd games into an NHL career has had a month of great growth actually.
Diaz claimed 6 domes from a possible 12, and tied for the most of any defenceman. We do recall that sometimes this was for not being totally awful, but that is on a par with Price, isn't it?
What specifically drew my eye to Diaz were a few little stats. +2 - Diaz has been rather stingy at ES, a team-leading 1.71. This may be due in part to Carey's heroism or luck when he's been on, but it still stands out. As does his ability to keep chances on net off target (misses or blocks) more than others.
He's also been a big cog on the still putrid (but improving PP). The Habs scored 9 PP goals in December on 55ish PPs. It's not a good percentage, but it's better than before. Diaz's increasing comfort at the point is part of that. It's a shame he can't score, but he does have 6.18 Pts/60 for December, a team high. While he was on, the team scored 9.27 goals per 60 minutes of time as well (or about double the team rate), which was also a team high. Obviously one can't do this conversion and take it seriously, but for fun, this goal rate might convert to a 27.8% efficiency rating (based on an avg PP length of 1:48, or 9 minutes over 5 PPs to score 1 goal).
Lion of November: Erik Cole
Diaz wasn't really in the league of the other two, but that speaks volumes about the team as a whole, doesn't it?
I give the nod to Erik Cole. Price had a good month, but you'd always want to add the words "considering the circumstances" after that statement. Cole just had a good month, even an exceptional one. While team tightening and sways in luck will see this future battle likely go to Price as it did in November, one can't just ignore 9 important goals.
As I've aid, this month's battle was a huge disappointment. Diaz, the legitimate #3 is nowhere near vying for this honour. The two realistic contenders are the same two as November. One must start asking where the rest of the team is.
Cole has very good been individually, but his ability to lead or stir his teammates must come next. Desharnais is producing more than he should/would, but Cole has to be used to somehow now re-infect Plekanec, Pacioretty, Kostitsyn, Cammalleri, Eller, Darche, Moen and eventually Gionta to be something better than average at peak performance.
It's a lot to ask of the free agent Hab, but he'll be doing it for himself. That's because if he wants playoff hockey over this contract, the Habs current group with some fire look the better bet than his old mates in Carolina.
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Lion of October
The Real Player of the Month
It's not Carey Price's fault that the Molson Cup system is flawed, but it is. One has to retain the Molson Cup as a goalie, rather than win it, because the points work that way.
A forward has to win the accolade, and a defenceman would have to raise heaven and earth to get the nod.
The last 12 years in Montreal saw ten goalies get the annual prize, only interrupted by Koivu in 05-06 and Kovalev in 07-08. The last defenceman to win in Montreal: Larry Robinson, 1981.
This isn't unique to the Habs. Such luminaries as Martin Gerber, Ottawa, Vesa Toskala, Toronto and Alex Auld, Vancouver have won the Molson Cup; they're in the net for 60 minutes and are making 90% of saves in most wins, they are top of mind for star selectors.
I don't have a mission to change the Molson Cup. The fans seem to like it (all 200 that vote each game). Rather, I think it only fair that when a player misses out for the recognition he probably deserved over a given month, that he be recognized somewhere.
So, there you have it: Lion of the Month.
With all due respect to Carey Price, who did earn his three star selections, a 4-4-2 record with a 0.900 save percentage and a 2.59 GAA doesn't flatter the team. It leads me to think that perhaps someone was better.
The other candidates: Max Pacioretty and Tomas Plekanec
Pacioretty
Pacioretty jumps out as a choice because we've taken note of his play on this site. 3 times he was named player of the game by us (without significant disagreement) and 5 times he made the dome. A case could have been made for more domes, which is not necessarily the case for Carey Price (who had 7).
His success was recorded in more than our own observations. Max led the team in almost every offensive category in October. He is tied for first in goals (4) and points (9) with Pleks for a start. He's second on the team in total goals created since the start and is first if you pro-rate by minutes played. he's also by far and away the leader at creating goals at even strength.
And for all those who believe that shots drive the whole game, it's worth noting that max is leading the team with shots on net and scoring chances, and is second in overall attempts on net.
In short, he's been "the" offensive catalyst for the team most nights.
Plekanec
Plekanec has quietly crept up the rankings in most of the statistics as well. He currently sits tied for the lead in points and goals as mentioned and leads the team in goals created. Though he was slow off the mark (or a bit unlucky) to start, he now leads the team in goals created on the PP and is showing he might get used to controlling the point of the PP given enough chance to settle in.
Of course we know that in addition to leading the PP, he also takes tough checking assignments and plays a lot of PK. This might not be a plus for him at this point, however.
Pleks has scored more important goals than anyone also. 2 gamewinners of 4 and last game's empty netter saved some blushes that looked to be around the corner.
Price
My low down on Price is that he has had 3 excellent games, 1 very good game, 3 average games and 3 below average ones. This averages out to above average in games, and that's why he led in star points, of course.
However, 10 starts in 11 games gave him much more ice time to get these nods than anyone else, and if this use level continues, pretty much regardless of results, he'll win the Molson Cup.
Because I keep some deeper stats, I know that Price has allowed a goal by the time the other team has had a mere 3.7 scoring chances on average. Knowing how the team in front of him has trouble coming back (not recently), allowing a goal on the first or second scoring chance on net on 6 of 10 occasions counts as a minus for me.
Lion of October: Max Pacioretty
A close race, but on balance, I'd have to rate Pacioretty as the player of October. This is entirely on the merit of his play on the ice and his production of offense for the team. It's entirely reasonable that people want to focus on the recent wins, but Pacioretty as the strongest player in all the losses represented October's positives better than anyone else.
Remarkable to think then that he is also coming back from a broken neck and concussion. Remarkable also that he carried his streaky form from January and February of last season, when such an injury could have easily seen him revert to Max 1.0.
A forward has to win the accolade, and a defenceman would have to raise heaven and earth to get the nod.
The last 12 years in Montreal saw ten goalies get the annual prize, only interrupted by Koivu in 05-06 and Kovalev in 07-08. The last defenceman to win in Montreal: Larry Robinson, 1981.
This isn't unique to the Habs. Such luminaries as Martin Gerber, Ottawa, Vesa Toskala, Toronto and Alex Auld, Vancouver have won the Molson Cup; they're in the net for 60 minutes and are making 90% of saves in most wins, they are top of mind for star selectors.
I don't have a mission to change the Molson Cup. The fans seem to like it (all 200 that vote each game). Rather, I think it only fair that when a player misses out for the recognition he probably deserved over a given month, that he be recognized somewhere.
So, there you have it: Lion of the Month.
With all due respect to Carey Price, who did earn his three star selections, a 4-4-2 record with a 0.900 save percentage and a 2.59 GAA doesn't flatter the team. It leads me to think that perhaps someone was better.
The other candidates: Max Pacioretty and Tomas Plekanec
Pacioretty
Pacioretty jumps out as a choice because we've taken note of his play on this site. 3 times he was named player of the game by us (without significant disagreement) and 5 times he made the dome. A case could have been made for more domes, which is not necessarily the case for Carey Price (who had 7).
His success was recorded in more than our own observations. Max led the team in almost every offensive category in October. He is tied for first in goals (4) and points (9) with Pleks for a start. He's second on the team in total goals created since the start and is first if you pro-rate by minutes played. he's also by far and away the leader at creating goals at even strength.
And for all those who believe that shots drive the whole game, it's worth noting that max is leading the team with shots on net and scoring chances, and is second in overall attempts on net.
In short, he's been "the" offensive catalyst for the team most nights.
Plekanec
Plekanec has quietly crept up the rankings in most of the statistics as well. He currently sits tied for the lead in points and goals as mentioned and leads the team in goals created. Though he was slow off the mark (or a bit unlucky) to start, he now leads the team in goals created on the PP and is showing he might get used to controlling the point of the PP given enough chance to settle in.
Of course we know that in addition to leading the PP, he also takes tough checking assignments and plays a lot of PK. This might not be a plus for him at this point, however.
Pleks has scored more important goals than anyone also. 2 gamewinners of 4 and last game's empty netter saved some blushes that looked to be around the corner.
Price
My low down on Price is that he has had 3 excellent games, 1 very good game, 3 average games and 3 below average ones. This averages out to above average in games, and that's why he led in star points, of course.
However, 10 starts in 11 games gave him much more ice time to get these nods than anyone else, and if this use level continues, pretty much regardless of results, he'll win the Molson Cup.
Because I keep some deeper stats, I know that Price has allowed a goal by the time the other team has had a mere 3.7 scoring chances on average. Knowing how the team in front of him has trouble coming back (not recently), allowing a goal on the first or second scoring chance on net on 6 of 10 occasions counts as a minus for me.
Lion of October: Max Pacioretty
A close race, but on balance, I'd have to rate Pacioretty as the player of October. This is entirely on the merit of his play on the ice and his production of offense for the team. It's entirely reasonable that people want to focus on the recent wins, but Pacioretty as the strongest player in all the losses represented October's positives better than anyone else.
Remarkable to think then that he is also coming back from a broken neck and concussion. Remarkable also that he carried his streaky form from January and February of last season, when such an injury could have easily seen him revert to Max 1.0.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The Value Of Assists
As hockey statistics continue to expand, new measures and multiplication factors are thought up every day. But for all the sophistication that is emerging regarding shots, saves and the like, we are still left as fans with the albatross of the NHL scoring leaders at the heart of everything.
As you well know, the NHL scoring leaders is a blunt tool to assess a player’s worth. A simple record of who touched the puck last, second to last and third to last as pucks flew by goaltenders into the net. It does little to instruct us on who created the goals, who made the play that unlocked the D or the goalie.
As you know, we at LIW took issue with this and undertook to examine each goal the Montreal Canadiens scored over an entire season. Instead of simply assigning equal points to the last three guys who touched the puck (as scoring leaders does), we decided to evaluate each goal on its own merits, assigning points to each of the players involved (not limiting the contributors at three, but sometimes stopping short as well). We called it goals created.
The product of this analysis was very interesting, and I promise to share it with you soon in an upcoming post. But today I wanted to talk about one of the by-products of the statistical compilation that we undertook: the average value of each component part (i.e., G, A1, A2, others). In particular, I wanted to address the value of the second assist.
What is the value of an assist?
I think we've all exclaimed at one point or another the silliness of assigning the same weight to some assists as a goalscorer gets for an unassisted goal. I think we can all remember thinking that perhaps goals and assists are not worth the same amount just because the stats page tells they do, and that some goals, some assists are better than others.
As I looked at the statistics we were gathering, I was curious to see what might have been written on this topic in the past. As it turns out, there is quite a bit.
The general consensus seems to be that a second assist is worth less than a goal and less than a first assist, but to what extent is (and will remain) unclear. James Mirtle chimed in on this a few years ago. And the new stats community has been in on the discussion. But it seems the area where this has seen the most light is among those who attempt to make the NHL statistics speak to player contribution through mathematical manipulation ¬ specifically Allan Ryder of Goals Created.
Allan writes an extensive thesis on how he thinks players contribute to the results (wins) on the ice. If you’re keen you can find some of his full work here. If you want to stick to assists today, then he wrote on those for the Globe and Mail a few years back too.
After reading all the fretting over the inadequacy of the NHL scoring methods, it came a quite a surprise that statistical experts have come to one of three conclusions on this:
Obviously, point one is outdated and has been completely misproven by the work of Olivier in the Habs camp and many others like him around the league. Point two is an improvement, but discounting second assists altogether might be as wrong as counting them equally in the first place. The third approach is the step in the right direction, but it stops short of illuminating anything, as it is unclear how much data and research plays a part in the divining of those numbers.
In his lengthy 2004 report on player contribution, Allan Ryder wrote:
Goal distribution
Historical statistics for the NHL show that typically 5% of goals are unassisted, 20% of goals have one assist and the other 75% have the full two. This means there are 1.7 assists per goal scored.
This season, the Montreal Canadiens scored a total of 256 goals.
193 of the goals had 2 assists credited (75%)
45 of the goals had 1 assist credited (18%)
18 goals were unassisted (7%)
These numbers mean there were 1.68 assists per goal this year in Montreal.
That looks just about right, considering what we should expect. I agree the sample would be better with goals from all teams included, but at least the Habs aren’t some unassisted goalscoring anomaly to waste a season worth of data collection.
Value of goals
It seems that those who suggested a goalscorer should get about 50% of credit on all NHL goals might be vindicated. A season's worth of Habs goals puts goalscoring credit at about 54%, pretty close to half.
Interesting to note, however, is that not all goals are created equally. Shorthanded goals show a trend to being more goalscorer driven (not surprising), and PP goals have the goalscorer sharing much more credit with his teammates.
All in all, the goalscoring picture is about where we might have thought with a number out of the air. So far so good.
Value of assists
This is where things get interesting. With about 46% of credit left to dole out, an equitable soul might place the first and second assists at about 23% each. The most daring of stats guessers put the ratio at 3:2
(or 0.28 and 0.18, or thereabouts).
Total numbers showing 0.33 and 0.13 put these estimates way off.
Data for ES and PP all show the same - that a first assist is a major contribution to a goal, a second assist is a minor one.
What does this mean?
If this data is indicative of the way things happen elsewhere, then as suspected, the NHL scoring leaders do not do a very good job of representing player contribution.
While we already know that goals are better than assists, we can tease that information just by looking at the scoring breakdown. But if there is a massive difference between first and second assist then scoring summaries that don't split into two sets of helpers must be severely questioned.
This we mostly knew already. Hence the rise of the player contribution systems from both Allan Ryder and Tom Awad. There are implications for these systems too. Awad for example feeds all assists into his GVT at the same value, and may have a value for goals (0.43) that underestimates the triggerman.
The last, and probably most important thing, this data tells me is that generalizing values to situation (whether it be ES, PP or SH, or 1assists, 2 assists goals) creates error. If we as fans want to get to the bottom of player contribution, then we have have work to do.
As you well know, the NHL scoring leaders is a blunt tool to assess a player’s worth. A simple record of who touched the puck last, second to last and third to last as pucks flew by goaltenders into the net. It does little to instruct us on who created the goals, who made the play that unlocked the D or the goalie.
As you know, we at LIW took issue with this and undertook to examine each goal the Montreal Canadiens scored over an entire season. Instead of simply assigning equal points to the last three guys who touched the puck (as scoring leaders does), we decided to evaluate each goal on its own merits, assigning points to each of the players involved (not limiting the contributors at three, but sometimes stopping short as well). We called it goals created.
The product of this analysis was very interesting, and I promise to share it with you soon in an upcoming post. But today I wanted to talk about one of the by-products of the statistical compilation that we undertook: the average value of each component part (i.e., G, A1, A2, others). In particular, I wanted to address the value of the second assist.
What is the value of an assist?
I think we've all exclaimed at one point or another the silliness of assigning the same weight to some assists as a goalscorer gets for an unassisted goal. I think we can all remember thinking that perhaps goals and assists are not worth the same amount just because the stats page tells they do, and that some goals, some assists are better than others.
As I looked at the statistics we were gathering, I was curious to see what might have been written on this topic in the past. As it turns out, there is quite a bit.
The general consensus seems to be that a second assist is worth less than a goal and less than a first assist, but to what extent is (and will remain) unclear. James Mirtle chimed in on this a few years ago. And the new stats community has been in on the discussion. But it seems the area where this has seen the most light is among those who attempt to make the NHL statistics speak to player contribution through mathematical manipulation ¬ specifically Allan Ryder of Goals Created.
Allan writes an extensive thesis on how he thinks players contribute to the results (wins) on the ice. If you’re keen you can find some of his full work here. If you want to stick to assists today, then he wrote on those for the Globe and Mail a few years back too.
After reading all the fretting over the inadequacy of the NHL scoring methods, it came a quite a surprise that statistical experts have come to one of three conclusions on this:
- Analysts are limited by the information in the scoring reports, and only the NHL has the ability to increase the data
- Second assists are worth less, so we’ll remove them altogether for a G+A1 look
- Second assists are worth less, but we’re not sure how much, so we’ll assign a number based on individual intuition to create a correction factor
Obviously, point one is outdated and has been completely misproven by the work of Olivier in the Habs camp and many others like him around the league. Point two is an improvement, but discounting second assists altogether might be as wrong as counting them equally in the first place. The third approach is the step in the right direction, but it stops short of illuminating anything, as it is unclear how much data and research plays a part in the divining of those numbers.
In his lengthy 2004 report on player contribution, Allan Ryder wrote:
“I know of no research on the relative value of goals versus assists. So you will just have to live with my best guess.”I don’t pretend to have taken the definitive step in settling this age old debate, but I think what we have done is at least an interesting starting point. By looking at all the goals individually and recording situation, players and contribution score we at least raise a flag to say that perhaps 0.5 a goal and 0.25 per assist is out of whack.
Goal distribution
Historical statistics for the NHL show that typically 5% of goals are unassisted, 20% of goals have one assist and the other 75% have the full two. This means there are 1.7 assists per goal scored.
This season, the Montreal Canadiens scored a total of 256 goals.
193 of the goals had 2 assists credited (75%)
45 of the goals had 1 assist credited (18%)
18 goals were unassisted (7%)
These numbers mean there were 1.68 assists per goal this year in Montreal.
That looks just about right, considering what we should expect. I agree the sample would be better with goals from all teams included, but at least the Habs aren’t some unassisted goalscoring anomaly to waste a season worth of data collection.
Value of goals
It seems that those who suggested a goalscorer should get about 50% of credit on all NHL goals might be vindicated. A season's worth of Habs goals puts goalscoring credit at about 54%, pretty close to half.
Interesting to note, however, is that not all goals are created equally. Shorthanded goals show a trend to being more goalscorer driven (not surprising), and PP goals have the goalscorer sharing much more credit with his teammates.
All in all, the goalscoring picture is about where we might have thought with a number out of the air. So far so good.
Value of assists
This is where things get interesting. With about 46% of credit left to dole out, an equitable soul might place the first and second assists at about 23% each. The most daring of stats guessers put the ratio at 3:2
(or 0.28 and 0.18, or thereabouts).
Total numbers showing 0.33 and 0.13 put these estimates way off.
Data for ES and PP all show the same - that a first assist is a major contribution to a goal, a second assist is a minor one.
What does this mean?
If this data is indicative of the way things happen elsewhere, then as suspected, the NHL scoring leaders do not do a very good job of representing player contribution.
While we already know that goals are better than assists, we can tease that information just by looking at the scoring breakdown. But if there is a massive difference between first and second assist then scoring summaries that don't split into two sets of helpers must be severely questioned.
This we mostly knew already. Hence the rise of the player contribution systems from both Allan Ryder and Tom Awad. There are implications for these systems too. Awad for example feeds all assists into his GVT at the same value, and may have a value for goals (0.43) that underestimates the triggerman.
The last, and probably most important thing, this data tells me is that generalizing values to situation (whether it be ES, PP or SH, or 1assists, 2 assists goals) creates error. If we as fans want to get to the bottom of player contribution, then we have have work to do.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
A Pouliot Move:
Tactical Manoeuvre or Costly Experiment?
Pouliot hasn't been scoring at a goal every two games – just in case you haven't noticed. Even the Gomez line (the best for the past while) has been pretty quiet for about 6, maybe 12, periods of hockey. The solution is nothing new. Player is switched to a) jump start line or b) jump start player.
It's worth talking about simply because Pouliot happens to be (averaged over time) our most productive player. Since coming to the Canadiens 30 odd games ago, he has scored 14 goals, his average over 60 minutes of play is in the elite realm of 1.5 G/60. What's more, with 10 goals created, he's been clipping at just less than Cammalleri offensively.
The question then, why take Pouliot off the very line he jump started in the first place at the first sight of slump?
The answer begins with an objective look at things. Thankfully, the tireless Olivier has been looking into this for us and provided some numbers we can get our teeth into. Olivier's analysis looks at the effect that different centremen have had on the play of three wingers (Darche, Pyatt and Pouliot).
Pyatt, who we're not as interested in for today shows a predictable pattern of scoring chance distribution – putting up a positive balance with Metropolit, mainly fueled by the fact they hardly tried to score while they were on. With Plekanec, Pyatt's been on for more chances, but been caught more as well.
Darche has been better with different partners, probably because he has had to be. A good addition to nearly every line he's been on, he shows the experience he's had at moving teams by adapting quickly to new circumstances.
Pouliot has been an absolute star with Gomez. Olivier points out that he's not been as good with other centres. However, it must be said that because he and Scott have clicked so well, the reason to play with anyone else has been put on the backburner.
Olivier's scoring chance tabulations tell us a lot. They tell us who likes playing with whom and who can adapt/who can't. But they can't reveal everything. For example, they can't tell us what is the best combination for the team on average, and certainly not against a specific opponent. For that all stats leave us to the mercy of a bit of intuition and gut feel.
There are several reasons to mix the lines, stir the soup as they say on RDS:
1) Get the Gomez line back to where it was
If this is the aim, I think it is an unnecessary measure. Gomez and Gionta have been great since the Olympics and before. A few goalless games haven't changed that. It merely seems to be a case of a 30-goal and a 15-goal man playing to the level they play at (i.e., not scoring half the time).
2) Get Pouliot scoring at his previous pace
This is as off kilter as the first reason. Pouliot is essentially a rookie forward, still getting his feet in a new city. He exploded onto the scene, so we forget, but his adjustment is only natural.
3) Get Darche into a contributory role
I like Darche as much as the next guy, but it only takes a game or two in the audience to see the gulf between him and Pouliot in talent terms. The benefit of getting Darche firing at a better rate is probably less than getting Pouliot an extra 25% production.
4) Put Pouliot on alert that he needs to work harder
This is primitive coaching method. Taking an elite player off an elite line to serve a message is silly. It may be acceptable in Game 2 of the 82-game schedule, but not in a playoff race. I would be disappointed if this was all there was to it.
5) Get more out of Sergei Kostitsyn
There are seven substantially talented offensive forwards on this club. Sergei is the latest one to emerge. While he has been excellent with Dominic Moore and others of late, there may be inkling that he could reach loftier heights with a sniper who has one-touch capability. Pouliot may well be the player to unlock Sergei's potential, but I don't think Sergei is even ready for that yet.
I personally think (thought, now) that reasons 1, 3 and 4 were unworthy and only 2 and 5 made sense at this point in seeking offense (presumably the goal). I had more to say about Martin and the impact of the decision, but on a new day, I rewrote the ending...
Back to normal
After having come through all the scenarios, it seems Martin has reverted (in practice) to the established norm with Pouliot on the Gomez unit. I certainly agree with the move back.
I won't likely ever know why Martin moved the players yesterday, I can certainly guess. It seems he might have done so to accomplish a couple of goals: wake up Pouliot and see where Darche might fit if he is to return. I said above the Pouliot slight was primitive, and I stand by that, but restricted to practice the move carries no risk -- it seems a softer and more sophisticated warning. Furthermore, seeing where Darche might fit is critical as situations to force the hand may yet arise
Martin may get a bad name, and lots of unfair (and knee jerk) criticism, but he does a lot right. Keeping the lines together in this mini scoring slump is not the easiest course of action, and is not what less experienced predecessors would have chosen to do. He earns points from me for that. If Pouliot adds a bit of his original jump back due to a day of press hounding then it will be more points for Martin. As off days go, he may have accomplished a lot.
Thirst for stories
I left this article intact to demonstrate a point. What's a story one day is not a story at all the next. Bloggers after a season of digging for something to write about have jumped on this, many faster than me jumped twice: yesterday and again today. It does leave me chuckling at the end of it all. After all, on what other team do they fret about lines in practice (Martin can still change them by game time, after shift one, or in any situation). Where else would so many respond so fast as to need to retract the story on Day 2?
We Habs fans are a bit crazy. And this time of year, it seems, brings out the true fanaticism in all of us. Scott Gomez said "The city rocks". It certainly does, but it also racks -- racks its nerves unnecessarily over events that shouldn't even be news.
Until the next cause for uproar...
It's worth talking about simply because Pouliot happens to be (averaged over time) our most productive player. Since coming to the Canadiens 30 odd games ago, he has scored 14 goals, his average over 60 minutes of play is in the elite realm of 1.5 G/60. What's more, with 10 goals created, he's been clipping at just less than Cammalleri offensively.
The question then, why take Pouliot off the very line he jump started in the first place at the first sight of slump?
The answer begins with an objective look at things. Thankfully, the tireless Olivier has been looking into this for us and provided some numbers we can get our teeth into. Olivier's analysis looks at the effect that different centremen have had on the play of three wingers (Darche, Pyatt and Pouliot).
Pyatt, who we're not as interested in for today shows a predictable pattern of scoring chance distribution – putting up a positive balance with Metropolit, mainly fueled by the fact they hardly tried to score while they were on. With Plekanec, Pyatt's been on for more chances, but been caught more as well.
Darche has been better with different partners, probably because he has had to be. A good addition to nearly every line he's been on, he shows the experience he's had at moving teams by adapting quickly to new circumstances.
Pouliot has been an absolute star with Gomez. Olivier points out that he's not been as good with other centres. However, it must be said that because he and Scott have clicked so well, the reason to play with anyone else has been put on the backburner.
Olivier's scoring chance tabulations tell us a lot. They tell us who likes playing with whom and who can adapt/who can't. But they can't reveal everything. For example, they can't tell us what is the best combination for the team on average, and certainly not against a specific opponent. For that all stats leave us to the mercy of a bit of intuition and gut feel.
There are several reasons to mix the lines, stir the soup as they say on RDS:
1) Get the Gomez line back to where it was
If this is the aim, I think it is an unnecessary measure. Gomez and Gionta have been great since the Olympics and before. A few goalless games haven't changed that. It merely seems to be a case of a 30-goal and a 15-goal man playing to the level they play at (i.e., not scoring half the time).
2) Get Pouliot scoring at his previous pace
This is as off kilter as the first reason. Pouliot is essentially a rookie forward, still getting his feet in a new city. He exploded onto the scene, so we forget, but his adjustment is only natural.
3) Get Darche into a contributory role
I like Darche as much as the next guy, but it only takes a game or two in the audience to see the gulf between him and Pouliot in talent terms. The benefit of getting Darche firing at a better rate is probably less than getting Pouliot an extra 25% production.
4) Put Pouliot on alert that he needs to work harder
This is primitive coaching method. Taking an elite player off an elite line to serve a message is silly. It may be acceptable in Game 2 of the 82-game schedule, but not in a playoff race. I would be disappointed if this was all there was to it.
5) Get more out of Sergei Kostitsyn
There are seven substantially talented offensive forwards on this club. Sergei is the latest one to emerge. While he has been excellent with Dominic Moore and others of late, there may be inkling that he could reach loftier heights with a sniper who has one-touch capability. Pouliot may well be the player to unlock Sergei's potential, but I don't think Sergei is even ready for that yet.
I personally think (thought, now) that reasons 1, 3 and 4 were unworthy and only 2 and 5 made sense at this point in seeking offense (presumably the goal). I had more to say about Martin and the impact of the decision, but on a new day, I rewrote the ending...
Back to normal
After having come through all the scenarios, it seems Martin has reverted (in practice) to the established norm with Pouliot on the Gomez unit. I certainly agree with the move back.
I won't likely ever know why Martin moved the players yesterday, I can certainly guess. It seems he might have done so to accomplish a couple of goals: wake up Pouliot and see where Darche might fit if he is to return. I said above the Pouliot slight was primitive, and I stand by that, but restricted to practice the move carries no risk -- it seems a softer and more sophisticated warning. Furthermore, seeing where Darche might fit is critical as situations to force the hand may yet arise
Martin may get a bad name, and lots of unfair (and knee jerk) criticism, but he does a lot right. Keeping the lines together in this mini scoring slump is not the easiest course of action, and is not what less experienced predecessors would have chosen to do. He earns points from me for that. If Pouliot adds a bit of his original jump back due to a day of press hounding then it will be more points for Martin. As off days go, he may have accomplished a lot.
Thirst for stories
I left this article intact to demonstrate a point. What's a story one day is not a story at all the next. Bloggers after a season of digging for something to write about have jumped on this, many faster than me jumped twice: yesterday and again today. It does leave me chuckling at the end of it all. After all, on what other team do they fret about lines in practice (Martin can still change them by game time, after shift one, or in any situation). Where else would so many respond so fast as to need to retract the story on Day 2?
We Habs fans are a bit crazy. And this time of year, it seems, brings out the true fanaticism in all of us. Scott Gomez said "The city rocks". It certainly does, but it also racks -- racks its nerves unnecessarily over events that shouldn't even be news.
Until the next cause for uproar...
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Habs By Numbers
Goals Created
Prior to this season, we at Lions in Winter decided to conduct a little experiment and gather some statistics of our own. As a start, we decided to take on the offensive part of the game and take a deeper look into the value of goals and assists, and to keep a record of how each goal scored by a member of the Canadiens was created over the course of the season.
Midway through the season, we have come up with some interesting results. Interesting enough at this point that we wanted to start sharing them with you.
Goals created
Anyone who has ever tried to argue for the value of an offensive player will know the strengths and weaknesses of goals and assists. Points, and the scoring leaders, give equal value to assists and goals, more frustratingly to second assists and goals.
Having watched my fair share of hockey, I can tell you I've seen second assists that were equally as important or more important than the goalscoring act in creating the open net; however, I think you'd all agree this is the exception rather than the rule. The same applies to first assists, though to a much lesser degree really (as we're finding).
Our desire to paint a clearer picture of goals created was born of this dissatisfaction.
Those of you who follow the new wave in NHL statistics will know that goals created has been tracked and analyzed before this. In most circles, Allan Ryder gets credit for doing the pioneering work on this. Tom Awad, who is now the darling of Behind the Net for his GVT numbers, also uses goals created as a way to discern offensive contribution. Hockey Reference, a more mainstream statistical site, has a column called goals created on its player pages as well.
In deciding how we would proceed with our own project, we did a careful search of the backstory on this statistic. Much of what we found was exactly in line with our own thinking – the reasoning for wanting to record and promote this statistic, for example. But there was a let-down, a gap if you like. All the methods that had been proposed in the past, and indeed, those being used in the present are based on factors. In all cases, these numbers were picked out of the air. Allan Ryder bases his calculations on the assumption that goalscoring is 50% of goal creation, with one or two assists making up the other 50%. Tom Awad has decided that a goal is worth 1.5 times an assist. Hockey reference, like Ryder thinks an assist is half a goal.
All of these assumptions are fine, and the calculations do drive a different list of offensive players to the top. And, since the list seems intuitive (at the top, anyway), the statisticians are pleased with their assumptions.
There are obvious limits to what it can tell you, though; especially in the cases where these calculations are just applied to every goal (unassisted to two assister) equally by using compiled scoring stats across the league. In fact, in these cases, I found that it told me absolutely nothing new. Once I got used to how the factors shuffled goals and assists, I could pick out who was the winner from the scoring leaders simply based on their goal:assist balance. It might as well be called G + 0.5A.
The Lions in Winter Approach
With our grasp on what we liked from the established models and what we didn't like, we took some (indirect) advice from Allan Ryder and began to sort out our new method:
That was the easy part. The next part was the important bit. We needed to create a way to actually break free of the NHL's record to add more data, more richness of information. The way we do it is by scoring the goals individually, by allocating points (an equal amount are available for each goal) to as many players as are involved. Importantly, this is a collaboration, so this isn't just what Topham saw, but what multiple people saw (averaged to give the score).
Now there's an obvious objection to this method: that it's subjective. It's something that can't be denied. But I have some thoughts on that:
1) The NHL already uses subjective statistics (hits, shots, giveaways, etc.) and we're perfectly happy with these, because we can appreciate the value while recognizing their limits.
2) Scientific research quantifies qualitative data like this all the time. Frankly, if it's good enough for the scientific papers I edit for healthcare decision makers, then it's good enough for a fun statistic in hockey.
3) There are many people who want more than goals, assists, PIM to spice up their reading and arguments. The league is already recording most "factual" events (with the notable exception of possession time), and sites like behindthenet.ca are mining just about as much as can be mined. Our goals created adds another category (albeit only for the Habs for now). Those who are satisfied with scoring leaders won't have that taken away from them, they will just have an extra stat to hold up beside that.
In taking things in this direction, we have taken that good advice seriously by losing nothing from what we had already, but have also added richness by capturing how a panel of evaluators thought contributions to each goal were made.
This gives our finding novelty (nobody has done this in this way before) and relevance, in that we are recording what happened, not what the NHL recorded multiplied by an imagined factor.
By products of the LIW approach
Strangely, our method also has something for those who promise to be it's biggest critics. By attaching value to goal contributions we have also accumulated a wealth of data on the average value of a goal and an assist. What's more, because we have recorded the data diligently, we can further sub-divide this by situation and category. So, for those who want to stick with a factor, we will at least be providing a better factor. We couldn't have designed the study much better had we only wanted to look for the value of assists, to be honest.
In addition, our approach can also be translated much more simply. For example, we can see who we rewarded extra assists to on a goal (beyond two) and we can see those assists that were just fluke touches and didn't enter into our contribution tally. We can see how many goals a player made a contribution on, and how many they didn't. We can see how many they were the major force behind a goal and how many times they were bit-part players.
So you see, even if don't believe in the number beside Cammalleri or Plekanec (though be open-minded, you can), you can believe in the value of the data...
Goals created on the Canadiens
Without further ado then, a taster on this data. I promise we will publish more, and do more with this as the season goes on...
Goals created leaders (Games 1-47)
As you can see, Cammalleri is a beast. And this looks less impressive after his mini slump these last few games. He and Plekanec account for 30% of all offensive production together. On game winning goals, they account for 45%. Incredible to think where we'd be without that signing and the accompanied turnaround.
Habs fan contributions
As we've said this is a collaborative project, so we are always open to more collaborators. If you are interested in helping us with ideas or by inputing your assessment of goals, get in touch via liwblog@gmail.com.
Midway through the season, we have come up with some interesting results. Interesting enough at this point that we wanted to start sharing them with you.
Goals created
Anyone who has ever tried to argue for the value of an offensive player will know the strengths and weaknesses of goals and assists. Points, and the scoring leaders, give equal value to assists and goals, more frustratingly to second assists and goals.
Having watched my fair share of hockey, I can tell you I've seen second assists that were equally as important or more important than the goalscoring act in creating the open net; however, I think you'd all agree this is the exception rather than the rule. The same applies to first assists, though to a much lesser degree really (as we're finding).
Our desire to paint a clearer picture of goals created was born of this dissatisfaction.
Those of you who follow the new wave in NHL statistics will know that goals created has been tracked and analyzed before this. In most circles, Allan Ryder gets credit for doing the pioneering work on this. Tom Awad, who is now the darling of Behind the Net for his GVT numbers, also uses goals created as a way to discern offensive contribution. Hockey Reference, a more mainstream statistical site, has a column called goals created on its player pages as well.
In deciding how we would proceed with our own project, we did a careful search of the backstory on this statistic. Much of what we found was exactly in line with our own thinking – the reasoning for wanting to record and promote this statistic, for example. But there was a let-down, a gap if you like. All the methods that had been proposed in the past, and indeed, those being used in the present are based on factors. In all cases, these numbers were picked out of the air. Allan Ryder bases his calculations on the assumption that goalscoring is 50% of goal creation, with one or two assists making up the other 50%. Tom Awad has decided that a goal is worth 1.5 times an assist. Hockey reference, like Ryder thinks an assist is half a goal.
All of these assumptions are fine, and the calculations do drive a different list of offensive players to the top. And, since the list seems intuitive (at the top, anyway), the statisticians are pleased with their assumptions.
There are obvious limits to what it can tell you, though; especially in the cases where these calculations are just applied to every goal (unassisted to two assister) equally by using compiled scoring stats across the league. In fact, in these cases, I found that it told me absolutely nothing new. Once I got used to how the factors shuffled goals and assists, I could pick out who was the winner from the scoring leaders simply based on their goal:assist balance. It might as well be called G + 0.5A.
The Lions in Winter Approach
With our grasp on what we liked from the established models and what we didn't like, we took some (indirect) advice from Allan Ryder and began to sort out our new method:
"A good statistic captures a great deal of data without destroying too much information."The first condition in our new approach is that we would be recording everything about each goal. This included when it was scored, at what strength, against whom, and who contributed. In addition, we recorded (in parallel) how the NHL scored the goal (number of assists).
That was the easy part. The next part was the important bit. We needed to create a way to actually break free of the NHL's record to add more data, more richness of information. The way we do it is by scoring the goals individually, by allocating points (an equal amount are available for each goal) to as many players as are involved. Importantly, this is a collaboration, so this isn't just what Topham saw, but what multiple people saw (averaged to give the score).
Now there's an obvious objection to this method: that it's subjective. It's something that can't be denied. But I have some thoughts on that:
1) The NHL already uses subjective statistics (hits, shots, giveaways, etc.) and we're perfectly happy with these, because we can appreciate the value while recognizing their limits.
2) Scientific research quantifies qualitative data like this all the time. Frankly, if it's good enough for the scientific papers I edit for healthcare decision makers, then it's good enough for a fun statistic in hockey.
3) There are many people who want more than goals, assists, PIM to spice up their reading and arguments. The league is already recording most "factual" events (with the notable exception of possession time), and sites like behindthenet.ca are mining just about as much as can be mined. Our goals created adds another category (albeit only for the Habs for now). Those who are satisfied with scoring leaders won't have that taken away from them, they will just have an extra stat to hold up beside that.
In taking things in this direction, we have taken that good advice seriously by losing nothing from what we had already, but have also added richness by capturing how a panel of evaluators thought contributions to each goal were made.
This gives our finding novelty (nobody has done this in this way before) and relevance, in that we are recording what happened, not what the NHL recorded multiplied by an imagined factor.
By products of the LIW approach
Strangely, our method also has something for those who promise to be it's biggest critics. By attaching value to goal contributions we have also accumulated a wealth of data on the average value of a goal and an assist. What's more, because we have recorded the data diligently, we can further sub-divide this by situation and category. So, for those who want to stick with a factor, we will at least be providing a better factor. We couldn't have designed the study much better had we only wanted to look for the value of assists, to be honest.
In addition, our approach can also be translated much more simply. For example, we can see who we rewarded extra assists to on a goal (beyond two) and we can see those assists that were just fluke touches and didn't enter into our contribution tally. We can see how many goals a player made a contribution on, and how many they didn't. We can see how many they were the major force behind a goal and how many times they were bit-part players.
So you see, even if don't believe in the number beside Cammalleri or Plekanec (though be open-minded, you can), you can believe in the value of the data...
Goals created on the Canadiens
Without further ado then, a taster on this data. I promise we will publish more, and do more with this as the season goes on...
Goals created leaders (Games 1-47)
| Player | G | A1 | A2 | LIW GC | % team total |
| Cammalleri | 20 | 14 | 3 | 18.4 | 16% |
| Plekanec | 10 | 19 | 17 | 15.8 | 14% |
| Gomez | 6 | 15 | 9 | 11.7 | 10% |
| A Kostitsyn | 12 | 9 | 4 | 10.6 | 9% |
| Bergeron | 10 | 4 | 9 | 8.6 | 8% |
| Metropolit | 10 | 5 | 5 | 7.1 | 6% |
| Gionta | 10 | 3 | 5 | 7.0 | 6% |
| Hamrlik | 5 | 8 | 3 | 5.1 | 4% |
| Moen | 7 | 1 | 2 | 4.5 | 4% |
| Markov | 3 | 6 | 4 | 4.5 | 4% |
As you can see, Cammalleri is a beast. And this looks less impressive after his mini slump these last few games. He and Plekanec account for 30% of all offensive production together. On game winning goals, they account for 45%. Incredible to think where we'd be without that signing and the accompanied turnaround.
Habs fan contributions
As we've said this is a collaborative project, so we are always open to more collaborators. If you are interested in helping us with ideas or by inputing your assessment of goals, get in touch via liwblog@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)