Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

powerplay2009

Members
  • Posts

    3,992
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by powerplay2009

  1. Having watched his game I would have guessed that he had 9 or 10 shots in his last 3 games. Interesting. His shot attempt numbers don't look bad at all, which tells me he's letting his linemates do the shooting more than he does.
  2. I was skeptical of the move to put him on waivers, and it looks like MB may have gone from a bad situation with Bourque to worse. We can send him down, but it won't save anything significant and we have cap space already. We could have traded him and retained some salary, but there is at this point a 0.0000001% chance he gets traded in the next year and a half. Can we buy him out mid-season? That might be the best move if MB wants him gone, but I honestly think this team is better off with Bourque than without him (as a depth player like Moen), and like I said we aren't crunched by the cap, so what's the point? I honestly don't think he was that bad, but I suppose that's what happens when you go on a hot streak during the playoffs in the middle of your decline. If he had 3 or 4 goals playing with Eller, would things be different? The narrative while they were together was that Eller was snakebitten and Bourque was apathetic, but I have seen no tangible evidence that was the case. At the end of the day though, if Bourque is a difference between us winning and losing games, we've got bigger issues to deal with anyway. Somebody (maybe DLR, Bowman, or Andrighetto) showing lots of promise in Hamilton maybe?
  3. I've been wondering about something, and I'm curious to read other opinions on this: If the NHL were to eliminate fighting this upcoming offseason, would Prust have an NHL job one year from now? Why or why not?
  4. Here's my theory on PDO. Make sure to give it a read if you're into this kind of stuff, and don't forget to drop a comment if you've got something to add! link
  5. Greatest player, captain, and man to don the Habs sweater in my lifetime. No doubt. If ever there were a jersey to retire based on more than on-ice performance, it would be #11.
  6. I think I found a boundary inside which PDO regression doesn't exist, and outside of which regression would be expected to occur. That point seems to be +/- 1.3. So if a team has a PDO that is higher than 101.3 or lower than 98.7, expect something is up. If they are inside that boundary, then there is a pretty good chance that team has a higher shooting/saving percentage than normal due to being talented. On edit: I'll write my theory as to why in more detail next week. Hopefully early next week.
  7. Has anyone read anything interesting on special teams and fancy stats? That seems to be a huge hole in our understanding of the game statistically right now. Special teams are pretty much ignored and I can't figure out why. I might start working on seeing what predicts special teams performance once I get time in a few weeks.
  8. For a lot of teams, especially sure playoff teams like the California powers, $$$ > 2 points. Their team will succeed just fine in the other 81 games, but outdoor games, overexploited as they are, still generate crazy amounts of revenue.
  9. Appearing not to care and actually not caring are two different things.
  10. But has he actually been that bad? I just never got the big deal with how he was playing poorly. He scored as many goals as Max while he was here (only had 1 less assist too), but only one of those players "didn't care". I know that Max was helpful in other ways, but I just don't get the big deal. We could have gotten a goal or 2 more from any player and the series would be different. Take out game 5, and basically none of the players on this team stepped up except for Tokarski. But only 1 of them gets throttled by fans for not caring.
  11. He's leading the team in playoff goals. Not sure how much you could want from a guy like him. Yeah, I'll admit he looks lazy. But looking lazy and being lazy are 2 different things.
  12. Here's my next post to EOTP. This one is on special teams. Follow-up to come, hopefully by this weekend. (Link)
  13. Thanks! I originally tackled PDO as part of projecting standings using nothing but fancy stats, and I wasn't really satisfied with the knowledge that was out there in the internet, so I just really started to compile as much data as I could and look at it some more, and what I found is that, while PDO is helpful, it's not nearly as much of a factor as it's made out to be. I mean, think about it. A lot of people will say that Colorado lucked into having the season that they did, and PDO definitely supports it. But Colorado fans will argue they have a goalie with world-class potential who is just starting to put it all together, and top-end forward talent that very few teams around the league can match, so of course they have high shooting and saving percentages. On top of that, Roy puts them in a position to make their own luck, like by pulling the goalie early (or on time when he's supposed to be pulled, as a lot of stats studies suggest). Are they wrong? I'm honestly not so sure, because the only counterargument to that is "well, you had a really high PDO so you must be lucky". Is that wrong? Well, I think just pointing to a number that's greater than 100 and supposing therefore unsustainable without looking further into it is pretty foolish. I looked at each team's regression to the mean for 5v5 PDO, and it's drastically overstated. Yes, it happens, but it's pretty slight after about the 40-game mark. Meanwhile, we have teams like Toronto, Anaheim, and New Jersey who have had pretty "extreme" PDO values for a sample size that now exceeds 100 games. To say that only luck can explain that, to me, is a really tough sell. I'm not going to stand on a soapbox and say everything we know about PDO is wrong, but I will sit here and explain why I think the general knowledge on PDO is probably different from reality, and possibly by a significant margin. We just don't know that much about it. So I want to investigate it more still, but of course I don't have the time. I really like this idea. I'll probably play around with it in the fall if nobody else has by then, but I think you're sort of layout for the general formula is a really good starting point. A few more things to consider would be coaching and player changes, and then trying to find a way to integrate free agency or trades to get updated values, although for most players the difference I imagine would be pretty minor. And as a final note, I'm in the process of making another fanpost (pretty lengthy, but hopefully it's because the explanations are better and things are more clear this time) about special teams trends and performances. I don't dwell on fancystats too much in this one, though I will make the argument that it's time we try to use (or create) fancystats to better understand special teams performance, because I perceive that as a pretty big hole in our understanding. There are also some interesting statistical phenomena that I can't explain, so I'm excited to get that out there and see if there is somebody who can.
  14. Player goes on a hot streak, fans want management to move mountains to keep him. Same player goes on a cold streak and all of a sudden, he's treated like we would've won the series in 5 if it weren't for him. This is why we can't have nice things. For another example, see Price, Carey.
  15. He needs to get going, but I honestly don't think he's been lazy. He's a guy that prefers to slow the game down a little and be a step ahead. Just like Carey. When he's on, people gush because he makes it look easy, but when he's not, I can see how he looks lazy. But looking lazy and being lazy are totally different things.
  16. Wrote a piece on EOTP, check it out if you want! Link
  17. Okay, so I'm getting around to putting in significant work on a few fancy stat projects, but every time I get to work on one, looking at data makes more ideas pop into my head. If anyone wants to learn a thing or two about fancy stats and do some analysis on their free time, I'm more than happy to pass an idea or two off to someone else. Things I've learned so far: When the score is close, 5v5 save percentage has more bearing on success (points per game) than shooting percentage. When the score isn't close, 5v5 shooting percentage is more important. Turns out the correlation between overall PDO and success is stronger taken at 5v5 and 5v5 close, at least this year (I want to investigate a larger sample eventually). I want to look into whether the importance of shooting and saving percentages (5v5, not 5v5 close) fluctuates with possession. My theory is that a team like, say, Chicago, won't be affected as much by a dry spell in shooting because they just shoot the puck more than everyone else. Not sure what the best way to do that is yet though, and
  18. Oh okay, I misunderstood your original post a bit. I though you were basically saying that the waved off goal was what it was, and that Tampa can get over it, and then turned around and complained about the Briere cross-check...accidental straw man. And for the bolded part....I'll believe it when it happens. I don't really disagree with this, but my thing is that I honestly believe if they start calling things behind the play (I'm all for it), the powerplays wind up pretty close to 50/50. I think a big thing for fans is that it's the easiest thing to turn a blind eye to for your team and get enraged about for the other. I mean seriously, most fans of all 30 teams legitimately believe that if they called things behind the play, they're team would get the justice it's been robbed of since the team came into existence. I think a big problem is that most of it is subconscious, associating your favorite team with a hero and the other as villains in a melodramatic, self-contained plot that takes place in most fans' heads. So, the point I was making isn't necessarily that they shouldn't call stuff behind the play, but rather that if they did it wouldn't change how "fair" the game is, and long-term wouldn't affect the results of the games either. I guess I just don't see it as bullying. Officials want to appear unbiased, I think, mostly because that's a measure of how well they perform their jobs, and everyone wants to feel good about how they do their job. I think coaches try to bully coaches into calls (to some extent, that's their job), but I don't think by and large the refs are affected. Every coach does it, and they can't really do anything to or about the refs except whine to the media, which should be neither here nor there as far as the refs are concerned. I think the reason that most games don't wind up totally lopsided in penalty calls is because every team breaks the rules, and they all do it about the same amount. The reason I see make-up calls are because refs realize they made a weak, or sometimes just bad, call, and then feel to keep their lack of bias they must give what they feel to be an equally weak call to the other team (I guess coaches and players could have something to do with it, but calling it bullying in that case would be overstating the impact IMO). In reality, all they are doing is polishing a turd, but that's what the expectation is around the league at this point. I would be happier if bad calls were made, and then gotten over and moved on from by all parties, but that won't happen. Once again, accidental straw man on my part. I think I just took your statements to mean more than you intended for them to mean. I don't really feel differently than you do on this, except I'll say that Tampa has good reason to feel more victimized than we do, though associating victimization with bad calls is a terrible way expressing things, even though it's clearly the feeling that everybody conveys when bad calls happen. It's a shame, because once the victimization aspect is removed, it's easier to go about actually seeing improvements in the way the game is officiated. The goaltender interference has been an issue more and more the past couple years. If they're tightening down on it, fine. Just say so. And for this call in particular, I guess I have a hard time feeling good about it, even if by the rulebook it wasn't. If that goal is counted, there is no protest from the Habs. None. That's why I consider it to be the "wrong" call. To me, that's a goal that should have counted, and the fact that it didn't is a testament to the rulebook needing changed. That's not normally the case, but this situation is different than most goalie interference calls.
  19. The Briere crosscheck is no more unprecedented than the waved off goal IMO. I mean, yeah, technically it might not have been a goal, but like I said in the GDT, I really think that the only thing that impeded Carey Price's ability to make the save was Carey Price, even after he initiated contact with the Tampa forward. Similarly, with Briere, he crosschecked a guy. Plain and simple. It was light, and was insignificant compared to the standard that had been set all game, but the reality is Briere crosschecked a guy, and the smart thing would have been for him to avoid the situation altogether. So to say that we should be talking about the call on Briere and not the waved off goal is silly, IMO. There's also the fact that a waved off goal impacts the game way more than a bad penalty call. We wouldn't even be talking about it if it had been killed off. Tampa Bay scores on a bad call, what...15 to 20 percent of the time? The thing is, they scored the goal. It should have counted, and it got taken away. So even if you argue the refs gifted them the PP, they're still in the hole .8 goals, if that makes sense. And to say that the Lightning have gotten away with stuff behind the play and between whistles? I'll be honest, I just don't see it. I haven't seen a single GDT where members don't complain about the other team getting away with stuff like that, as though we cheer for some 1 out of 30 virtuous team that just doesn't participate in something that's been part of hockey since the day it was made. Please. We take part in it just as much as other teams, especially in the playoffs, and even if we do a little less, it has pretty little effect on the game, so for the refs to call it would be unfair, and slant the ice towards Montreal. So to complain about that is unrealistic IMO as well. And do you honestly believe that refs get bullied by coaches into making phony calls to uphold some virtuous, hypothetical scale of calls for and against? And if so, would Therrien not participate as well? If the officiating slanted the ice in either direction tonight, it was ours. I mean, they called us for a grand total of 3 penalties, only two of them resulting in powerplays. We had twice as many powerplays as they did. Don't get me wrong, I think we had more powerplays because we were the cleaner team. But the officiating was bad, and to say Tampa has no good reason to be outraged, is, IMO, outrageous.
  20. Officiating was downright terrible tonight. I don't think it was really biased one direction or the other (although Tampa certainly has more reason to be outraged than we do), but man. Just brutal officiating.
  21. If by pretty you mean "it will make the Habs look good and Boston look bad", no. If by pretty you mean "it will make Toronto look bad", then yes. And I will add a picture of a scantily clad woman in the background of every dataset if you so desire. Can't have your readers getting bored.
  22. Yeah, I think this is about as good as it gets. In theory, there is a way to import data from extraskater to excel without having to manually enter data, but I don't know how. I'll ask some computer science friends when I get back on campus, maybe we can figure something out. I'll have time this May, but probably not that much time. I'm going to send the guy who started extraskater a message, maybe he has something kicking around I can use. It's a little frustrating, because all I want is a cumulative PDO for each team at the 40, 50, 60 game mark of the season. It doesn't sound like something I would have to do. When I came up with this idea a couple months ago, I just assumed that it would be available on extraskater by now. If I had bothered to check when it made sense, I would have had this problem solved by now Thanks for all the help guys. I really appreciate it. Keep an eye out for a nerdy, overanalyzed fanpost on EOTP towards the end of May!
  23. There might be something on the settings page too. Maybe you checked a box by accident?
  24. Alright, so I am working on data collection for a new stats project of mine, and I need some help. I need to get data from about the 40, 50, and 60 game mark for each team this season, and the fenwick data is easy enough to get. I haven't been able to find a game-by-game breakdown for PDO (cumulative, not rolling 10 game) for each team. I can view everything currently, but I can't go "back in time" and get a real good snapshot of, say, the Phoenix Coyotes after they had played 50 games. Has anybody seen a website where I can get such a thing? I have all the possession data a guy could ever want, but PDO, especially if it's broken down into shooting and save percentage, seems to be surprisingly hard to come by. I would be SUPER grateful if anyone had any resources to share.
  25. Someone at Pension Plan Puppets (a Leafs blog) already did the same type of thing as you're thinking BCH, though not exactly. I think the result especially is the same. He basically time the amount of time the Leafs had the puck, and compared it to their Corsi. The correlation is quite staggering actually. I figured it would be strong, but not as strong as it actually is. You can read the full article if you want (here)
×
×
  • Create New...