Journal of Hockey Analytics: Volume I Issue 4

Josh W
June 02 2014 10:46AM

flex

Courtesy of Reddit's /u/Kebbs

Welcome back to this week's Journal of Hockey Analytics. For your giant repository of link dumps of all hockey analytics works I could find. Whether to help you get through a boring Monday or to help you advance your shot quality project. Take a look and maybe your ideas will be inspired.

For systems analysis, more "Sham Sharron" scouting tips, and new data for your own projects, see all the links past the jump!

  • Rhys J extends his analysis of the "Sham Sharron" scout to compare how he would have performed against all teams and how well all teams have done at drafting [Canucks Army]
  • It seems like everyone has had an opinion on Rhys' work including makirwin who followed up on Rhy's work [Pond Hockey Thoughts]
  • Lain Murray gives his own thoughts on the subject by analyzing the draft position the Canucks have been in over the last decade [Puck Watch]
  • Data is always needed when running analytics experiments. Justin Fisher released an excel sheet of all NHL drafted players [NHLNumbers]
  • Jen LC releases her Chicago Blackhawks v. Minnesota Neutral Zone data [2nd City Hockey]
  • Neil Greenberg uses fancystats to see how Barry Trotz will fit in with the Capitals Squad [Washington Post]
  • Greenberg then shows how then new Capitals management uses analytics [Washington Post]
  • Eric Tulskly looks at why players peak at 28-29 [Washington Post]
  • Stephen Pettigrew thinks that Advanced Stats suck [Rink Stats]
  • N. Emptage looks at the playoffs and how much of a role possession plays [Puck Possession]
  • CanesAndBluesFan is back this time looking at predicting Corsi [St Louis Game Time]
  • Cam Charron reviews PDO, Save Percentages and repeatability [Leafs Nation]
  • Scott Lewis looks at PK Subban and other NHL players and how being on the cover of EA's NHL games have affected their salary [The Score]
  • JP Nikota looks at some comparable to see how much Jake Gardiner is worth [Pension Plan Puppets]
  • Travis Yost does some analysis on the decline in production of Colin Greening [Hockey Buzz]
  • Jared looks at the effect that Halak will have on the New York Islanders [Hockey Graphs]
  • C Austin looks at how Marty St. Louis has fared this year since his trade [Raw Charge]
  • James Mirtle looks at how Lundqvist has been the best goalie of the recent era [Globe and Mail]
  • Ryan Lambert also looks at Lundqvist's recent play [Deadspin]
  • Our own Dimitri Filipovic has looked at how the Rangers finally got lucky this post season [The Sporting News]
  • Nick Emptage has released Score-Adjusted Fenwick numbers for all teams back to 2007 [Puck Prediction]
  • Daniel W uses the Elo chess algorithm to model how countries have perfomed at IIHF events since the early 2000s [5 Plus Spieldauer]
  • Kevin Woodley looks at some of the systems involved and breaks down the Marty St. Louis goal on Tokarski [In Goal Magazine]
  • JP Nikota is back looking at systems to see what it means to be "soft on the puck" [Pension Plan Puppets]
  • Gus Katsaros analyzes systems to look at the Defensive Zone Pin [McKeen's Hockey]
  • Palansky looks at how defense wins championships... but not really [DoHA]
  • Travis Yost asks why Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook have dropped off in these playoffs [Sporting News]
  • The LA Kings / Chicago Blackhawk series has received a number of analytical focuses this week.  Jonathan Willis looks at why the Kings scoring is flowing [Bleacher Report]
  • Dellow makes the argument that it is Kopitar driving LA's success [Sports Net]
  • Dellows has done simple work recently survey's defencemen and their corsi rel over the years [Mc79Hockey]

And in some less analytical, yet still relevant, readings:

  • St Louis Blues now have all the Corsis! [St. Louis Blues]
  • Professional athletes by sports, height and weight (source unknown) [Imgur]
  • This is a good example of how not to analyze goalies [The Hockey Writers]
  • We are going old school here looking at 1970s Hockey Analytics (thanks to @BenjaminWendorf for finding this) [Google News]
  • Much more of an opinion piece, RogersTheShrubber looks at analytics and the common hockey fan [SilverSevenSens]

Until next week!  Make sure you share any analytic articles that you've written with me.

    172ff756e336b4deef407cc7fc644369
    I am a Van Fan in Bytown. Living in Ottawa for work, I research Sports Analytics and Machine Learning at the University of Ottawa. I play hockey as well as a timbit but I compete in rowing with hopes of 2016 Olympic Gold. Follow me on twitter at @joshweissbock and feel free to send any questions or comments my way.
    Avatar
    #1 JCDavies
    June 02 2014, 11:23AM
    Trash it!
    3
    trashes
    Props
    9
    props

    Wow, that last paragraph from the Iain Murray post...

    "The Burke years in Vancouver were so bad for the draft that I charted his work in Anaheim and Toronto as well. Despite Toronto having a decent draft record in preceding years, Burke was -.38 in Anaheim and a staggering -5.94 in Toronto, giving him a total of -9.86 quality NHLers compared to NHL averages over these nine drafts. Yikes. Collectively, that would be far worse than any team over that span."

    Avatar
    #2 NM00
    June 02 2014, 12:25PM
    Trash it!
    5
    trashes
    Props
    8
    props

    @JCDavies

    For the sake of clarity, the Burke years in Vancouver also would include 1998 (Allen, Ruutu & Chubarov) & 1999 (Daniel & Henrik).

    It was an interesting piece though I'd suggest "quality" NHLer is a misnomer and overly simplistic...

    Avatar
    #3 PuckWatch
    June 02 2014, 02:42PM
    Trash it!
    3
    trashes
    Props
    8
    props
    NM00 wrote:

    For the sake of clarity, the Burke years in Vancouver also would include 1998 (Allen, Ruutu & Chubarov) & 1999 (Daniel & Henrik).

    It was an interesting piece though I'd suggest "quality" NHLer is a misnomer and overly simplistic...

    I look to build upon the research soon, but didn't want too bite off more than I could chew. 100GP is simple, but there are so many variables at play.

    a Mike Brown drafted in the 7th round might be a 'quality' pick, but not for a 1st rounder.

    Furthermore, Anton Lander can play 100 games on Edmonton's D, but may not crack other lineups.

    Opportunity and player development surely play their role at some point to determine how successful each player is, so if the player's success depends on all of that infrastructure, how can we attribute success or failure solely to the drafting decision.

    Avatar
    #4 NM00
    June 02 2014, 03:23PM
    Trash it!
    1
    trashes
    Props
    4
    props

    @PuckWatch

    Agree with all of this.

    It's certainly a good starting point and I appreciate that you compared what the Canucks did to 29 other teams without ignoring draft position.

    Something I feel was missing from Rhys' pieces...

    Avatar
    #5 The Last Big Bear
    June 02 2014, 09:25PM
    Trash it!
    3
    trashes
    Props
    4
    props

    Did Sutter manage to draft more than one player who is a career NHLer?

    It's also worth noting that Feaster needed the 1st overall pick to get that one career NHLer.

    I'm not saying that Sutter was good, or even adequate, at drafting. But Feaster is one of the all-time worst.

    Avatar
    #6 #Rehire Gillis
    June 03 2014, 04:37AM
    Trash it!
    2
    trashes
    Props
    4
    props

    #RehiregillisImissthepain

    Avatar
    #7 The Last Big Bear
    June 02 2014, 04:18PM
    Trash it!
    2
    trashes
    Props
    3
    props

    Interesting (but not at all surprising) to see the Feaster-era Tampa Bay Lightning as the league-leading black hole of absolute suck.

    Other than the should-have-been-obviously-terrible picks of Jankowski and Sieloff, I haven't had any objection to his drafting in Calgary.

    I just find it odd how Feaster: a) seemed to run a draft so much better in Calgary, and b) ever got another NHL job again after the complete train wreck that happened under his watch in Tampa.

    Avatar
    #8 HPC
    June 04 2014, 02:48AM
    Trash it!
    1
    trashes
    Props
    3
    props

    @PB

    And if any team knows about screwing up draft picks and prospects it would be the one that resides in the west coast.

    And STILL screwing up draft picks. Hahaha!

    Avatar
    #9 #FireLinden
    June 04 2014, 05:35PM
    Trash it!
    1
    trashes
    Props
    3
    props

    According to TSN Trevor Vanilla will not be asking Alex Error to waive his NTC. And who says I was wrong about the Canucks and Trevor Vanilla wanting to crapnatize the franchise? LOL.

    Trevor Vanilla's winning plan- Fire winning coach. Done. Hire bus victim and BFF Benning. Done. Keep lousy -39 losers like Error. Done. Now comes the hard part- finding a coach dumb enough to come here to unite the Axis of Mediocrity! LMFAOROTFL!

    Oh man the future is bright for all you Vanilla lovers! All heil the Furer of Mediocrity!

    Can't wait to see the look of losing in Trevor's face again. Ahhh... good times.

    Avatar
    #10 HPC
    June 04 2014, 07:56PM
    Trash it!
    0
    trashes
    Props
    3
    props

    @#FireLinden

    Torts - " Trev, the core is stale. Absolutely stale. You will not go any further with this core."

    Trevor Linden - " STALE? WATCHA TALKIN ABOUT WILLIS? YOU'RE FIRED. "

    Avatar
    #11 Chester Winchester
    June 04 2014, 11:25PM
    Trash it!
    1
    trashes
    Props
    3
    props

    AV almost won his first SCF away game today. The poor guy, his SCF teams do not compete for the entire 60 minutes in a game. LA will win their 2nd cup and AV unfortunately will realize that his real best chance at a cup was against Boston. The only problem was that his team at the time was the Canucks.

    Avatar
    #12 exsanguinator
    June 03 2014, 06:30AM
    Trash it!
    1
    trashes
    Props
    2
    props
    The Last Big Bear wrote:

    Did Sutter manage to draft more than one player who is a career NHLer?

    It's also worth noting that Feaster needed the 1st overall pick to get that one career NHLer.

    I'm not saying that Sutter was good, or even adequate, at drafting. But Feaster is one of the all-time worst.

    I can't remember if Sutter started before or after the 03 draft so I won't include Phaneuf but here are the notable players (min 50 games played) that he is responsible for drafting from 04 until the 09 and then notable prospects from the 10 and 11 drafts:

    2004 - 9 picks, Brandon Prust - 369 games, Dustin Boyd - 220 games, Adam Pardy - 260 games, Adam Cracknell - 65 games

    2005 - 7 picks, Brett Sutter - 54 games

    2006 - 7 picks, No one. This was the Leland Irving draft, the only guy from that year that played in the NHL. Only 13 games over 2 seasons.

    2007 - 5 picks, Mikael Backlund - 246 games, Keith Aulie - 136 games,

    2008 - 7 picks, Lance Bouma - 121 games, TJ Brodie - 185 games

    2009 - 6 picks, Tim Erixon - 51 games, Joni Ortio draft but only has 9 games so far.

    2010 - 6 picks, Max Reinhart, Bill Arnold,

    2011 - 5 picks, Sven Baertschi, Markus Granlund, Tyler Wotherspoon, Johnny Gaudreau, Laurent Brossoit

    So while not absolutely terrible (not all that good either) Sutter was able to find some actual NHL players during his tenure with the Flames. What's interesting to me is that in his last year with the Flames as GM he only had 5 picks but all five of them are trending to be actual NHLers.

    Avatar
    #13 Mantastic
    June 03 2014, 11:49AM
    Trash it!
    3
    trashes
    Props
    2
    props
    PuckWatch wrote:

    I look to build upon the research soon, but didn't want too bite off more than I could chew. 100GP is simple, but there are so many variables at play.

    a Mike Brown drafted in the 7th round might be a 'quality' pick, but not for a 1st rounder.

    Furthermore, Anton Lander can play 100 games on Edmonton's D, but may not crack other lineups.

    Opportunity and player development surely play their role at some point to determine how successful each player is, so if the player's success depends on all of that infrastructure, how can we attribute success or failure solely to the drafting decision.

    huh? Anton Lander plays D for Edmonton?

    Avatar
    #14 DragonFlame
    June 02 2014, 08:17PM
    Trash it!
    2
    trashes
    Props
    1
    props

    @The Last Big Bear

    Come on!

    Sieloff was the 42nd pick.

    Jankowski, I will agree with, that it was well beyond a stretch in good faith. But Feaster isn't wrong until he is.

    Have you reviewed Darryl Sutter's magnificence at the draft table, lately?

    Avatar
    #15 Baalzamon
    June 03 2014, 08:52AM
    Trash it!
    1
    trashes
    Props
    1
    props

    @exsanguinator

    Sutter was here for 2003, and he WAS NOT here for the 2011 draft. His last draft with Calgary was 2010.

    Avatar
    #16 PB
    June 03 2014, 01:29PM
    Trash it!
    2
    trashes
    Props
    1
    props

    @Mantastic

    I don't think D and C make much difference in Edmonton. But you are right, Lander's a forward. I think the point about the actual opportunity and quality needs to be taken into account in measuring draft effectiveness, not simply games played and points. Crappy teams often need to rush their picks into the lineup, that doesn't mean they're better value and as we know it often stunts their growth. That would be Columbus prior to the recent past I'd guess.

    Avatar
    #17 PuckWatch.com
    June 03 2014, 04:28PM
    Trash it!
    1
    trashes
    Props
    1
    props
    Mantastic wrote:

    huh? Anton Lander plays D for Edmonton?

    Sorry, wrote the wrong letter there obviously

    Avatar
    #18 exsanguinator
    June 03 2014, 01:09PM
    Trash it!
    1
    trashes
    Props
    0
    props

    @Baalzamon

    In that case the only player drafted in 2003 that's played any amount of time at all is Phaneuf at 680 games. The other 8 players drafted that year combine for 13 total NHL games.

    Comments are closed for this article.