Chances for/against: at Vancouver, Oct 25th
by Dennis • October 30, 2008 • Uncategorized • 5 Comments
1st period:
PP Edm 18:05 89-12-13-37-77
PP Edm 17:46 ” ”
SH Edm 16:44 27-51-71-44
GOAL PP Van 89-10-37-77
Edm 15:36 83-12-10-44-71
Van 14:59 78-18-26-37-77
Edm 14:01 83-12-10-44-71
PP Van 10:01 27-10-44-24
PP Van 9:51 ” ”
PP Van 8:53 51-13-37-77
Van 8:36 24-71-10-83-12
Van 8:06 ” ”
PP Edm 7:49 71-44-26-10-83
PP Edm 7:40 ” ”
PP Edm 6:53 ” ”
PP Van 1:45 89-51-44-24
PP Van :40 ” ”
Summary: 9-8 Edm; 3-2 Edm at EV; 6-6 ST
2nd period:
GOAL Edm 19:07 12-83-10-37-77
Edm 18:47 26-18-78-44-71
Edm 18:18 ” ”
Edm 18:17 ” ”
Van 17:35 13-89-27-37-24
Van 16:30 83-10-12-44-71
Van 16:15 ” ”
Edm 16:05 26-18-78-71-24
PP Van 12:40 51-27-71-24
GOAL PP Van 12:16 ” ”
GOAL Van 11:27 37-77-10-12-83
Edm 8:22 12-13-89-37-77
Van 7:45 ” ”
VAn 6:54 78-18-51-77-44
GOAL Edm 6:30 12-83-10-71-44
GOAL EDm 3:48 24-44-13-89-27
Edm 3:16 71-77-12-10-83
Edm 2:18 PS: 24-44-18-89-78
Edm 1:59 51-13-89-44-24
Edm 1:50 ” ”
Van :40 37-71-10-12-83
Summary: 11-10 Van; 10-7 EV; 4-0 ST
3rd period:
PP Van 77-37-27-18
GOAL PP Van 24-44-18-51
PP Edm 15:55 71-44-10-27-83
PP Edm 15:42 ” ”
SH Van 14:52 13-12-27-37-77
GOAL Van; No scoring chances logged
Edm 8:33 89-13-51-44-77
GOAL PP Van 83-10-24-44
Edm 2:33 37-77-27-78-18
Van 1:12 37-77=78-46-33
Summary: 5-4 Van; 2-2 EV; 3-2 Van at ST
Overall: 24-23 Van; 15-11 Edm at EV; 13-8 Van ST
Individual:
10 – +5/-5; +5; -4
12 – +6/-4; +2/-1;
83 – +5/-4; +5; -1
13 – +2/-2; +2/-1; -1
89 – +4/-1; +2; -3
27 – +2/-2; +2/-1: +1/-6
78 – +6/-2
18 – +5/-3: : /-3
51 – +2/-1; ; +1/-6
46 – /-1
33 – /-1
26 - +4/-1; +3
43 -
24 – +6/-3; ; -8
44 – +11/-4; +5; +1/-7
71 – +8/-3; +5; +1/-2
37 – +3/-6; +2/-1; /-3
77 – +5/-6; +2/-1; /-4
Quick conclusion: Get Brodziak and Penner off the PK and perhaps try to mix in Pouliot.
You’re moving quick today Dennis.
Two entries ago I was going to post something about the correlation of Corsi+ to scoring-chances-for: A whopping r=.82 BTW, the chances of that happening by coincidence alone are abolutely staggering, hundreds of thousands to one. This unlike “errors”, where a randomly guessing monkey should be expected to create a better predictor 49 times out of 100. An element of subjectivity is the ONLY thing these metrics have in common, though surely you knew that.
And the Corsi- to scoring-chances against was correlated r=.87.
Then I come back in a bit and you’ve added another game. And the correlations go up to .88+ and .89-. And you pay for every inch of Pearson correlation once you’re up in these lofty numbers.
Then you add another game and it’s +.92 and .92-.
There’s no stopping it. It’s just insane. Whatever you’re doing, keep reasonable with it, stay the same. You’re adding a hell of a lot more value to this part of the internet than I ever have.
Fuck me, I always thought that Buffalo (Corsi’s team) canned all their scouts in favour of video review because they thought they could do it cheaper counting scoring chances, Roger Neilson style. I’ve posted that theory at Lowetide’s, here, IOF and other places.
It’s starting to look a hell of a lot like you could just bring in some interns, at no cost, and have them record who was on the ice for every shot directed at net, one way or the other. A monkey could do that, and at no cost there at all, it’s free with using the interns that line up outside pro sports team’s offices every spring. And I’d bet with them against Gare Joyce every time. Though I’d rather not, I like Gare. But money be money.
You’d have to have a sense who which guys can consistently create high quality chances and which guys can finish them, but that isn’t tough once you’ve narrowed the field and pegged the guys who are vastly overrated and underrated because of the bounces.
Damn.
All of this just at evens of course. We’ll need a lot more games with scoring chances on special teams to make any sort of sense of that, I suspect.
Thanks, Vic.
The numbers at BTN are ever moving but there has to be some way to grab the scripts and record them at some certain time, right?
I’d really appreciate it if someone did it after the game in Car on Sat; that’s Game 10 and if we took all of his date per/60 etc, etc, and then combined it with my individual +/- for SC’s, then I’d think we’d have a pretty good idea of who’s driving the bus, who shouldn’t be behind the wheel and who’s seeing too much love and who’s seeing not enough.
Anyway, I appreciate that you appreciate the effort. I had four games shoved on one tape and I logged three of them last night — I have the first period done of the game vs Bos and I’m hoping to get that and tonight’s game done and posted by tomorrow — and I was getting bogged down a bit and it was getting to be less and less fun.
But I imagine that as the sample size gets bigger and bigger, it will get more rewarding.
I must say Dennis that I’ve got to thank you for all the work that you’re doing. I’m really excited about the numbers coming up after the first ten game sample.
Thanks again for all the grunt work.
Great stuff Dennis.
Totals (Player, GP, EV, PP, SH):
05 – 3 – 08/10 – 00/00 – 00/00
10 – 7 – 26/27 – 17/03 – 00/11
12 – 7 – 29/22 – 08/03 – 00/00
13 – 7 – 23/20 – 09/03 – 00/02
18 – 7 – 22/30 – 00/00 – 02/15
24 – 5 – 19/19 – 00/00 – 01/17
26 – 7 – 21/23 – 16/03 – 00/00
27 – 7 – 17/24 – 03/02 – 01/13
33 – 5 – 03/05 – 00/00 – 00/00
34 – 5 – 19/15 – 00/01 – 00/05
37 – 7 – 32/31 – 09/03 – 00/13
43 – 7 – 22/20 – 00/00 – 02/06
44 – 6 – 25/28 – 15/03 – 02/13
46 – 5 – 02/07 – 00/00 – 00/00
51 – 7 – 18/19 – 00/00 – 02/13
71 – 7 – 37/29 – 19/03 – 01/05
77 – 7 – 29/34 – 09/03 – 00/14
78 – 7 – 24/17 – 00/00 – 00/01
83 – 7 – 22/25 – 17/03 – 00/01
89 – 6 – 25/18 – 07/02 – 01/04