• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

The ****ing Season Thread

Jordan Staal that had a faceoff % of 54.4% last year?

Now i know Kadri looks to have improved on his faceoffs this season, albeit on a small sample size, i don't think Staal would be the one moving to the wing.

That would be one expensive group of player when Kadri needs to get resigned next season.
 
Faceoffs really aren't that important.

Interesting analysis I came across about Patrice Bergeron during the Bruins last cup finals run. He was 61.8% on the draw through out the playoffs, a full 2 standard deviations better than average. The total amount of additional possession he created by being a full 2 standard deviations better than average, calculated out to create 1.17 additional goals scored based on the Bruins overall performance during the playoffs.

In other words, almost ****ing nothing.

So yeah, I'd entertain the argument that J Staal is a better centre than Kadri (he's generally a stellar possession player), but give zero ****s about him winning 5-7 more faceoffs per 100 than Kadri.
 
MindzEye said:
Faceoffs really aren't that important.

Interesting analysis I came across about Patrice Bergeron during the Bruins last cup finals run. He was 61.8% on the draw through out the playoffs, a full 2 standard deviations better than average. The total amount of additional possession he created by being a full 2 standard deviations better than average, calculated out to create 1.17 additional goals scored based on the Bruins overall performance during the playoffs.

In other words, almost ****ing nothing.

So yeah, I'd entertain the argument that J Staal is a better centre than Kadri (he's generally a stellar possession player), but give zero ****s about him winning 5-7 more faceoffs per 100 than Kadri.
Click to expand...

How many goals did it save?
 
MindzEye said:
Faceoffs really aren't that important.

Interesting analysis I came across about Patrice Bergeron during the Bruins last cup finals run. He was 61.8% on the draw through out the playoffs, a full 2 standard deviations better than average. The total amount of additional possession he created by being a full 2 standard deviations better than average, calculated out to create 1.17 additional goals scored based on the Bruins overall performance during the playoffs.

In other words, almost ****ing nothing.

So yeah, I'd entertain the argument that J Staal is a better centre than Kadri (he's generally a stellar possession player), but give zero ****s about him winning 5-7 more faceoffs per 100 than Kadri.
Click to expand...

Drawing conclusions on a sample of 1 ... oh my.
 
I do agree that sometimes we get caught up in numbers and don't really see how insignificant a couple percentage points can be, but I'd still rather have the best face-off guys I can, all other things being equal.
 
BeLeafer said:
1 player.
Click to expand...

The total possession above average that 1 player created with his faceoff skills. Yes.

Not sure what your point is here. The conclusion wasn't drawn from Bergeron in isolation, but from a much larger pool of data. It may be flawed, but it definitely passes the smell test. Winning 11-12% more faceoffs than average only creates so much additional possession and that additional possession only leads to so many goals. Over that period, Bergeron was +28 in Ozone faceoffs, +38 in Nzone, and +31 in Dzone....how many goals do you expect being +99 in face offs over a 19 game span to create?

To put that into perspective, Bergeron was 5.2 faceoff wins (all zones) per game, better than average. Exactly how much do you think that should be worth?
 
Bleedsblue&white said:
I do agree that sometimes we get caught up in numbers and don't really see how insignificant a couple percentage points can be, but I'd still rather have the best face-off guys I can, all other things being equal.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But putting it into proper context is key. If Bergeron (for example) created an additional 5-6 goals worth of value over the course of a season with his faceoff skills, it allows us to more properly determine his overall value (which, for a 55-65 point centre, it usually considered to be equivalent or better than most 70-75+ point scorers)

I agree though, if two 60 point centres are available, take the 55% guy on the draw over the 45% guy on the draw, but you're looking at a swing of a few faceoff wins per game on average at most. I wouldn't pay much of a premium for that.
 
My point is quite simple: you've drawn a far reaching conclusion based on data from one player. It is a sample of one, regardless of how much data from that one case you use. Further, this "much larger pool of data" is from 19 playoff games and focuses only on offensive output. That doesn't pass my smell test and I'm very surprised that it passes yours.
 
BeLeafer said:
My point is quite simple: you've drawn a far reaching conclusion based on data from one player. It is a sample of one, regardless of how much data from that one case you use. Further, this "much larger pool of data" is from 19 playoff games and focuses only on offensive output. That doesn't pass my smell test and I'm very surprised that it passes yours.
Click to expand...

Bergeron is an example, nothing more. The conclusion here is that a value can be assigned to face off skills, which I do agree with. Whether or not the existing methodology for assigning that value is correct or not, I don't know. But the results it produces, absolutely pass the smell test. Which is why I've asked you the questions concerning how much value do you think (again, just smell testing) a face off win is worth.
 
MindzEye said:
Bergeron is an example, nothing more. The conclusion here is that a value can be assigned to face off skills, which I do agree with. Whether or not the existing methodology for assigning that value is correct or not, I don't know. But the results it produces, absolutely pass the smell test.
Click to expand...
I'd need a whole lot more data from a whole lot more players than Bergeron to conclude that faceoffs are unimportant. 40+years of watching the game tells me a vastly different story.

Which is why I've asked you the questions concerning how much value do you think (again, just smell testing) a face off win is worth.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting question ... to quantify the value of winning faceoffs. I've never thought about it before and not sure it's something that can be fairly done. You'd need to take the data from all centres over a season and see what correlations emerge with both offensive and defensive outcomes. It would be very difficult to assign a value to it, but it could potentially be done.
 
BeLeafer said:
I'd need a whole lot more data from a whole lot more players than Bergeron to conclude that faceoffs are unimportant. 40+years of watching the game tells me a vastly different story.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it "unimportant" per se. I think the best in the league at it creating 6 additional goals over the course of a season is quite valuable. I think where we lose the plot sometimes is in giving a **** between a 51-52% faceoff guy and a 48-49% faceoff guy. It's like giving a **** between a 33 goal scorer and a 31 goal scorer, or a .920 goalie over a .918 goalie.

A guy who is consistently in the 60% range is, on faceoff value alone ~5 goals more valuable than a guy in the 50% range. That's pretty valuable. But that's the exception, and not the norm. There's really only one guy who is consistently in the 60% range in the league and only a small handful that are in the 55-57% range most seasons.

When I called it unimportant, I was speaking in the context of a Kadri V Staal, where Staal is a 51-52% guy and Kadri should be able to improve from being a 45% guy (and early returns show that he is in the process of it). I'll take the 1.75 p/60 guy at centre over the 1.25 p/60 guy every day of the week.


It's an interesting question ... to quantify the value of winning faceoffs. I've never thought about it before and not sure it's something that can be fairly done. You'd need to take the data from all centres over a season and see what correlations emerge with both offensive and defensive outcomes. It would be very difficult to assign a value to it, but it could potentially be done.
Click to expand...

I think that's almost exactly what has been done. Except it's been calculated using multiple seasons worth of data and not just one.
 
Last edited:
I don't know man, examples are handy things. Even if it's only one, odds are if it happened once it's going to happen again.

I still remember the first time I was shown one example of how +- is inaccurate...it was one example but you knew there were hundreds more.
Kelly Hrudey showed Kaberle passing the puck up the ice then skating off...the Leafs score and Kaberle gets nothing because he's on the bench now, and the guy that came on to replace him got a +1.

One example.
 
MindzEye said:
I wouldn't call it "unimportant" per se. I think the best in the league at it creating 6 additional goals over the course of a season is quite valuable. I think where we lose the plot sometimes is in giving a **** between a 51-52% faceoff guy and a 48-49% faceoff guy. It's like giving a **** between a 33 goal scorer and a 31 goal scorer, or a .920 goalie over a .918 goalie.
Click to expand...
Stated this way, sure. I don't think there's a whole heap of difference based on 2-4% faceoff wins. It amounts to around 30-60 possession starts. Of course, if one of those is in game 7 of the SCF on a defensive zone faceoff, it might be pretty important.

I think that's almost exactly what has been done. Except it's been calculated using multiple seasons worth of data and not just one.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to this article? From what I can see, you're talking about data from 19 playoff games from 1 player looking at 1 outcome. That's nothing like what I suggested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top