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

Leafs' Prospect/Marlies Discussion Thread!

Here's the only math that really matters when making claims about "usage" -- the actual time on ice.

Throwing in toi against shit comp doesn't save you.

BeLeafer said:
puckiq looks interesting in terms of doing something with qoc. Menu system could be improved but free is free.

What I'm seeing is the following numbers for Leafs toi% against elite competition (as puckiq defines it) ...

Rielly: 37.2%
Holl: 35.9%
Muzzin: 34.8%
Ceci: 34.8%
Marincin: 26.8%
Dermott: 25.2%
Barrie: 24.2%

A few things ...

- Rielly's numbers do not strike me as "WAY above his blueliner teammates"

- In fact, Rielly looks to be getting but a tad more stiff comp than Holl, Muzzin and Ceci. The rest are relatively sheltered.

- Spending a lot less than half your ice time against stiff comp suggests that you may overstate its importance in terms of affecting other metrics

- puckiq doesn't seem to use expected goals (maybe I missed it?)
Click to expand...
 
I think the problem is that they haven't found a good way to measure QoC yet. Because Beleafer is right. All the stats nerds say QoC impact is statistically negligible on the results, however, we see all the time the impact usage has on players when changing roles. Which to me suggests a problem with units of measurement. Because Zack Aston Reese isn't a better player than Connor McDavid. Dermott's numbers go way down when not playing on the 3rd pair. etc. Ignoring QoC produces way more wacky conclusions than not ignoring it does.

But at this point its more context, than mathematically useful.
 
Note that the debate is around Rielly's purported "super-elite" usage. zeke got exposed and now wants to talk about normalizing dfenwick%.
 
beleafer: "it is minor because I say it is"

zeke: "here's exactlyhow much difference that 'minor' makes in this scenario"

volc: "lol math"

beleafer" "exposed!"
 
leafman101 said:
I think the problem is that they haven't found a good way to measure QoC yet. Because Beleafer is right. All the stats nerds say QoC impact is statistically negligible on the results, however, we see all the time the impact usage has on players when changing roles. Which to me suggests a problem with units of measurement. Because Zack Aston Reese isn't a better player than Connor McDavid. Dermott's numbers go way down when not playing on the 3rd pair. etc. Ignoring QoC produces way more wacky conclusions than not ignoring it does.

But at this point its more context, than mathematically useful.
Click to expand...

I was actually skeptical of the nerds math on this.

Now, I'm thinking they are probably right. Just looking at toi% -- if a player is playing the vast majority of their shifts with certain linemates, that's likely to have a bigger impact than stiff comp where they are only playing a bit over a third of their shifts.
 
zeke said:
beleafer: "it is minor because I say it is"

zeke: "here's exactlyhow much difference that 'minor' makes in this scenario"

volc: "lol math"

beleafer" "exposed!"
Click to expand...

Ever inventive. I said it's minor because the toi variance is 6.2% for weak and stiff comp and a mere 2.4% for stiff comp. Keep ignoring this at your own peril.
 
a) why do you think even your (incorrect) "6.2%" is "minor"? why do you keep repeating that opinion as fact? especially after the simple calculation showed clearly the exact impact that difference has in this scenario?

b) why would you even bother to mention the other figure derived from ignoring all the easiest ice time players get?
 
BeLeafer said:
I was actually skeptical of the nerds math on this.

Now, I'm thinking they are probably right. Just looking at toi% -- if a player is playing the vast majority of their shifts with certain linemates, that's likely to have a bigger impact than stiff comp where they are only playing a bit over a third of their shifts.
Click to expand...

But how do you measure stiff comp? I'm not sure 30% is accurate for a guy like Tavares or Bergeron. They are lucky to get a couple shifts a game against a 4th line.

Also, there was an interesting article a few years back about Babs usage. He would play the third pair late in shifts against the other teams top line when they are tired.

I don't think they've found a good way to measure it. And again, completely ignoring it leads to wacky conclusions.
 
BeLeafer said:
For puckiq, their top blueliner is Chara at 46.4 and top forward is J Staal at 46.6%.

Yep, it how you define it is important. Here's what puckiq does: https://becauseoilers.blogspot.com/2016/07/woodmoney-new-quality-of-competition.html They use relative corsi and toi. xg would be better.
Click to expand...

IMO the real interesting part of that is the success level vs. elite, medium and grit rather than the TOI% breakdown.

So vs Elite

Rielly: 37.2 TOI%, 51.2 CF%, 3.40 CF rel, 8.08 CF/60 rel, 0.36 CA/60 rel
Muzzin: 34.8 TOI%, 48.10 CF%, -11.19 CF/60 rel, -2.47 CA/60 rel
Dermott: 25.2 TOI%, 52.00 CF%, -0.41 CF/60 rel, -6.61 CA/60 rel
Holl 35.9 TOI%, 46.4 CF%, -10.91 CF/60 rel, 0.41 CA/60 rel
Barrie 24.2 TOI%, 50.2 CF%, 5.54 CF/60 rel, 3.80 CA/60 rel
Ceci 34.8 TOI%, 50.9 CF%, 1.65 CF/60 rel, -3,01 CA/60 rel

I wish they had xG,but Rielly is only slightly below average in shot suppression vs elite comp.

Also keep Dermott at all costs.

And Ceci > Holl. Holl kinda sucks in a shutdown role.
 
leafman101 said:
IMO the real interesting part of that is the success level vs. elite, medium and grit rather than the TOI% breakdown.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. We were just debating actual usage.

I wish they had xG,but Rielly is only slightly below average in shot suppression vs elite comp.

Also keep Dermott at all costs.

And Ceci > Holl. Holl kinda sucks in a shutdown role.
Click to expand...

I don't care much at all for corsi and would also love to see these splits with the xg metrics.

Edit: Yes! On Dermott.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top