Leafs' Prospect/Marlies Discussion Thread!

[BeLeafer]

comfortably top-10 over the last 5 years (i.e. since age 21). Top-5 in more than one of those years

may have slipped out of the top-10 this year for the first time, but probably still top-15.

(amongst dmen of a significant minutes minimum, of course).

I'll take your word for it.

It would still not make up more than half the ice time.

 

[leafman101]

can you guys explain to me why you are removing all the easiest ice time from comparisons of players' quality of ice time?

I don't understand.

His Gritty shift% is so low he doesn;t even show up on the league wide chart.

 

[zeke]

defenwick is more like hdcf than xg.

you gotta stop making things up.

Natural Stat Trick numbers with puckIQ's dfa/60 placed in order of frequency:

Rielly 60.2ca/60, 47.5fa/60, 43.9dfa/60, 34.4sa/60, 28.3sca/60, 11.1hdca/60

It's nothing like hdca.

It's their version of xgf%, but they don't translate it into a goals-per-60 scale like is done with xgf.

 

[zeke]

I'll take your word for it.

It would still not make up more than half the ice time.

again, we can see the actual impact with a very simple calculation.

 

[BeLeafer]

xg measures shot location, right? Fenwick measures unblocked shots. Dangerous fenwick presumably measures dangerous unblocked shots. HDSC measure high danger scoring chances.

 

[zeke]

His Gritty shift% is so low he doesn;t even show up on the league wide chart.

yup.

 

[BeLeafer]

again, we can see the actual impact with a very simple calculation.

Again, I ask you to share this calculation.

 

[zeke]

xg measures shot location, right? Fenwick measures unblocked shots. Dangerous fenwick presumably measures dangerous unblocked shots. HDSC measure high danger scoring chances.

it's a basic version of xgf which takes fenwick and then adjusts for shot type and distance: https://oilersnerdalert.wordpress.c...ous Fenwick number is,than the 50% of Fenwick.

 

[BeLeafer]

I get the following toi% for weak comp …

Dermott: 39.1
Barrie: 36.8
Holl: 31.4
Muzzin: 29.7
Ceci: 28.5
Rielly: 25.6

These differences look big on a chart that has a scale axis starting at 25% and goes up only 20 points, but this is much like elite toi% in terms of deployment differential – a few points between Rielly and the other top four (albeit slightly more than for elite toi%).

Here's Rielly's gritty toi% -- 3.8 points less than the least on the top four (Holll).

 

[zeke]

Again, I ask you to share this calculation.

the calculation I used above.

simply average out the performances against each type of competetion, which in effect pretends they all get equal ice time against each category and thus automatically evens out usage for all players

(note: this is simply a counter to your assertion that it is only a "minor" impact. I don't want this to be taken as if I believe the puckIQ qoc numbers are all that perfect or sufficient - or that these 1yr or partial year stats should be used alone like this in the first place.)

 

[BeLeafer]

it's a basic version of xgf which takes fenwick and then adjusts for shot type and distance: https://oilersnerdalert.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/explaining-dangerous-fenwick/#:~:text=The Dangerous Fenwick number is,than the 50% of Fenwick.

okay

 

[BeLeafer]

the calculation I used above.

simply average out the performances against each type of competetion, which in effect pretends they all get equal ice time against each category and thus automatically evens out usage for all players

So, using this method, Rielly goes from 52.3% to 53.5%. That's an increase of 1.2 points or 2.3%.

It's pretty much exactly what I'd expect from the toi% numbers. Pretty minor stuff.

 

[BeLeafer]

Is this "normalization" adjustment somewhere on puckiq? I can't seem to find it.

 

[zeke]

So, using this method, Rielly goes from 52.3% to 53.5%. That's an increase of 1.2 points or 2.3%.

It's pretty much exactly what I'd expect from the toi% numbers. Pretty minor stuff.
[/QUOTE]

yep, from 52.3% to 53.5%, from +0.7rel to +2.1rel.

if you're calling that minor, then you're calling all analytics differences minor.

 

[zeke]

Is this "normalization" adjustment somewhere on puckiq? I can't seem to find it.

just add the 3 numbers and divide by 3.

 

[BeLeafer]

yep, from 52.3% to 53.5%, from +0.7rel to +2.1rel.

if you're calling that minor, then you're calling all analytics differences minor.

Player A: 52.3%
Player B: 53.5%

Minor.

 

[zeke]

I had it all nice in context showing how that "minor" difference leapfrogged him from comfortably behind Muzzin to comfortably ahead of him.

but hey keep saying "minor". I think I'm done.

 

[BeLeafer]

just add the 3 numbers and divide by 3.

This is your own manual calculation?

 

[zeke]

and a very complicated manual calculation at that.

 

[BeLeafer]

I had it all nice in context showing how that "minor" difference leapfrogged him from comfortably behind Muzzin to comfortably ahead of him.

but hey keep saying "minor". I think I'm done.

Minor.