tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49495985164292719012024-03-09T16:31:26.599-04:00Hockey HistorysisThe convergence of hockey history and analysis. And not like Original Six-type history; more like Montreal Victorias-type history.Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.comBlogger126125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-59358143473825383792015-10-23T13:00:00.000-03:002015-10-23T13:00:00.939-03:00Defensive Pairings in the 1930s and Early 1940sIf you'd asked me yesterday when my last post here was, there's about a zero percent chance I would have said "well, nearly a year, obviously." It's amazing how little you actually get done when you have a half-dozen or so projects on the go at the same time. I can't promise to be posting regularly here again, but we'll at least have a little series of posts to work with, on the topic of defensive pairings in the 1930s and 1940s.<br />
<br />
I've always found it a bit odd what while we keep track of which side wingers play in hockey (though not always quite accurately, just ask Alex Ovechkin), the same is really never done for defencemen. Bobby Hull played left wing, while Pierre Pilote just played defence. Actually, he mostly played right defence, but for some reason we don't seem to care about that. Red Kelly was a left defenceman, and Eddie Shore was a right defenceman. You don't find these details on any website or in any encyclopedia, however, because apparently it's not important enough to note.<br />
<br />
But this distinction is, in fact, very important on the ice. Defencemen are not interchangeable. While many blueliners can and do play both the right side and the left, some defencemen are really only good on one side or the other, and this should be recognized. Generally speaking, right-hand-shot (RHS) defencemen have a significant advantage when playing the right side of the ice, due to being able to stop pucks along the boards, and to shoot pucks out of their zone along the boards, on their forehands, and also being able to receive passes from their defence partner on the forehand as well. Left-hand-shot (LHS) blueliners have similar advantages when playing on the left side. However, because most right-handed people shoot left, and the great majority of people are right-handed, there are more LHS defencemen available than RHS, which results in a significant number of LHS playing the right side due to there being an insufficient number of RHS blueliners.<br />
<br />
But not every LHS player is adept at playing the right side. Since you will be playing on your backhand when you're on your off-side, generally it's the better stickhandlers and passers that are able to make the switch effectively. So with all this in mind, it's puzzling that we apparently don't pay any attention to who plays what side.<br />
<br />
It wasn't always this way. From 1933 to 1943, for example, the <a href="http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1912553" target="_blank">voting</a> for post-season NHL All-Star Teams was split up between right defencemen and left defencemen, just as it was (and is) for wings. That ended with the beginning of the "Original Six" era for some reason, and since that time the league has really paid no attention to it, with every blueliner just being listed as "D" since then.<br />
<br />
As such it's worth attempting to reconstruct NHL defencemen's positions. And that's what I'm going to do, starting with the period from 1933 to 1943. I'm starting here for the reason noted above; we have voting records based on the left side and right side for the All-Stars, which should help to provide clues about which side a particular defenceman played. We can't just assume they're completely accurate. Even today, when the dissemination of information about hockey players is so much easier than in the 30s, the voters still considered Ovechkin to be both a right wing and a left wing in 2012/13. He used to play left wing, but had shifted to the right that season, and many voters presumably just assumed he was still on the left. And the same sort of thing could have easily happened 80 years ago, so we can't just take the voting results as gospel.<br />
<br />
So what other information do we have to inform our analysis? Well, up until the 1950s, newpapers summaries of NHL games listed the full playing rosters of both team, divided into starters at each position and substitutes. Very occasionally, and I mean very occasionally (especially the later we go in time), the defencemen would be listed as right defence and left defence, and in those cases we know what position the starting defencemen were playing, at least.<br />
<br />
But even though each starting defenceman's position was rarely listed, we do know who the starters were, and we know whether each was a RHS or LHS. As such, when a RHS is paired with a LHS, we should be able to assume that the RHS played the right side and the LHS played the left side, due to the advantages inherent in playing on your forehand side.<br />
<br />
Or can we? Next time we'll look at some analysis to see if this is a reasonable assumption.Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-53405775277263115382014-11-07T13:00:00.000-04:002014-11-07T13:00:03.053-04:00Puckerings archive: Arena Goal Factors (29 Oct 2002)<i>What follows is a post from my old hockey analysis site
</i><i><b>puckerings.com</b></i><i> (later hockeythink.com). It is
reproduced here for posterity; bear in mind this writing is over a
decade old and I may not even agree with it myself anymore. This post
was originally published on October 29, 2002.</i>
<br />
<br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<i><b><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Arena Goal Factors</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><i>Copyright Iain Fyffe, 2002</i></span><br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">One possible source of
ideas when doing statistical analysis in hockey is analysis done in
other sports. Of course, baseball is the most obvious choice, since so
much statistical analysis has been done in that field. But one must be
careful when importing ideas to consider the differences that exist
between the sports involved.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The concept of park run
factors is an example. Park runs factors exist in baseball because
different parks have different dimensions and conditions, thereby
affecting the number of runs scored in each park. Several people have
suggested that such an analysis could be done in hockey, but to my
knowledge, no one has published any results.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">First, we must ask the
question: do factors of this kind (let's call them Arena Goal Factors,
or AGF) make sense for hockey? I would say yes, there could be enough
differences between arenas (in terms of dimensions, ice condition, etc.)
to affect goal-scoring levels. I would expect the differences to be
less than in baseball, but would not be surprised if they do exist.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">For example, let's take a team
that scored 120 goals at home and 100 on the road, and allowed 90 goals
at home and 100 on the road. In this league, teams score 55% of their
goals at home, while allowing 45% of their goals at home. We would
therefore expect this team to score 121 goals at home and allow 86 at
home, for a total of 207 goals at home. They actually had 210 total
goals at home. Their AGF is therefore 210 divided by 207, or 1.014.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">But before we can use
this figure, we have to adjust for the fact that a team plays only half
its games at home, and half on the road (in other arenas with other AGF
figures). Since the sum of league AGF is equal to the number of teams,
we calculate the Arena Goal Adjustment (AGA) as follows:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">AGA = [(TMS-1)x(AGF)+(TMS-AGF)]/[2x(TMS-1)]</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Where TMS is the number of teams in the league. I won't bother with the derivation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">So if the team in the
above example played in a 25-team league, its AGA would be 1.007,
meaning that players on this team would have their scoring totals
increased by about 0.7% due to playing in their particular arena.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">That's the theory,
anyway. But I won't string you along any more. You can calculate AGA's
for each NHL team for each season, but they are not the result of the
nature of the arenas. They are random chance.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">I calculated AGA's for
six NHL seasons: 1990/91, 1991/92, 1994/95, 1995/96, 1998/99 and
1999/2000. If AGA were meaningful, there would be a strong relationship
between the AGA for a team one year and the AGA for that team the next
year. The results of this inter-year correlation is as follows: between
1990/91 and 1991/92, 0.34; between 1994/95 and 1995/96, -0.05; between
1998/99 and 1999/00, -0.37. The average correlation coefficient is
-0.03, which suggests the relationship is entirely random.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">For further support, I
calculated the correlations between goals-for factors and goals-against
factors for each team. If the effects were real, then we would expect to
see both goals for and goals against affected in the same way. The
results of this intra-year correlation are as follows:</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 20% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> Year</td>
<td> Correlation</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1990/91</td>
<td> 0.13</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1991/92</td>
<td> 0.24</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1994/95</td>
<td> 0.05</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1995/96</td>
<td> 0.24</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1998/99</td>
<td> 0.32</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1999/00</td>
<td> -0.03</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The average correlation
is 0.16, which is stronger than the inter-year correlation, but still
nowhere near as strong as we would need to say there is a relationship
there.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">In summary, Arena Goal
Factors do not exist in hockey. You can calculate them all you like, but
overall they are the result of random chance and do not reflect
anything meaningful.</span><br />
</span>Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-30611683604133504992014-10-31T13:00:00.000-03:002014-10-31T13:00:12.185-03:00Puckerings archive: Factors Affecting NHL Attendance (29 Oct 2002)<i>What follows is a post from my old hockey analysis site
</i><i><b>puckerings.com</b></i><i> (later hockeythink.com). It is
reproduced here for posterity; bear in mind this writing is over a
decade old and I may not even agree with it myself anymore. This post
was originally published on October 29, 2002.</i><br />
<i> </i>
<br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<i><b><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Factors Affecting NHL Attendance</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><i>Copyright Iain Fyffe, 2002</i></span><br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">This paper builds upon
the work of Wiedecke, who examined factors affecting NHL attendance
using a multiple linear regression model. A summary of this work
follows.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Data from the 1997/98 NHL
season were used, giving 26 data observations. The dependent variable
used was the percentage of capacity (called "Attendance Capacity"). That
is, if a team averaged 15,000 fans in an arena with a capacity of
15,500, the team had an Attendance Capacity of 97% (15,000 divided by
15,500). The independent variables used were standings points, goals
scored, and penalty minutes (which are all self-explanatory), and
location (explained below).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Location for each team
was assigned a value of 1, 2 or 3 based upon the team's geographic
location. A value of 1 was assigned to the northernmost teams (Calgary,
Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver). A value of 2 was
assigned to Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Colorado, Detroit, New Jersey, New
York Islanders, New York Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St.
Louis. A value of 3 was assigned to the southernmost teams (Anaheim,
Carolina, Dallas, Florida, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose, Tampa Bay,
and Washington.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">(1) by incorporating a larger data set;
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">(2) by redefining the dependent variable; and</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">(3) by introducing a new indepdendent variable.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Rather than using only
the 1997/98 season, I will use data from 1995/96, 1996/97, 1997/98,
1998/99, 1999/2000, 2000/01 and 2001/02, giving 193 data observations.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">I will use average
attendance as the dependent variable, rather than percentage of
capacity. By using the percentage, a team which fills 14,800 of 15,000
seats (98.7%) is considered superior to a team which fills 19,700 of
20,000 seats (98.5%). This does not reflect reality well, as the second
team draws a full 33% more fans.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The independent variable
added is Novelty. A value of 5 is assigned to a team in its first year
in the league (after either an expansion or franchise relocation), and
this is reduced by one for each subsequent year in the league until it
reaches 0. The purpose is to determine if new teams get an attendance
boost simply by being new, as if often postulated. The four independent
variables used by Wiedecke are also used.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b> </b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Variable Correlations</b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b> </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">A variable correlation
analysis is performed to examine the data for possible cross-correlation
effects. Only one pair of variables, goals and standings points, has a
significant correlation (positive 0.64). Therefore if both goals and
points are found to be significant, care must be taken in their
interpretation due to cross-correlation. Other pairs with
less-significant correlations are attendance and points (positive 0.39),
attendance and location (negative 0.31), and location and novelty
(positive 0.30).</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The following table
indicates the coefficients of correlation for all variables used:
attendance (ATT), points in standings (PTS), goals scored (GF), penalty
minutes (PIM), location (LOC) and novelty (NOV).</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 50% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td> ATT</td>
<td> PTS</td>
<td> GF</td>
<td> PIM</td>
<td> LOC</td>
<td> NOV</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> ATT</td>
<td> -</td>
<td> .39</td>
<td> .25</td>
<td> -.04</td>
<td> -.31</td>
<td> -.17</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> PTS</td>
<td> .39</td>
<td> -</td>
<td> .64</td>
<td> -.28</td>
<td> -.17</td>
<td> -.19</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> GF</td>
<td> .25</td>
<td> .64</td>
<td> -</td>
<td> .10</td>
<td> -.22</td>
<td> -.17</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> PIM</td>
<td> -.04</td>
<td> -.28</td>
<td> .10</td>
<td> -</td>
<td> .04</td>
<td> -.01</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> LOC</td>
<td> -.31</td>
<td> -.17</td>
<td> -.22</td>
<td> .04</td>
<td> -</td>
<td> .30</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> NOV</td>
<td> -.17</td>
<td> -.19</td>
<td> -.17</td>
<td> -.01</td>
<td> .30</td>
<td> -</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b> </b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Results of the Model</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The results of the multiple linear regression model are as follows.</span><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 40% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> Constant (y-intercept)</td>
<td> 13,326</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Standard error of estimate</td>
<td> 2,071</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> R-squared</td>
<td> 0.223</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 50% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> Variable</td>
<td> Coefficient</td>
<td> St. error</td>
<td> t-stat</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> PTS</td>
<td> 61.08</td>
<td> 13.56</td>
<td> 4.50</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> GF</td>
<td> -6.90</td>
<td> 7.16</td>
<td> -0.96</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> PIM</td>
<td> 0.80</td>
<td> 0.61</td>
<td> 1.31</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> LOC</td>
<td> -778.93</td>
<td> 211.43</td>
<td> -3.68</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> NOV</td>
<td> -47.92</td>
<td> 119.85</td>
<td> -0.40</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b> </b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Discussion of Results</b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b> </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The t-statistics of GF,
PIM and NOV indicate there is little evidence that they affect
attendance in any significant way. On the other hand, there is very
strong evidence that PTS and LOC significantly affect attendance. These
findings agree with Wiedecke.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Overall, the model is not
extremely useful; the R-squared figure indicates only 22.3% of the
variability in attendance is explained by the model. This may indicate
there are other independent variables that should be considered.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The correlation between
the two significant independent variables (PTS and LOC) is -0.17,
indicating there is no significant cross-correlation effect.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Interpretation</b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b> </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">According to the model, having a good team is the most significant factor affecting attendance. <i>Ceteris paribus</i>,
each additional standings point increases attendance by 61 fans per
game. A 90-point team therefore has a 610-fan advantage in average
attendance over an 80-point team.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The location coefficient
indicates that the further south a team is, the worse its attendance is.
All else being equal, a team in the southern US averages 1,558 fans
less per game than a team in Canada. This is significant because the
NHL's recent strategy has been to put as many teams in the southern US
as possible, either through expansion or franchise relocations
(including moving teams from Canada to the southern US). The results of
this model suggest that this strategy is seriously flawed. In this case,
analysis agrees with common sense: why are markets where there <i>are</i> hockey fans ignored in favour of markets where there are <i>no</i> hockey fans? At least the most recent expansion was more logical, and didn't put any more teams in the Sun Belt.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b> </b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Reference</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Wiedecke, Jennifer. 1999. <i>Factors Affecting Attendance in the National Hockey League: A Multiple Regression Model.</i> Master's thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.</span></span>Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-67253818191870197752014-10-24T13:00:00.000-03:002014-10-24T13:00:03.871-03:00Puckerings archive: Win-Things Theory (18 Oct 2002)<i>What follows is a post from my old hockey analysis site
</i><i><b>puckerings.com</b></i><i> (later hockeythink.com). It is
reproduced here for posterity; bear in mind this writing is over a
decade old and I may not even agree with it myself anymore. This post
was originally published on October 18, 2002.</i><br />
<i> </i>
<br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<i><b><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Theory: Win-Things</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><i>Copyright Iain Fyffe, 2002</i></span><br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The most common perspective put forward on win theory can be summarized as follows:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Before a game begins, each participating team has a 50% chance to win (a .500 expected winning percentage), <i>ceteris paribus</i>.
As the game progresses, and as each team does things that affect their
chances of winning or chances of losing, the expected winning percentage
of each team changes. For instance, if a team scores a goal after 5
minutes of play, their percentage may change to .550, and the opponent's
would therefore be .450, since the percentages necessarily sum to one.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">At the crux of this
theory lie two ideas: (1) before a game begins, a team's winning
percentage is .500, and (2) a team does two types of things that affect
its chances of winning: good things (which we'll call "win-things") and
bad things (which we'll call "loss-things".)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">As a team, you have no
significant control over what your opponents do. Therefore, at least
from an analytical perspective, you can assume they will do an average
number of things to win. At the beginning of a game, you have not yet
done anything to win, and have no guarantee that you will do so.
Therefore, your expected winning percentage before a game is not .500,
but .000.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Teams try to win games,
they do not try to lose them. Therefore a loss-thing is merely a failed
attempt at a win-thing. Just as darkness is merely the absence of
light, loss-things are merely the absence of win-things. Therefore
win-things are what matters, and this is why I refer to this theory as
Win-Things Theory.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The idea that you cannot
control your opponent's actions is carried throughout the thoery. For
instance, in the traditional theory, scoring a goal is a very good thing
(i.e., it has a high Win-Things value). Under Win-Things Theory,
whether or not a shots actually produces a goal is irrelevant to the
shooting side. The Win-Things were produced by the shot itself, with a
higher-quality shot producing more Win-Things. Conversely, the
opponent's Win-Things on the play depend on whether or not the shot is
stopped. Stopping the shot produces Win-Things about equal to the
Win-Things resulting for the other side by taking the shot. Not stopping
the shot produces no Win-Things (it does <i>not</i> produce Loss-Things).</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">It should be noted that
the .000 beginning expected winning percentage applies only to one-team
analysis. In two-team analysis, where the actions of both teams are
considered, the expected percentage would depend on the Win-Things each
team has accumulated. But generally speaking, one-team analysis is more
useful in analyzing what contributes to winning, by assuming opponents
to be average in all regards.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Traditional theory
focusses much attention on expected winning percentage. Win-Things
Theory does not. The point is not to get your expected winning
percentage up; the point is to accumulate more Win-Things than your
opponents. Since you cannot control how many Win-Things your opponents
accumulate, the best way to ensure this is to accumulate as many
Win-Things as possible.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">This theory supports Bill James' Win Shares system for baseball, which I have adapted into the Point Allocation<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070623114545/http://www.puckerings.com/research/ptalloc.html"></a>
method for hockey. Win Shares has been criticized for not considering
"Loss Shares". Using this new theory, Loss Shares are irrelevant, and
the criticism is therefore invalid. Opportunity should still be
considered, but fortunately in hockey games are timed, while in baseball
the opportunities vary greatly from game-to-game, based on a multitude
of factors.</span><br />
</span>Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-47809166210713197242014-10-17T13:00:00.000-03:002014-10-17T13:00:00.168-03:00Puckerings archive: Shots and Save Percentage (18 Oct 2002)<i>What follows is a post from my old hockey analysis site
</i><i><b>puckerings.com</b></i><i> (later hockeythink.com). It is
reproduced here for posterity; bear in mind this writing is over a
decade old and I may not even agree with it myself anymore. This post
was originally published on October 18, 2002.</i><br />
<i> </i>
<br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<i><b><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Theory: Shots and Save Percentage</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><i>Copyright Iain Fyffe, 2002</i></span><br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">In my investigation into the validity of Goaltender Perseverence<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060526132059/http://www.puckerings.com/research/persev.html"></a>,
I looked into the relationship between the number of shots a goaltender
faces per game and his save percentage. I found that, as the number of
shots per game increases, save percentage does <i>not</i> decrease, on
average, as the fundamental assumption of Perseverence argues. In fact,
there is some evidence of a positive relationship; that is, as shots
increase, save percentage increases.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">This evidence was met
with an "it doesn't make sense" reaction from those I presented it to.
Well, common sense is often dead wrong. To explain this phenomenon, I
present the following theory.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">For simplicity, I will
discuss only two types of shots: easy and tough (referring to the
goaltender's perspective). There are in actuality many varying degrees
of toughness of shots, but these two will suffice for our purposes.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Easy shots are largely
discretionary. They are shots that result from situations where a player
could choose to shoot, or choose another play. They are of lower
quality than tough shots, because they are usually taken from a greater
distance than tough shots, or less favourable circumstances.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Since easy shots are
discretionary, there must be a reason that teams do not simply shoot
every time, in order to maximize their goals scored. The reason could be
twofold: you give up the opportunity to make a pass, which could result
in a higher-quality shot, and the shot is more likely to produce a
turnover, allowing a possible scoring chance for the opposition.
Therefore, it is not always wise to take the shot rather than another
play.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Save percentages on tough
shots are low, and save percentages on easy shots are high. And since
easy shots are primarily responsible for variation in shots faced by a
goaltender (since the number of tough shots faced is relatively
consistent), save percentage will increase as shots faced increases.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">For example, let's say
that the average tough shots faced per game is 5, and the save
percentage on such shots is .800. This is the same for every goaltender.
Any difference in shots faced is due to easy shots, which we'll say
have a save percentage of .900.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">A goaltender facing 25
shots will therefore face 20 easy shots (25 less 5). Goals against on
tough shots is 1.0 (5 less .800 times 5), on easy shots 2.0 (20 less
.900 times 20). 3 goals against on 25 shots is an .880 save percentage.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">A goaltender facing 35
shots will have the same 1.0 goals against on tough shots, but will have
3.0 on easy shots (30 less .900 times 30). 4 goals against on 35 shots
is an .886 save percentage. The goaltender facing more shots on average
has a higher save percentage.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">That is my theory of how
save percentage can increase as shots increase. Unfortunately, this
theory cannot be tested using information that is currently available.
The NHL does track certain shot data (type, location) for shots that
produce a goal, but not for shots that do not produce a goal. If this
information were recorded for all shots, it could be used to test this
theory.</span><br />
</span>Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-17144174259813380332014-10-10T13:00:00.000-03:002014-10-10T13:00:07.757-03:00Puckerings archive: The Cost of a Penalty (18 Oct 2002)<i>What follows is a post from my old hockey analysis site
</i><i><b>puckerings.com</b></i><i> (later hockeythink.com). It is
reproduced here for posterity; bear in mind this writing is over a
decade old and I may not even agree with it myself anymore. This post
was originally published on October 18, 2002.</i><br />
<i> </i>
<br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<i><b><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Theory: the Cost of a Penalty</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><i>Copyright Iain Fyffe, 2002</i></span><br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The value of odd-man play
is often debated. In the mass media, much ado is made about the
power-play (and, to a lesser extent, penalty-killing), calling it a key
to success. Others, such as Klein and Reif, downplay its importance,
noting that even-strength play is better for predicting success. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">This essay takes a
conceptual approach to this problem. What, in theory, is the importance
of odd-man situations? To examine this question, I will examine a
theoretical team, one which is average in all respects.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">This team plays in three
types of situations: even-strength (ES), power-play (PP) and
short-handed (SH). Examining each of these situations reveals the answer
we are looking for.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Even-strength: </b>The
team is completely average. Therefore, they will score exactly as many
ES goals (ESGF) as they allow (ESGA). Thus, their expected net goal
differential per minute of ES time (ESMIN) is calculated as follows:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">( ESGF - ESGA ) / ESMIN</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Which, for reasons discussed above, is zero. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Power-play: </b>On the
PP, a team scores about three times as often as at ES, while goals
against are cut in half. PP time (PPMIN) produces a net goal
differential as follows, using 1998/99 figures:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">( PPGF - SHGA ) / PPMIN</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">= ( 1533 - 220 ) / 16326 ... minutes figure is estimated</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">= 0.08</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Short-handed: </b>Since PP time for one team is SH time for another, SH situations produce the converse of PP, or -0.08 goals per minute.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Taking this all together,
as average team will have a winning record if they can obtain more PP
opportunities then they give. That's badly phrased, since a team with a
winning record cannot be average, but you know what I mean. This is most
easily accomplished by taking as few penalties as possible, since you
have rather limited control over your opponent's actions.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">From this perspective,
odd-man situations are extremely important, as they decide games. The
team taking fewer non-coincident penalties should win, on average.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">If this perspective is
valid, then we should be able to predict success based upon PP
opportunities for and against. I tested the coefficient of correlation
between net PP opportunities and standings points for a selection of
recent seasons:</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 30% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> 1990/91</td>
<td> 0.11</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1991/92</td>
<td> 0.26</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1994/95</td>
<td> 0.02</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1995/96</td>
<td> -0.02</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1998/99</td>
<td> 0.63</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1999/00</td>
<td> 0.23</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> average</td>
<td> 0.21</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The correlations provide,
on average, some support for the theory. They are generally positive,
but not that strong (aside from 1998/99, which is very strong). But
remember, we are not considering the quality of the teams, unless you
consider taking few penalties to be a quality (which you should.) So
there is some evidence that this theory is valid.</span>Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-67530039184932166322014-10-03T13:00:00.000-03:002014-10-03T13:00:00.803-03:00Puckerings archive: Greatest Teams of All Time (09 Oct 2002)<i>What follows is a post from my old hockey analysis site
</i><i><b>puckerings.com</b></i><i> (later hockeythink.com). It is
reproduced here for posterity; bear in mind this writing is over a
decade old and I may not even agree with it myself anymore. This post
was originally published on October 9, 2002.</i><br />
<i> </i>
<br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<i><b><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The Greatest Teams of All Time</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><i>Copyright Iain Fyffe, 2002</i></span><br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The most thorough
discussion of teams possibly deserving nomination as the greatest of all
time is in Klein and Reif's <i>Hockey Compendium</i>. They base their
conclusion that the 1929/30 Bruins are the greatest of all time on the
team's .875 winning percentage, which is the highest of any team playing
the minimum number of games.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">There are, of course, two
problems with basing the analysis solely on winning percentage. For
one, an artificial games limit has to be introduced, to keep those 8-0-0
Montreal Victorias of 1898 and 10-0-0 Montreal Wanderers of 1907 from
dominating the list. If we could avoid artificial restrictions like
these, we could improve the analysis substantially. As it stands, these
teams have no chance of being considered, no matter how great they may
have been.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">In addition, using
winning percentage alone ignores the league context. That is, how good
are the other teams in the league? Are there a few weak sisters to beat
up on, or is parity the order of the day? Obviously, the greater the
parity in the league as a whole, the more difficult it is to run up a
high winning percentage. You don't get those cheap points; you have to
fight for each win.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Therefore the analysis
should be based on the degree by which a team dominates the competition,
and the range of quality of said competition. One method to do this is
explained below, by way of example. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Let's examine the top two
teams by Klein and Reif's analysis. The Boston Bruins of 1929/30 played
in a league where the standard deviation of winning percentage was
.188, which is fairly high for the era. Boston's winning percentage of
.875 is .375 higher than the average (which is .500), or 1.99 standard
deviations above the mean (.375 divided by .188). This is called a
z-score, and this is what I will base my analysis on. It encompasses
both how far above the competition a team was, and how much variation in
quality there was between teams. Boston's Winning Percentage Z-Score
(WPZS) is therefore 1.99, which is very impressive, but as we'll see,
not the best of all time.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The 1943/44 Montreal
Canadiens, rated #2 by Klein and Reif, had an .830 winning percentage in
a league that a had a standard deviation of winning percentage of .215
(high due to the disparity in talent caused by the war). There was less
parity in this league-year than in 1929/30. Montreal's WPZS is 1.53,
which while quite high is nowhere near the best of all time.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">This means that,
relatively speaking, Montreal had a greater benefit of weaker teams to
play against than Boston did. By analyzing teams in this way, we
consider both the quality of the league and we remove the need for any
arbitrary restrictions. Below is the list of the top 48 teams of all
time (all those with a WPZS of 1.50 or greater), from among the NHL and
its predecessors, as well as the PCHA and WCHL/WHL, and the WHA. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The surprises start at
the very top. The greatest team of all time, by this analysis, is the
1995/96 Detroit Red Wings. Their .799 winning percentage had them #7 on
Klein and Reif's list. But the standard deviation that year was a mere
.116, quite low for the era. Other than Detroit, the best winning
percentage was .634. 19 of the 26 teams were between .400 and .600.
Parity was the rule, yet Detroit was able to completely dominate the
league. Their 2.58 WPZS is far and away the best of all time.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The next two spots come from two teams from the <i>same season</i>.
The epic battle between Calgary and Montreal in 1988/89 is revealed to
be of truly historic proportions. Other than these two teams, no team
had a winning percentage of greater than .575, or less than .381. The
parity this year was amazing; the standard deviation was only .100.
Calgary's percentage was .731; Montreal's was .719. While both teams
miss Klein and Reif's top 20, they're #2 and #3 here. Never has there
been two teams which stood futher above the rest of the league.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Spot #4 is the 1976/77
Canadiens. Montreal's 1970's dynasty also makes appearances at #9, #16,
#19, and #26. That's a hell of a decade, and it's no surprise that it
shows up here.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Two more recent Red Wings
sides take the 5 and 7 spots, with the Dallas South Stars outstanding
1998/99 campaign sandwiched in between. The great Bruins of 1929/30,
ranked #1 by Klein and Reif, finally appear at #8.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">If I were to ask you
which Flyers teams was the best in their history, I doubt you would
answer "the 1979/80 edition, of course!" But here they are in a tie for
9th with the best the Oilers have to offer, the 1985/86 team. Another
1980's Flyers squad (1984/85) appears at #22, well above the their best
of the 1970's (1973/74), which comes in at a tie for #40. 80's Oilers
teams also appear at #18, #36, #42, and #45. Not quite the 1970's
Canadiens, but not bad.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The highest-ranked team
of the pre-NHL era turns out to be the 1912/13 Quebec Bulldogs. In a
league where the five other teams had records ranging from 10-10-0 to
7-13-0, Quebec went 16-4-0 to dominate the field.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The Houston Aeros were
the WHA's greatest team, no surprise, claiming spots 13, 34, and 38. No
other WHA club appears on the list.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Montreal's other great
dynasty shows up a few times as well. 1958/59 is #18, 1955/56 is #25,
1957/58 is #28, and 1959/60 is #46. This is probably less impressive
than the 1980's Oilers, but more than the Islanders teams which show up
at #14, #23, and #42.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The Bruins of the early
70's don't show as well as you might expect, because they played in an
expansion era. They appear "only" at #16, #24 and #32. The original
Senators also appear thrice, at #25, #34 and #40, the last two from
their pre-NHL days.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Finally we have the two
perfect clubs mentioned before. Because these teams played in eras
notable for their lack of parity, their 1.000 winning percentages are
knocked down quite a bit on this list. The 1898 Victorias stand in a tie
at #36, while the Wanderers show at #38. These teams (as well as the
1910/11 Senators at #40) were completely blocked out of Klein and Reif's
list due to the artificial games restriction. Here, they get a fair
shot.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The complete list follows:</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 50% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> Rank</td>
<td> Team</td>
<td> Year</td>
<td> League</td>
<td> WPct</td>
<td> WPZS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1.</td>
<td> Detroit Red Wings</td>
<td> 1995/96</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .799</td>
<td> 2.58</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 2.</td>
<td> Calgary Flames</td>
<td> 1988/89</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .731</td>
<td> 2.31</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 3.</td>
<td> Montreal Canadiens</td>
<td> 1988/89</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .719</td>
<td> 2.19</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 4.</td>
<td> Montreal Canadiens</td>
<td> 1976/77</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .825</td>
<td> 2.18</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 5.</td>
<td> Detroit Red Wings</td>
<td> 1994/95</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .729</td>
<td> 2.08</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 6.</td>
<td> Dallas Stars</td>
<td> 1998/99</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .695</td>
<td> 2.05</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 7.</td>
<td> Detroit Red Wings</td>
<td> 2001/02</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .707</td>
<td> 2.02</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 8.</td>
<td> Boston Bruins</td>
<td> 1929/30</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .875</td>
<td> 1.99</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 9.</td>
<td> Montreal Canadiens</td>
<td> 1977/78</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .806</td>
<td> 1.97</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 9.</td>
<td> Philadelphia Flyers</td>
<td> 1979/80</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .725</td>
<td> 1.97</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 9.</td>
<td> Edmonton Oilers</td>
<td> 1985/86</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .744</td>
<td> 1.97</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 12.</td>
<td> Quebec Bulldogs</td>
<td> 1912/13</td>
<td> NHA</td>
<td> .800</td>
<td> 1.94</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 13.</td>
<td> Houston Aeros</td>
<td> 1976/77</td>
<td> WHA</td>
<td> .663</td>
<td> 1.93</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 14.</td>
<td> New York Islanders</td>
<td> 1981/82</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .738</td>
<td> 1.92</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 15.</td>
<td> Boston Bruins</td>
<td> 1938/39</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .771</td>
<td> 1.86</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 16.</td>
<td> Boston Bruins</td>
<td> 1970/71</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .776</td>
<td> 1.85</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 17.</td>
<td> Montreal Canadiens</td>
<td> 1972/73</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .769</td>
<td> 1.81</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 18.</td>
<td> Montreal Canadiens</td>
<td> 1958/59</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .650</td>
<td> 1.79</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 18.</td>
<td> Edmonton Oilers</td>
<td> 1983/84</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .744</td>
<td> 1.79</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 20.</td>
<td> Montreal Canadiens</td>
<td> 1975/76</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .794</td>
<td> 1.78</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 21.</td>
<td> Colorado Avalanche</td>
<td> 2000/01</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .720</td>
<td> 1.77</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 22.</td>
<td> Philadelphia Flyers</td>
<td> 1984/85</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .706</td>
<td> 1.73</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 23.</td>
<td> New York Islanders</td>
<td> 1978/79</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .725</td>
<td> 1.72</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 24.</td>
<td> Boston Bruins</td>
<td> 1971/72</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .763</td>
<td> 1.70</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 25.</td>
<td> Ottawa Senators</td>
<td> 1926/27</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .727</td>
<td> 1.69</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 25.</td>
<td> Montreal Canadiens</td>
<td> 1955/56</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .714</td>
<td> 1.69</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 27.</td>
<td> Montreal Canadiens</td>
<td> 1978/79</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .719</td>
<td> 1.67</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 28.</td>
<td> Montreal Canadiens</td>
<td> 1957/58</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .686</td>
<td> 1.65</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 28.</td>
<td> Buffalo Sabres</td>
<td> 1979/80</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .688</td>
<td> 1.65</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 30.</td>
<td> St.Louis Blues</td>
<td> 1999/2000</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .695</td>
<td> 1.62</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 31.</td>
<td> Quebec Nordiques</td>
<td> 1994/95</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .677</td>
<td> 1.61</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 32.</td>
<td> Montreal Canadiens</td>
<td> 1915/16</td>
<td> NHA</td>
<td> .688</td>
<td> 1.58</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 32.</td>
<td> Boston Bruins</td>
<td> 1973/74</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .724</td>
<td> 1.58</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 34.</td>
<td> Ottawa Senators</td>
<td> 1916/17</td>
<td> NHA</td>
<td> .750</td>
<td> 1.57</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 34.</td>
<td> Houston Aeros</td>
<td> 1974/75</td>
<td> WHA</td>
<td> .679</td>
<td> 1.57</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 36.</td>
<td> Montreal Victorias</td>
<td> 1897/98</td>
<td> AHAC</td>
<td> 1.000</td>
<td> 1.56</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 36.</td>
<td> Edmonton Oilers</td>
<td> 1981/82</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .694</td>
<td> 1.56</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 38.</td>
<td> Montreal Wanderers</td>
<td> 1906/07</td>
<td> ECAHA</td>
<td> 1.000</td>
<td> 1.55</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 38.</td>
<td> Houston Aeros</td>
<td> 1973/74</td>
<td> WHA</td>
<td> .647</td>
<td> 1.55</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 40.</td>
<td> Ottawa Senators</td>
<td> 1910/11</td>
<td> NHA</td>
<td> .812</td>
<td> 1.54</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 40.</td>
<td> Philadelphia Flyers</td>
<td> 1973/74</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .718</td>
<td> 1.54</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 42.</td>
<td> Montreal Canadiens</td>
<td> 1943/44</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .830</td>
<td> 1.53</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 42.</td>
<td> Edmonton Oilers</td>
<td> 1984/85</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .613</td>
<td> 1.53</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 42.</td>
<td> New York Islanders</td>
<td> 1980/81</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .688</td>
<td> 1.53</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 45.</td>
<td> Edmonton Oilers</td>
<td> 1984/85</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .681</td>
<td> 1.52</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 46.</td>
<td> Montreal Canadiens</td>
<td> 1944/45</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .800</td>
<td> 1.50</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 46.</td>
<td> Montreal Canadiens</td>
<td> 1959/60</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .657</td>
<td> 1.50</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 46.</td>
<td> Montreal Canadiens</td>
<td> 1968/69</td>
<td> NHL</td>
<td> .678</td>
<td> 1.50</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">For those interested in
this sort of thing, here is the distribution of the top 48 seasons of
all time: Montreal Canadiens 14; Boston Bruins and Edmonton Oilers, 5;
Detroit Red Wings, Houston Aeros, New York Islanders, Ottawa Senators
(first edition) and Philadelphia Flyers, 3; Quebec Nordiques/Colorado
Avalanche 2; Buffalo Sabres, Calgary Flames, Dallas Stars, Montreal
Victorias, Montreal Wanderers, Quebec Bulldogs, St.Louis Blues 1.
Notably, half of the Original Six teams (Rangers, Chicago, and Toronto)
fail to take a single spot, while the Habs have 29% of the top 48 to
themselves.</span>Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-75926507968280493692014-09-26T13:00:00.000-03:002014-09-26T13:00:02.535-03:00Puckerings archive: Goal and Assist Z-Scores (04 Jul 2002)<i>What follows is a post from my old hockey analysis site
</i><i><b>puckerings.com</b></i><i> (later hockeythink.com). It is
reproduced here for posterity; bear in mind this writing is over a
decade old and I may not even agree with it myself anymore. This post
was originally published on July 4, 2002.</i>
<br />
<br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<i><b><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Goal and Assist Z-scores</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><i>Copyright Iain Fyffe, 2002</i></span><br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Methods have been
developed in the past to identify dominant single-season performances.
For example, some years ago I developed something I called goal-scoring
dominance, which was calculated as the leading player's goals-per-game
average divided by the second-leading player's goals-per-game average. A
similar calculation was made for assists. I later discovered that Klein
and Reif had developed the very same method years before, calling it
Quality of Victory.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">But this method suffers
from a serious flaw. What if two players have outstanding seasons? The
Quality of Victory formula will show that no one performed in a dominant
manner, because the second-leading player's average is so high. This is
not fair, nor is it accurate.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Goal z-scores (GZ) and
assist z-scores (AZ) were designed to resolve this problem. It was hoped
that they would not create any new problems; unfortunately this is not
the case (more on this later). What we do is compare a player's
performance to two things: the average individual player performance
that year (in terms of goals per game or assists per game), and the
degree of variation in individual player performance that year. Standard
deviation is a way to measure this variability. For instance, the sets
{1,2,3,4,5} and {0,1,3,5,6} have the same mean (5.0), but the second
set has more variation, and therefore a higher standard deviation (2.5,
compared to 1.6 for the first set). A z-score is simply the number of
standard deviations an observation is above the mean (or below the mean
in the case of a negative z-score). So, if we have a set of numbers
whose mean is 5 and whose standard deviation is 3, then an observation
of 8 would have a z-score of 1 ((8 - 5)/3). It's that simple.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">In a normal distribution
of events, about two-thirds of all observations will fall within one
standard deviation of the mean (i.e., have a z-score between -1 and 1).
95% of observations will be within two standard deviations (z-scores
between -2 and 2), and almost all will be within three standard
deviations (z-scores between -3 and 3). Using z-scores we can determine
how outstanding an individual performance was. For instance, only an
outsanding season would produce a z-score of 3 or more.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">That was the set-up. As
it turns out, the results of this study are not that interesting; but
what the results indicate may be of interest. The problem with the
z-scores is that the top seasons of all time are dominated by recent
players. For instance, in the top 40 GZ seasons, we have 5 from the
2000's (in only three years), 17 from the 1990's, 10 from the 1980's,
four from the 1970's, and two each from the 1960's (Bobby Hull) and the
1930's (Charlie Conacher). So really is shows only the best of recent
seasons. The assist results were predictable; Gretzky has the top 10
almost to himself, with Lemieux following. The top goal results are
interesting enough to note (minimum 20 games played):</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 50% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> Rank/Player</td>
<td> Year</td>
<td> GP</td>
<td> GZS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1. Brett Hull</td>
<td> 1991</td>
<td> 78</td>
<td> 5.95</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 2. Wayne Gretzky</td>
<td> 1984</td>
<td> 74</td>
<td> 5.86</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 3. Mario Lemieux</td>
<td> 1993</td>
<td> 60</td>
<td> 5.82</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 4. Cam Neely</td>
<td> 1994</td>
<td> 49</td>
<td> 5.80</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> T5. Mario Lemieux</td>
<td> 1989</td>
<td> 76</td>
<td> 5.64</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> T5. Mario Lemieux</td>
<td> 1996</td>
<td> 70</td>
<td> 5.64</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">So Brett Hull's 1991
campaign, while technically falling short of Gretzky's goal record, is
actually more impressive than any of Gretzky's goal-scoring seasons by
this analysis. But the real king of the list is Lemieux. In addition to
spots 3, 5, and 6, he holds down numbers 11, 17, and 30 on the top 40
(as well as #41). Gretzky has #2, 12, 34 and 38. No contest.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">But as I said, the
results aren't overly interesting, because they are dominated by recent
players. But the fact that recent players dominate is in itself
interesting. It indicates that modern players are able to dominate the
average players by a larger degree than older players. The cause of this
is unclear, as it can be affected by the performance of the top
players, as well as what constitutes an "average" player. But it's
interesting because it's the exact opposite of what has happened in
baseball, where the degree of domination by the top players has
decreased over time, rather than increased. Food for thought.</span>Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-1516228345849544082014-09-23T13:00:00.000-03:002014-09-23T13:00:07.138-03:00Hall of Fame Standards for the Challenge EraToday we're going to wrap up our look at the Inductinator, which is a system I devised to determine implicit standards for Hall of Fame player selections. Well, not quite wrap up, since I should make some comment about European and female players, which I will at some point. But let's stick to the things we can mostly explain for now. In <a href="http://www.hockeyabstract.com/2014edition" target="_blank">Hockey Abstract 2014</a>, I discuss at some length the results from 1930 to the present, both to shed light on history and to make predictions of future inductions. I've already covered the period 1912 to 1929 here on <i>Hockey Historysis</i>. And now we look at the years up to 1911.<br />
<br />
This time period, which I'll call the Challenge Era, calls for a somewhat different approach than more recent times. There are no individual awards or All-Star teams to draw information from. Player career statistics are all but useless, in large part because careers were so much shorter in the 19th century, so that comparisons between early professional players in the oughts and senior players before 1900 are not terribly informative.<br />
<br />
As it turns out, we don't really need all that, because we have the Stanley Cup. Take note that of all the Hall of Fame players who played before 1911, none of them began their careers before the 1892/93 season, the first that the Stanley Cup was awarded. The best pre-Stanley Cup players such as <a href="http://hockeyhistorysis.blogspot.ca/2011/12/tom-paton.html" target="_blank">Tom Paton</a>, <a href="http://hockeyhistorysis.blogspot.ca/2011/12/eagle-eye-cameron.html" target="_blank">Allan Cameron</a>, <a href="http://hockeyhistorysis.blogspot.ca/2011/12/james-stewart-point.html" target="_blank">James Stewart</a> and <a href="http://hockeyhistorysis.blogspot.ca/2011/12/jack-campbell-gets-them-out-of-their.html" target="_blank">Jack Campbell</a> have not been honoured. For the 25 Hall of Famers from this era, approximately 60% of their total Inductinator scores is made up of Stanley Cup-related exploits.<br />
<br />
Of the 26 Hall of Famers from this era (see below), only five did not win a Stanley Cup championship. So we start by giving skaters 10 points for each Cup championship, and goaltenders 25 per title. Captains of Stanley Cup teams get extra points; players who captained one such team (such as Graham Drinkwater and Tommy Phillips) get 10 points, and each additional Cup captaincy earns a whopping 70 points apiece. Mike Grant, Dickie Boon and Bruce Stuart were captains twice each, while Harvey Pulford was three times, which is enough by itself to get him over the minimum score of 100 for the Inductinator to see the player as being a Hall-of-Famer.<br />
<br />
I should say at this point that for this era, the number of Cup championships a player has is not as straightforward as it is for later players. During the challenge era, there were often multiple Cup series played in a single season. The current champion could be called upon by the trustees to defend their title several times in the same season, even sometimes in the middle of a season. In 1908, for example, the Montreal Wanderers had to defend against challenges from the Ottawa Victorias in January, and both the Winnipeg Maple Leafs and Toronto HC in March. For purposes of the Inductinator, we do not count a successful defence of an existing title to be a Stanley Cup championship; it's only when a new champion results from a series that it's counted. The Wanderers don't get credit for three Cup championships for 1908, they get one.<br />
<br />
Players winning the Cup with multiple teams get a bonus of 40 points. While this may not seem to sensible, there's not other way to explain how Tom Hooper is in the Hall of Fame. Bruce Stuart, Tommy Phillips and Fred Scanlan also get these points, but they'd have enough points otherwise to still meet the implicit standards. Cecil Blachford also won Cups with two teams, but these points aren't enough to get him to 100. Which is good, since he's not in the Hall of Fame.<br />
<br />
Games played, and especially goals scored, in Stanley Cup matches contribute a lot of points the to the Challenge Era Inductinator. Players earn points if they participated in 10 or more Cup matches, and goaltenders earn more per game (since there's so little else to go on for them). A player who did not play in a single Stanley Cup match suffers a penalty of 20 points; otherwise, there would be no way to explain how Herb Jordan is <b>not</b> in the Hall.<br />
<br />
But in terms of Challenge Era players being recognized by the Hall of Fame, it seems nothing is as important as scoring goals in Stanley Cup matches. Of the Inductinator scores for the Hall of Famers, a full 26% is earned by Stanley Cup goals alone. Every single player from this era that scored at least 14 goals in Stanley Cup matches is in the Hall of Fame. Fred Whitcroft, who did not play very much top-level hockey but scored 14 goals in eight Cup matches, is in. He gets 100 points for his Stanley Cup goals. He has to, since he did nothing else of note in his hockey career, and we want to explain his induction. Frank McGee scored 41 goals in Cup games, and that explains why he's on the top of the list below.<br />
<br />
But wait, you might be aware that Frank "Pud" Glass won a bunch of Stanley Cups with the Wanderers, including one as captain, and scored 13 goals in those games. So how do we explain his exclusion from the Hall? Simple; we consider goals per game as well. Glass took 11 games to score his goals (1.18 per game), while Whitcroft (for example) scored 14 in eight (1.75 per game). Since Glass scored at a subpar rate (for a Hall-of-Famer, anyway), his total goals aren't valued as highly.<br />
<br />
Other points are earned for having reasonably lengthy senior careers (important for Hod Stuart and Blair Russel), for playing with one team for at least nine years (again, important for Blair Russel), and for finishing in the top four in goals for a top-level league, or the top two in goals for a lower-level league. Russell Bowie makes out like a bandit in this last category, earning 380 of his 409 points here. He lead a top-tier league in goals five times, was second four times and third once. No one else comes close to that level of production in the Challenge Era. <br />
<br />
Finally, we get to the more arbitrary stuff. Tragic deaths are treated favourably by the Hall of Fame. George Richardson was killed in WWI, and although this was after his playing career was done it seems he was more fondly remembered because of it, since otherwise we would not be able explain his induction in this analysis. Hod Stuart's death was all the more noteworthy, as he died in mid-career <i>and</i> as a Stanley Cup champion. Almost all of his Inductinator score (80 out of 102) is derived from this.<br />
<br />
All of this so far can be used to explain 22 of the 26 Hall-of-Famers from this era. We're left with Graham Drinkwater, Billy Gilmour, Jack Ruttan and Oliver Seibert.<br />
<br />
With Gilmour, one suspects that the true reason he was inducted is that at McGill he played with Frank Patrick, whose brother Lester was of course extremely influential at the time as a member of the selection committee. His Cup wins and goals give him 50 points, so we need another 50. We can attribute that to personal connections and give up, or we can look for something else he might have been famous for. Well, he is one of the very few sets of three brothers who each won a Stanley Cup, and he did it with his brothers (dave and Suddy) on the same team. So, we can give him 40 points for that feat, and an extra 10 for winning the most Cups amongst his set of brothers. It's not the worst thing to recognize such a thing, I suppose, if in fact that's what was being recognized by the committee.<br />
<br />
Drinkwater is 40 points short. The only thing I could find to set him apart was the fact that he was one of the three original Allan Cup trustees in 1909, well after his playing career was over. If I were on the committee, I wouldn't assign any player value to this, and maybe they didn't. But it's the only thing I can think of to get him over 100 points. The two other trustees were Dr. H.B. Yates and Sir Edward Clouston. Clouston might also be eligible to collect these points. He never played for the Stanley Cup, of course, since he was 44 years old by the time that mug was first awarded. But Clouston was one of the "Original 18", the 18 men who played in the hockey match at the Victoria Skating Rink in Montreal on March 3, 1875. Clouston played with James Creighton's side, who won that match two goals to one.<br />
<br />
Just to make sure we're not being completely arbitrary here, we should also check the original Stanley Cup trustees, to see if they would be put over 100 with this bonus. The two original Stanley Cup trustees were John Sweetland and Philip Ross. Sweetland played no high-level hockey that I'm aware of, but Ross did. He played for McGill in 1879, and later in Ottawa for the famous Rideau Rebels in 1890 and the Ottawa Generals (later the Senators) in 1891. But he never played for the Stanley Cup, so even if we gave him the same 40 points we give Drinkwater, he still wouldn't be over 100 on the Inductinator scale, so we're safe.<br />
<br />
The induction of Jack Ruttan, I'll tell you right now, cannot be explained by the Inductinator. He played five seasons of senior hockey in Manitoba in the early 1910s, and won the Allan Cup in 1913. He was very well-regarded as a player in Manitoba, but his accomplishments do not outshine dozens of other players who are nowhere near the Hall. He's a complete and total question mark. I can't explain him, not even close.<br />
<br />
Finally, Oliver Siebert. He was certainly a good player. He gains 45 points for leading a lesser league (Western Ontario League) in goals, but loses 20 for never having scored a Stanley Cup goal, for a total of 25. We need another 75 points. Now, there is something that sets Siebert apart from other players, which I suppose we can assign a value of 75 points, although doing so is incredibly silly. That this is this: he has a son (in Earl Seibert) who is a Hall of Fame-calibre player. Oliver was inducted in 1961, and Earl in 1963. We can technically use this to get the elder Seibert over 100 points, though I feel a bit dirty doing so. I suppose such a thing would increase a player's fame, since that's a pretty vague term. I did check other players as well, to make sure such a bonus would not any non-Hall-of-Famers over 100. The closest is goaltender Bert Lindsay, who played after the Challenge Era. Being Ted Lindsay's father is not enough to get him over the threshold, so we can award this bonus to Seibert without producing undesirable results.<br />
<style type="text/css">
table.tableizer-table {
border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif
font-size: 11px;
}
.tableizer-table td {
padding: 4px;
margin: 3px;
border: 1px solid #ccc;
}
.tableizer-table th {
background-color: #104E8B;
color: #FFF;
font-weight: bold;
}
</style><br />
<table class="tableizer-table">
<tbody>
<tr class="tableizer-firstrow"><th>Player</th><th>Pos</th><th>HoF?</th><th>Score</th></tr>
<tr><td><b>Frank McGee</b></td><td><b>F</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>416</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Russell Bowie</b></td><td><b>F</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>409</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Bruce Stuart</b></td><td><b>F</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>350</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Tommy Phillips</b></td><td><b>F</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>332</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Harvey Pulford</b></td><td><b>D</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>272</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Marty Walsh</b></td><td><b>F</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>250</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Harry Westwick</b></td><td><b>F</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>231</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Alf Smith</b></td><td><b>F</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>226</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Harry Trihey</b></td><td><b>F</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>224</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Dan Bain</b></td><td><b>F</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>172</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Riley Hern</b></td><td><b>G</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>167</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Fred Scanlan</b></td><td><b>F</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>159</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Mike Grant</b></td><td><b>D</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>122</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Tom Hooper</b></td><td><b>D</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>105</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Graham Drinkwater</b></td><td><b>D</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>102</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Hod Stuart</b></td><td><b>D</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>102</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>George Richardson</b></td><td><b>F</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>101</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Bouse Hutton</b></td><td><b>G</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>100</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Blair Russel</b></td><td><b>F</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>100</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Dickie Boon</b></td><td><b>D</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>100</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Billy McGimsie</b></td><td><b>F</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>100</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Fred Whitcroft</b></td><td><b>F</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>100</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Art Farrell</b></td><td><b>F</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>100</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Oliver Seibert</b></td><td><b>F</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>100</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Billy Gilmour</b></td><td><b>F</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>100</b></td></tr>
<tr><td>Bill Nicholson</td><td>G</td><td>no</td><td>99</td></tr>
<tr><td>Herb Jordan</td><td>F</td><td>no</td><td>99</td></tr>
<tr><td>Pud Glass</td><td>F</td><td>no</td><td>97</td></tr>
<tr><td>Archie Hooper</td><td>F</td><td>no</td><td>96</td></tr>
<tr><td>Billy Breen</td><td>F</td><td>no</td><td>96</td></tr>
<tr><td>Lorne Campbell</td><td>F</td><td>no</td><td>92</td></tr>
<tr><td>Cecil Blachford</td><td>F</td><td>no</td><td>90</td></tr>
<tr><td>Fred Higginbotham</td><td>D</td><td>no</td><td>90</td></tr>
<tr><td>Suddy Gilmour</td><td>F</td><td>no</td><td>89</td></tr>
<tr><td>Rod Flett</td><td>D</td><td>no</td><td>87</td></tr>
<tr><td>Gordon Lewis</td><td>G</td><td>no</td><td>87</td></tr>
<tr><td>Billy Roxburgh</td><td>F</td><td>no</td><td>82</td></tr>
<tr><td>Eddie Geroux</td><td>G</td><td>no</td><td>79</td></tr>
<tr><td>Herb Birmingham</td><td>F</td><td>no</td><td>76</td></tr>
<tr><td>Art Brown</td><td>G</td><td>no</td><td>74</td></tr>
<tr><td>James McKenna</td><td>G</td><td>no</td><td>74</td></tr>
<tr><td>George McKay</td><td>F</td><td>no</td><td>74</td></tr>
<tr><td>Tony Gingras</td><td>F</td><td>no</td><td>73</td></tr>
<tr><td>Robert MacDougall</td><td>F</td><td>no</td><td>73</td></tr>
<tr><td>Oren Frood</td><td>F</td><td>no</td><td>72</td></tr>
<tr><td>Bruce Ridpath</td><td>F</td><td>no</td><td>68</td></tr>
<tr><td>Clare McKerrow</td><td>F</td><td>no</td><td>66</td></tr>
<tr><td>Ezra Dumart</td><td>F</td><td>no</td><td>65</td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Jack Ruttan</b></td><td><b>D</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>0</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
You can see that, by these standards, there are a number of other players who could just as easily be in the Hall of Fame. Bill Nicholson, <a href="http://hockeyhistorysis.blogspot.ca/2012/02/herb-jordan.html" target="_blank">Herb Jordan</a>, Pud Glass, Archie Hooper, <a href="http://hockeyhistorysis.blogspot.ca/2012/09/billy-breen.html" target="_blank">Billy Breen</a> are all extremely close, and several others are over 90 points as well. Would we view these players any differently today if they had a few more breaks and were elected to the Hall of Fame? Perhaps, but we really shouldn't. The Inductinator analysis reveals that some Hall of Fame selections from this early era seems almost arbitrary, so I cannot recommend putting too much weight on the honour.Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-55876356866483438502014-09-19T13:00:00.000-03:002014-09-19T13:00:06.496-03:00Puckerings archive: Point Allocation (09 Apr 2002)<i>What follows is a post from my old hockey analysis site
</i><i><b>puckerings.com</b></i><i> (later hockeythink.com). It is
reproduced here for posterity; bear in mind this writing is over a
decade old and I may not even agree with it myself anymore. This post
was originally published on April 9, 2002.</i><br />
<i> </i>
<br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<i><b><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Point Allocation</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><i>Copyright Iain Fyffe, 2002</i></span><br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">For those who may not
know, Bill James is quite a brilliant man. He's known primarily, of
course, for his work as a stathead in baseball. It has become
fashionable of late (especially amongst younger statheads) to decry
James' work. I'll not get into that; I'll just say this: his pure
writing about baseball is arguably more impressive and engaging than his
statistical work about baseball. Even if he wasn't a brilliant
statistician, his work would still be invaluable to any fan who
considers himself to be knowledgable about the game.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Fortunately for us hockey
folk, some
of James' work and ideas can be translated for use in hockey, or can at
least be
used for inspiration. This paper describes the development of the Point
Allocation system, which is a method of evaluating players based on
their contributions to their team's success (or lack thereof). It is
based on two bits of Bill James; I have adapted his Marginal Runs
analysis, which forms the basis for his Win Shares system of player
evaluation, and I have extrapolated quite a bit from a fairly casual
remark he made in <i>The Politics of Glory</i>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">I'll start with that relatively
innocuous comment. James was discussing the common assertion that defence is not
reflected well in statistics (at least, the statistics that most people talk about).
He pointed out that, to a degree, defence is in fact reflected, through the length
of the player's career, and the amount that he plays. For instance, Brooks Robinson
was not a particularly great hitter. And yet, he had an exceptionally long career.
Why? You know the answer: he was probably the greatest defensive third baseman who
ever lived.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Epiphany! Look at this: Guy Carbonneau
and Bob Gainey (for example), both with unimpressive offensive totals, both with long
careers. Both renowned as defensive players, even if the stats (like plus-minus)
"don't show it".</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Epiphany again! Maybe we can take
this concept down to a team-season level. That is, say we have two players on the same
team, who contribute the same offensively, on a per-minute basis. One player plays
15 minutes per game, the other plays 18 minutes per game. Since these players are
offensive equals, there can be only one explanation for the discrepancy in playing
time: defence. That second player's defence must be sufficiently better than the
first's to warrant three extra minutes of playing time per game. More on this later. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Marginal Goals</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Now we move on to the basic ideas
behind James' Win Shares system, which I have adapted to create the Point Allocation
system. Win Shares is a way of distributing a team's wins amongst its players, based
on their relative contributions to the team's success. The building block of Win
Shares is Marginal Runs; therefore the building block for Point Allocation is Marginal Goals.
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">James discovered a new method that predicts
team success similarly to his famous Pythagorean analysis (which itself has been
adapted to hockey by Marc Foster). I'll explain it in hockey terms. The following
formula is an excellent predictor of a team's winning percentage:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">E(Pct) = (MGF + MGS) / (2 x AvgG)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Where E(Pct) is expected winning percentage;
MGF is Marginal Goals For, calculated as the team's goals for less one-half the league-average
goals per team; MGS is Marginal Goals Saved, calculated as one and one-half times the league-
average goals per team less the team's goals against; and AvgG is the league-average goals per
team.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Marginal Goals is no
better at predicting
winning percentage than Pythagorean analysis; in fact, it's probably
slightly worse. However,
what Marginal Goals allows us to do is apportion the team's winning
percentage (in the form of points) between a team's offence and defence,
as follows:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">OP = MGF / TMG x Pts</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">DP = MGS / TMG x Pts</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Where OP is offensive
points (points
attributable to offence); DP is defensive points (points attributable to
defence); TMG is
Total Marginal Goals (Marginal Goals For plus Marginal Goals Saved); Pts
is the team's points (ties plus two times wins); and MGF and MGS are
defined as above.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">We simply cannot do this
with Pythagorean analysis. Say we have two .500 teams in a league where
300 goals is average. Team A scores and allows 350 goals, while Team B
scores and allows 250. Pythagorean analysis will tell us that both of
these teams should both be at .500, which they are. But Team A's success
is clearly tied to its offence, while Team B relies more on defence.
Marginal Goal analysis allows us to determine how much success is
attributable to offence and defence (in this example, Team A is 67%
offence and 33% defence, and Team B is 33% offence and 67% defence).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Now if you're wondering
why 0.5 and 1.5 are used, rather than some other numbers, it is because
these produce a result where approximately one-half of all points will
be attributed to offence, and one-half to defence. I know this to be
true, as I have tested it; I just haven't proven it mathematically.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">From here we depart from
Mr. James' work. The next step is to allocate the OP and DP amongst the
team's players, and the methods used in baseball's Win Shares are not
transferable to hockey. So I have devised my own methods of doing so. As
an illustrative example, I will go through the Point Allocation
calculations for the 2000/01 Detroit Red Wings.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Team Analysis</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The Red Wings played 82
games, collecting 107 points (note that I have eliminated points for OT
losses, to keep consistency with the entire history of the NHL). In a
league in which 226 goals was average, they scored 253 goals and allowed
202 goals. Therefore, their MGF was 140, and their MGS was 137, for a
TMG of 277. Thus their 107 points are allocated as follows: 54.1 to
offence, and 52.9 to defence.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Offence</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Fortunately, hockey stats
reflect offensive contribution quite well, through goals and assists.
We cannot use scoring points, however, because of the arbitrary way in
which they combine goals and assists. There is no reason to think that
playmaking is 1.7 times as important as goalscoring (which is what
scoring points do in modern times, where there are about 1.7 times as
many assists as goals). Since there is no way to determine the relative
importance of playmaking and goalscoring, we will assume they are
equally important.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Therefore, to allocate
offensive points, we need to calculate a new stat, Offensive
Contribution (OC), which is simply defined as the player's assists
divided by the team average assists per goal, plus the player's goals.
For instance, Brendan Shanahan had 31 goals and 45 assists in 2000/01,
and the Wings had 1.70 assists per goal. Shanahan's OC is therefore 57
(45/1.7 + 31). Doing this for every Red Wing, we find the team total is
509 (which is twice their goals, with a rounding difference). Shanahan's
OC is .112 of the team total; therefore he receives 6.1 Offensive
Points (OP), which is .112 of the team's points allocated to offence.
Note that in this analysis, goals and assists by goaltenders are
ignored. A goaltender's value lies in stopping pucks, not in shooting
the puck down the ice into an empty net. Similarly, goalie assists are
more a function of team offence, and have little to do with the goalie's
skill.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Defence</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Defence in hockey is made
up of two parts: the skaters who attempt to prevent shots, and the
goaltender who attempts to stop those shots that are allowed. Therefore,
before we can allocate defensive points amongst a team's players, we
need to determine how many go to team defence, and how many go to
goaltending.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Since we have defined a
defence's job as preventing shots, and a goalie's job as stopping shots,
we will use team shots against and goalie save percentage in
conjunction with marginal goal analysis to allocate points.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">We start with team
defence. The defence is responsible for preventing shots. Therefore, we
calculate the MGS you would expect for the team based on their actual
shots allowed. Detroit allowed 2221 shots in 2000/01, and the NHL
average scoring percentage was 9.95%. Therefore we would expect
Detroit's defence to have a MGS of 118 ((226 x 1.5) - (2221 x .0995).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Now we move on the
goaltending. Since a goalie's job is to stop shots, we evaluate them
based on their save percentage. We calculate the MGS we would expect for
the goalies based on their save percentage, and then calculate a
weighted average for all the team's goaltenders, based on the goalies'
playing times. Manny Legace had a .920 save percentage in 2000/01. The
NHL average shots per game (excluding empty-net shots) was 2265, and the
league average goals (excluding empty-netters) was 219. Legace's MGS is
therefore
148 ((219 x 1.5) - (2265 x (1 - .920)). Similarly, Chris Osgood's MGS is
109 based on his .903 save percentage. Legace played 2136 minutes, and
Osgood played 2834; the weighted-average MGS for Detroit's goaltending
is therefore 126.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">We now need to combine
these two figures. There are, on average, 4.9 skaters and one goaltender
on the ice at any one time. Therefore we will assume that the skaters'
value is 4.9 times as important as the goaltending value. Therefore,
the DP are distributed as follows:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">DPS = DP x MGSS /(4.9 x MGSS + MGSG)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">DPG = DP x MGSG /(4.9 x MGSS + MGSG)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Where DPS is Defensive
Points allocated to skaters, DPG is Defensive Points allocated to
goalies, DP is team Defensive Points, MGSS is the MGS value for skaters,
and MGSG is the MGS value for goalies.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">For Detroit, this works out to 9.5 for goaltenders and 43.4 for skaters.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Allocating DP to Goaltenders</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Allocating the
goaltending DP among the team's goaltenders is a simple task. Simply
take each goaltender's contribution to the team weighted-average MGS to
determine the proportion of DPG he receives. For instance, Detroit's
MGSG of 126 was made up of 64 from Manny Legace (148 MGS time his
proportion of minutes played) and 62 from Chris Osgood. Therefore,
Legace receives 50.8% of the DPG (64/126), or 4.8 points. Osgood
receives the remaining 4.7 points.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Allocating DP to Skaters</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Skaters' defence is such
an ephemeral quality; we all know that the stats don't reflect defence
in any meaningful way. But wait! Remember what I was discussing before I
got into all of this; a player's defensive value is reflected in his
playing time, when his offence and his teammates are taken into
consideration. Just like Bill James' breakthrough in fielding analysis,
we start at the team level. It's probably easiest to explain by diving
right into the illustration.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">First, we must assume
that a skater's job is made up of equal parts offence and defence, on
average. Then we also assume that a player's total value to a team is
reflected in his playing time; that is, a team's best players will play
the most. I believe these are perfectly logical and safe assumptions. We
then compare each player to the average offensive numbers for his
position (forward and defence) to find his offensive contribution
relative to the team average. Comparing this to his actual playing time,
we can estimate his defensive value to the team.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Let's look at some
numbers. Detroit's forwards, in total, played 14,250 minutes in 957
games, for an average of 14.89 minutes per game. They had a total OC of
386. The average OC for a Detroit forward was therefore 0.40 per 14.89
minutes.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Now let's look at Brendan
Shanahan, Detroit's top scorer in terms of points. He played an average
of 18.37 minutes per game, and had an OC per 14.89 minutes of 0.57. His
OC was 1.425 times that of an average team forward; if playing time
depended only upon offence, we would thus expect him to play 21.22
minutes per game (1.425 x 14.89). But he played only 18.37 minutes per
game; 2.85 minutes per game less than the offensive expectation. This
difference must be due to his defence, which is obviously not as good as
his offence. His defensive minutes per game would be 18.37 minus 2.85,
or 15.52; since offence and defence are equally important, this will
give us his average playing time of 18.37 per game. If playing time were
based solely on defence, Shanahan would probably play about 15.52
minutes per game. He played 81 games, so his total defensive minutes
would be 1,257 (15.52 times 81).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">We do this for each
player in turn. Note that for defencemen, the values for the Red Wings
defencemen must be used (9,793 minutes in 512 games, 19.13 minutes per
game, 0.24 OC per 19.13 minutes). Also note that it is possible that a
player's calculated defensive time would be negative (though usually
only for a player playing only a few games). Since we are dealing only
with marginal contributions, negative values make no sense. Therefore,
any negative value is assumed to be zero in all analysis involving
Marginal Goals, and throughout the Point Allocation system. Adding up
the minutes, we find Detroit's team total to be 25,209 defensive
minutes. We use this total to allocate defensive points to skaters,
based on their proportionate contribution to the total. Shanahan had
1,257 of the team's 25,209 defensive minutes, or 0.050 of the total. He
therefore receives 0.050 of the 43.4 skater defensive points, or 2.2
points. Adding these to his 6.3 offensive points, we find his total is
8.5 points.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>A Final Adjustment</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">We want this method to be
applicable across all years for which the data is available. We don't
want any distortion from schedule length or roster size to affect the
results. Therefore adjustments are included, to normalize the results to
an 80-game schedule, and also to 15 minutes per game for forwards and
20 minutes per game for defencemen. For example, Shanahan played 81 of
82 games; we adjust this to an 80-games schedule, so we give Shanahan 79
GP. He played 18.37 minutes when the average was 14.89; we adjust this
for an average of 15, so we credit him with 18.51 minutes per game. So
his total minutes are now 1,462 (79 times 18.51), instead of the 1,488
minutes he actually had. We then adjust his OP and DP based upon this
adjusted minutes value. These adjustments will eliminate any bias when
comparing today's players to players from the days when they played 70
games per year, or when only 17 skaters were allowed to dress.
Similarly, goalies' minutes are adjusted to a base of 4800.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Here are the complete
team results for the 2000/01 Red Wings. GP is adjusted GP, MIN is
adjusted minutes, OP is offensive points (adjusted to MIN), DP is
defensive points (adjused to MIN), and TPA is Total Points Allocated
(the sum of OP and DP). </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 50% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> Name</td>
<td> Pos</td>
<td> GP</td>
<td> MIN</td>
<td> OP</td>
<td> DP</td>
<td> TPA</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Lidstrom</td>
<td> D</td>
<td> 80</td>
<td> 2379</td>
<td> 5.4</td>
<td> 3.7</td>
<td> 9.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Fedorov</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 73</td>
<td> 1550</td>
<td> 5.9</td>
<td> 2.9</td>
<td> 8.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Shanahan</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 79</td>
<td> 1462</td>
<td> 6.2</td>
<td> 2.2</td>
<td> 8.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Lapointe</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 80</td>
<td> 1297</td>
<td> 4.9</td>
<td> 1.9</td>
<td> 6.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Yzerman</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 53</td>
<td> 1187</td>
<td> 4.1</td>
<td> 2.5</td>
<td> 6.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Kozlov</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 70</td>
<td> 1038</td>
<td> 3.3</td>
<td> 1.6</td>
<td> 4.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Legace</td>
<td> G</td>
<td></td>
<td> 2063</td>
<td></td>
<td> 4.8</td>
<td> 4.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Osgood</td>
<td> G</td>
<td></td>
<td> 2737</td>
<td></td>
<td> 4.7</td>
<td> 4.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Maltby</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 70</td>
<td> 1007</td>
<td> 1.8</td>
<td> 2.5</td>
<td> 4.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Draper</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 73</td>
<td> 987</td>
<td> 2.0</td>
<td> 2.2</td>
<td> 4.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Gill</td>
<td> D</td>
<td> 66</td>
<td> 1284</td>
<td> 0.9</td>
<td> 3.3</td>
<td> 4.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> McCarty</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 70</td>
<td> 947</td>
<td> 2.0</td>
<td> 2.1</td>
<td> 4.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Verbeek</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 65</td>
<td> 884</td>
<td> 2.7</td>
<td> 1.4</td>
<td> 4.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Ward</td>
<td> D</td>
<td> 71</td>
<td> 1261</td>
<td> 0.8</td>
<td> 3.3</td>
<td> 4.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Holmstrom</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 71</td>
<td> 835</td>
<td> 3.2</td>
<td> 0.5</td>
<td> 3.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Larionov</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 38</td>
<td> 699</td>
<td> 2.1</td>
<td> 1.5</td>
<td> 3.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Murphy</td>
<td> D</td>
<td> 56</td>
<td> 1112</td>
<td> 1.4</td>
<td> 1.9</td>
<td> 3.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Dandenault</td>
<td> D</td>
<td> 71</td>
<td> 1194</td>
<td> 2.1</td>
<td> 0.9</td>
<td> 3.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Duchesne</td>
<td> D</td>
<td> 53</td>
<td> 1015</td>
<td> 1.9</td>
<td> 1.0</td>
<td> 2.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Fischer</td>
<td> D</td>
<td> 54</td>
<td> 946</td>
<td> 0.7</td>
<td> 2.2</td>
<td> 2.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Brown</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 59</td>
<td> 668</td>
<td> 1.9</td>
<td> 0.9</td>
<td> 2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Gilchrist</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 59</td>
<td> 693</td>
<td> 0.7</td>
<td> 1.9</td>
<td> 2.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Devereaux</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 54</td>
<td> 550</td>
<td> 1.0</td>
<td> 1.1</td>
<td> 2.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Chelios</td>
<td> D</td>
<td> 23</td>
<td> 549</td>
<td> 0.2</td>
<td> 1.7</td>
<td> 1.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Butsayev</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 15</td>
<td> 138</td>
<td> 0.2</td>
<td> 0.3</td>
<td> 0.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Kuznetsov</td>
<td> D</td>
<td> 24</td>
<td> 237</td>
<td> 0.2</td>
<td> 0.3</td>
<td> 0.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Williams</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 5</td>
<td> 62</td>
<td> 0.2</td>
<td> 0.1</td>
<td> 0.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Wallin</td>
<td> D</td>
<td> 1</td>
<td> 4</td>
<td> 0.0</td>
<td> 0.0</td>
<td> 0.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">So here we have objective
evidence that Nicklas Lidstrom is, in fact, Detroit's most valuable
player. This surprises no one, I imagine. It is worth noting, however,
based on the sampling of team calculations I have thus far made, that it
is fairly rare for a defenceman to be a team's MVP (i.e., to have the
highest TPA). This may seem to indicate that the system has a bias
against defencemen. But I'm not sure this is true. A defenceman's job is
primarily defence, and is therefore primarily passive. A defender
reacts to an opponent's offense. Therefore, he has less control over his
defensive contribution than an attacker has over his offensive
contribution. This is reflected in the numbers, where DP tend to be
flatter in distribution than OP. So while TPA indicates a team's MVP
quite clearly, remember that it is not entirely fair to compare forwards
and defencemen directly, since their jobs are so different.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Note how the system also
provides objective evidence of the defensive prowess of the
Maltby-Draper-McCarty line. Each have a DP total greater than their OP,
which is fairly rare for a forward.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">For comparison's sake,
here are the 1975/76 Montreal Canadiens, one of the greatest teams ever
iced. The ice times are estimates calculated using my method for
estimating ice time.</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 50% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> Name</td>
<td> Pos</td>
<td> GP</td>
<td> MIN</td>
<td> OP</td>
<td> DP</td>
<td> TPA</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Lafleur</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 80</td>
<td> 1709</td>
<td> 8.7</td>
<td> 3.8</td>
<td> 12.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Dryden</td>
<td> G</td>
<td></td>
<td> 3580</td>
<td></td>
<td> 11.8</td>
<td> 11.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Mahovlich</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 80</td>
<td> 1524</td>
<td> 6.9</td>
<td> 3.3</td>
<td> 10.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Shutt</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 80</td>
<td> 1412</td>
<td> 5.8</td>
<td> 3.2</td>
<td> 9.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Lambert</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 80</td>
<td> 1362</td>
<td> 4.7</td>
<td> 3.5</td>
<td> 8.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Lapointe</td>
<td> D</td>
<td> 77</td>
<td> 2048</td>
<td> 4.2</td>
<td> 3.9</td>
<td> 8.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Savard</td>
<td> D</td>
<td> 71</td>
<td> 1760</td>
<td> 2.7</td>
<td> 4.4</td>
<td> 7.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Cournoyer</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 71</td>
<td> 1097</td>
<td> 4.8</td>
<td> 1.7</td>
<td> 6.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Risebrough</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 80</td>
<td> 1104</td>
<td> 3.0</td>
<td> 2.9</td>
<td> 5.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Lemaire</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 61</td>
<td> 991</td>
<td> 3.6</td>
<td> 2.0</td>
<td> 5.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Robinson</td>
<td> D</td>
<td> 80</td>
<td> 1574</td>
<td> 2.3</td>
<td> 3.1</td>
<td> 5.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Awrey</td>
<td> D</td>
<td> 72</td>
<td> 1276</td>
<td> 0.6</td>
<td> 4.6</td>
<td> 5.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Gainey</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 78</td>
<td> 1021</td>
<td> 2.0</td>
<td> 3.1</td>
<td> 5.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Jarvis</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 80</td>
<td> 941</td>
<td> 2.0</td>
<td> 2.6</td>
<td> 4.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Bouchard</td>
<td> D</td>
<td> 66</td>
<td> 1051</td>
<td> 0.7</td>
<td> 3.4</td>
<td> 4.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Wilson</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 59</td>
<td> 763</td>
<td> 2.3</td>
<td> 1.7</td>
<td> 4.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Tremblay</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 71</td>
<td> 771</td>
<td> 1.8</td>
<td> 1.9</td>
<td> 3.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Roberts</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 74</td>
<td> 783</td>
<td> 1.6</td>
<td> 2.1</td>
<td> 3.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Larocque</td>
<td> G</td>
<td></td>
<td> 1220</td>
<td></td>
<td> 3.1</td>
<td> 3.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Van Boxmeer</td>
<td> D</td>
<td> 46</td>
<td> 672</td>
<td> 1.1</td>
<td> 0.4</td>
<td> 1.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Nyrop</td>
<td> D</td>
<td> 19</td>
<td> 326</td>
<td> 0.2</td>
<td> 1.2</td>
<td> 1.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Chartraw</td>
<td> D</td>
<td> 16</td>
<td> 233</td>
<td> 0.3</td>
<td> 0.5</td>
<td> 0.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Goldup</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 3</td>
<td> 21</td>
<td> 0.0</td>
<td> 0.1</td>
<td> 0.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Shanahan</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 4</td>
<td> 25</td>
<td> 0.0</td>
<td> 0.1</td>
<td> 0.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Andruff</td>
<td> F</td>
<td> 1</td>
<td> 10</td>
<td> 0.0</td>
<td> 0.0</td>
<td> 0.0</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</span>Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-91324320018214645482014-09-12T13:00:00.000-03:002014-09-12T13:00:02.551-03:00Puckerings archive: Harmonic Points (08 Apr 2002)<i>What follows is a post from my old hockey analysis site
</i><i><b>puckerings.com</b></i><i> (later hockeythink.com). It is
reproduced here for posterity; bear in mind this writing is over a
decade old and I may not even agree with it myself anymore. This post
was originally published on April
8, 2002.</i>
<br />
<br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<i><b><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Harmonic Points</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><i>Copyright Iain Fyffe, 2002</i></span><br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The way it is now,
assists are more important than goals in determining scoring
championships. Why do I say this? Because for every goal, there are 1.7
assists awarded. Therefore, playmakers have an advantage over
goal-scorers, because there are more assists for them to get a piece of.
This is not fair. There is absolutely no evidence that playmaking is
more important than goal-scoring in terms of scoring goals.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Total Hockey's Adjusted
Scoring stats account for this somewhat, by using historic assist rates,
which are lower than current rates. But it does not go far enough.
Since there is no evidence to indicate which of goal-scoring and
playmaking is more important, it is only fair to assume that they are
equally important. Thus, when determining a "scoring champion", we
should adjust the number of assists to equal the number of goals, on a
league-wide basis.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">More to the point, I
believe we can further refine how we decide who is a "champion" scorer.
For instance, say we have three players, all of whom have 80 adjusted
scoring points. Player A has 25 goals and 55 assists, Player B has 40
goals and 40 assist, and Player C has 55 goals and 25 assists. I contend
that Player B is the superior scorer. Why? Because he is less reliant
on other players to produce goals. Player A is a playmaker; if he has no
one of talent to pass to, his scoring will suffer. Player C is a
goal-scorer; he needs a playmaker to maximize his value. Player B is a
more complete player; he is less reliant on teammates, and is therefore a
superior individual player.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">I do, of course, realize
that hockey is a team game, and it takes an entire team to win. But when
we are assessing individual players, we should remove the effect of his
teammates as much as possible. In this case, we do this with the
Harmonic Points system (HP).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">HP is based on the
mathematical concept of the harmonic mean. The harmonic mean of two
numbers is a middle number such that by whatever part of the first term
the middle term exceeds the first term, the middle terms exceeds the
second term by the same part of the second term. Whew! In other words,
if the harmonic mean is 20% (of the lesser term) greater than the lesser
term, it will be 20% (of the greater term) lower than the greater term.
Still confused? Maybe a numerical example will help.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Take two numbers: 100 and
200. The harmonic mean of these numbers is 133. 133 is 33% (of 100)
greater than 100, and 33% (of 200) less than 200. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">I won't keep you in suspense
any longer. Here's how to compute HP (which is simply the harmonic mean
of goals and assists, times two):</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">HP = 2 x {(2 x G x A) / (G + A)}</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Where HP is Harmonic
Points, G is goals, and A is assists. The formula is multiplied by two
to retain the "look" of the number of points, since we're taking an
average of goals and assists. A player who has an equal number of
adjusted goals and adjusted assists will have HP equal to his adjusted
points.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">In applying HP, I have
used <i>Total Hockey</i>'s Adjusted Scoring statistics. This is to eliminate
much of the bias created by a player's time and place, allowing us to
compare players from different eras. In addition, I will be indicating
Adjusted Games Played (games played divided by length of schedule times
82), which are not disclosed in Total Hockey, but should be.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">But using the idea that
playmaking and goal-scoring are equal in importance, we cannot use
Adjusted Scoring stats as they are. Adjusted Assists are based on
historic assist rates, which, of course, are higher than historic goal
rate. So I have adjusted Adjusted Assists to use the same base figure as
goals.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Here are the
single-season NHL leaders in HP per 82 Adjusted Games Played (minimum 20
AGP), from 1917/18 to 2000/01. There have been 34 100-HP pace seasons
in NHL history:</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 75% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> Rank</td>
<td> Name</td>
<td> Club</td>
<td> Year</td>
<td> AGP</td>
<td> HP</td>
<td> Per 82</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1.</td>
<td> Howie Morenz</td>
<td> Montreal</td>
<td> 1927/28</td>
<td> 80</td>
<td> 145</td>
<td> 149</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 2.</td>
<td> Mario Lemieux</td>
<td> Pittsburgh</td>
<td> 1992/93</td>
<td> 59</td>
<td> 103</td>
<td> 143</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td> Mario Lemieux</td>
<td> Pittsburgh</td>
<td> 1995/96</td>
<td> 70</td>
<td> 122</td>
<td> 143</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 4.</td>
<td> Wayne Gretzky</td>
<td> Edmonton</td>
<td> 1983/84</td>
<td> 76</td>
<td> 128</td>
<td> 138</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td> Mario Lemieux</td>
<td> Pittsburgh</td>
<td> 1988/89</td>
<td> 78</td>
<td> 131</td>
<td> 138</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 6.</td>
<td> Wayne Gretzky</td>
<td> Edmonton</td>
<td> 1981/82</td>
<td> 82</td>
<td> 129</td>
<td> 129</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 7.</td>
<td> Wayne Gretzky</td>
<td> Edmonton</td>
<td> 1984/85</td>
<td> 82</td>
<td> 127</td>
<td> 127</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 8.</td>
<td> Wayne Gretzky</td>
<td> Edmonton</td>
<td> 1982/83</td>
<td> 82</td>
<td> 122</td>
<td> 122</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td> Mario Lemieux</td>
<td> Pittsburgh</td>
<td> 2000/01</td>
<td> 43</td>
<td> 64</td>
<td> 122</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 10.</td>
<td> Howie Morenz</td>
<td> Montreal</td>
<td> 1930/31</td>
<td> 73</td>
<td> 108</td>
<td> 121</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 11.</td>
<td> Wayne Gretzky</td>
<td> Edmonton</td>
<td> 1986/87</td>
<td> 81</td>
<td> 117</td>
<td> 118</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 12.</td>
<td> Phil Esposito</td>
<td> Boston</td>
<td> 1970/71</td>
<td> 82</td>
<td> 115</td>
<td> 115</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 13.</td>
<td> Mario Lemieux</td>
<td> Pittsburgh</td>
<td> 1987/88</td>
<td> 79</td>
<td> 110</td>
<td> 114</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 14.</td>
<td> Ralph Weiland</td>
<td> Boston</td>
<td> 1929/30</td>
<td> 82</td>
<td> 113</td>
<td> 113</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 15.</td>
<td> Irvin Bailey</td>
<td> Toronto</td>
<td> 1928/29</td>
<td> 82</td>
<td> 112</td>
<td> 112</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td> Jaromir Jagr</td>
<td> Pittsburgh</td>
<td> 1995/96</td>
<td> 82</td>
<td> 112</td>
<td> 112</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 17.</td>
<td> Jaromir Jagr</td>
<td> Pittsburgh</td>
<td> 1998/99</td>
<td> 81</td>
<td> 110</td>
<td> 111</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 18.</td>
<td> Wayne Gretzky</td>
<td> Edmonton</td>
<td> 1985/86</td>
<td> 82</td>
<td> 110</td>
<td> 110</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 19.</td>
<td> Mario Lemieux</td>
<td> Pittsburgh</td>
<td> 1989/90</td>
<td> 60</td>
<td> 80</td>
<td> 109</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 20.</td>
<td> Phil Esposito</td>
<td> Boston</td>
<td> 1973/74</td>
<td> 82</td>
<td> 108</td>
<td> 108</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td> Mario Lemieux</td>
<td> Pittsburgh</td>
<td> 1991/92</td>
<td> 66</td>
<td> 87</td>
<td> 108</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 22.</td>
<td> Mario Lemieux</td>
<td> Pittsburgh</td>
<td> 1996/97</td>
<td> 76</td>
<td> 99</td>
<td> 107</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 23.</td>
<td> Phil Esposito</td>
<td> Boston</td>
<td> 1971/72</td>
<td> 80</td>
<td> 103</td>
<td> 106</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td> Wayne Gretzky</td>
<td> Los Angeles</td>
<td> 1988/89</td>
<td> 80</td>
<td> 103</td>
<td> 106</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 25.</td>
<td> Phil Esposito</td>
<td> Boston</td>
<td> 1968/69</td>
<td> 80</td>
<td> 102</td>
<td> 105</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 26.</td>
<td> Teemu Selanne</td>
<td> Anaheim</td>
<td> 1998/99</td>
<td> 75</td>
<td> 95</td>
<td> 104</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 27.</td>
<td> Aurel Joliat</td>
<td> Montreal</td>
<td> 1927/28</td>
<td> 82</td>
<td> 103</td>
<td> 103</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 28.</td>
<td> Ebbie Goodfellow</td>
<td> Detroit</td>
<td> 1930/31</td>
<td> 82</td>
<td> 102</td>
<td> 102</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td> Gordie Howe</td>
<td> Detroit</td>
<td> 1952/53</td>
<td> 82</td>
<td> 102</td>
<td> 102</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td> Jaromir Jagr</td>
<td> Pittsburgh</td>
<td> 2000/01</td>
<td> 81</td>
<td> 101</td>
<td> 102</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 31.</td>
<td> Mario Lemieux</td>
<td> Pittsburgh</td>
<td> 1993/94</td>
<td> 22</td>
<td> 27</td>
<td> 101</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td> Eric Lindros</td>
<td> Philadelphia</td>
<td> 1996/97</td>
<td> 52</td>
<td> 64</td>
<td> 101</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 33.</td>
<td> Wayne Gretzky</td>
<td> Los Angeles</td>
<td> 1990/91</td>
<td> 80</td>
<td> 98</td>
<td> 100</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td> Steve Yzerman</td>
<td> Detroit</td>
<td> 1988/89</td>
<td> 82</td>
<td> 100</td>
<td> 100</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">It's clear, by this
analysis, that Mario Lemieux is the greatest offensive player in NHL
history, bar none. His competition is, of course, Wayne Gretzky. Lemieux
is on this list nine times to Gretzky's eight, but Lemieux also
dominates the top of the list, appearing three times in the top five (to
Gretzky's once), and seven times in the top 20 (to Gretzky's six).
Lemieux is the only player with multiple 140-HP pace seasons (Gretzky
never had one), and the only player with multiple 130-HP pace seasons
(three, to Gretzky's one).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">In terms of career HP per
82 AGP, there are four distinct classes of players: (1) Mario Lemieux,
(2) Wayne Gretzky, (3) current stars in their prime, and (4) everyone
else. Lemieux, through the 2000/01 season, has 1077 HP in 799 AGP, for a
per-82 game figure of 111. No one else is even remotely close. Gretzky
is second with an average of 96 (1805 HPP in 1543 AGP). Following these
two are a bunch of players in the 80's, all current players in their
prime: Eric Lindros, Jaromir Jagr, Teemu Selanne and Paul Kariya. Their
averages will most likely drop over time to put them in the final group.
The "everyone else" group is headed by Mike Bossy (75 average), Howie
Morenz (73) and Phil Esposito (73). Other high averages belong to Gordie
Howe, Jean Beliveau, Steve Yzerman, Joe Sakic, Marcel Dionne, and Bobby
Hull.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The degree of separation
between these classes of players serve to demonstrate how truly
impressive Mario Lemieux's (and, to a lesser extent, Wayne Gretzky's)
scoring exploits really are. These are the complete scorers, players who
can carry a team's offence on their backs, all by themselves.</span><br />
</span>Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-22202825146446653532014-09-05T13:00:00.000-03:002014-09-05T13:00:02.864-03:00Puckerings archive: Does Playoff Experience Matter? (30 Oct 2001)<i>What follows is a post from my old hockey analysis site
</i><i><b>puckerings.com</b></i><i> (later hockeythink.com). It is
reproduced here for posterity; bear in mind this writing is over a
decade old and I may not even agree with it myself anymore. This post
was originally published on October 30, 2001 and was updated on April
9, 2002.</i><br />
<i> </i>
<br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<i><b><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Does playoff experience matter?</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><i>Copyright Iain Fyffe, 2002</i></span><br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">We all have heard that
playoff experience is critical for playoff success. It's certainly been
said often enough. If a team, or rather the players on a team, don't
have enough playoff experience, they don't have a prayer of winning in
the post-season. I believe it's time we put this idea to the test.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The assertion is this:
teams with more playoff experience will be more successful in the
playoffs than teams with less playoff experience. We will define success
in the playoffs as the winning of playoff series, not necessarily
winning the Stanley Cup. We will test the assertion through head-to-head
playoff series matchups. If the assertion is true, then a team's
relative playoff experience should be a good predictor of the outcome of
the playoff series.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">To test this assertion, I
used data from the past three NHL seasons: 1998/99, 1999/00, and
2000/01. I defined a team's playoff experience as the total career
playoff games played in previous years by all players who played for the
team in that playoff year. I then used these total playoff experience
figures as the sole factor in predicting the winner of each playoff
series. That is, I predicted that the team with more total playoff
experience would win each series. Here are the results of these
predictions:</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 50% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> Year</td>
<td> Series</td>
<td> Right</td>
<td> Wrong</td>
<td> Pct</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1998/99</td>
<td> 15</td>
<td> 10</td>
<td> 5</td>
<td> .667</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1999/00</td>
<td> 15</td>
<td> 11</td>
<td> 4</td>
<td> .733</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 2000/01</td>
<td> 15</td>
<td> 9</td>
<td> 6</td>
<td> .600</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Total</td>
<td> 45</td>
<td> 30</td>
<td> 15</td>
<td> .667</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">There you have it.
Playoff experience is a very good predictor of playoff success, being
right two-thirds of the time. But not so fast; we need to go deeper than
this superficial analysis. The problem with this analysis is that a
player's playoff experience is not independent of the quality of his
team (defined here as regular season points). That is to say, a player's
playoff success depends greatly upon him playing for a good
regular-season team; but don't take <i>my</i> word for it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">We start with two simple
points: (1) good teams generally stay good from year to year, while bad
teams stay bad, and (2) teams retain a majority of the same players from
year to year. Before I continue, let me demonstrate that these points
are true.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">To demonstrate the first
point, I will simply use correlation. The following are the correlation
coefficients for NHL teams' regular season points between 1998/99 and
1999/00, as well as the correlation for points between 1999/00 and
2000/01.</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 25% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> Years</td>
<td> Correlation</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1998/99-1999/00</td>
<td> 0.67</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1999/00-2000/01</td>
<td> 0.77</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">As demonstrated in the
above table, last year's points are an excellent predictor of this
year's points. A correlation of 0.60 or more is considered high, and the
relationship is therefore very strong.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The second point is also
simple to demonstrate. I selected a random sample of five teams to test
the stability of their rosters. I compiled the
regular season games played in 2000/01 for players on each team at the
end of the year who were also on the same team at the end of the
previous year (1999/00). I then compared these results to the maximum
number of man-games, which is 18 skaters plus one goalie times 82 games,
or 1558 man-games. Here are the results:</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 30% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> Team</td>
<td> Games</td>
<td> % of Max</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Atlanta</td>
<td> 1086</td>
<td> 70</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Los Angeles</td>
<td> 915</td>
<td> 59</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> New Jersey</td>
<td> 1300</td>
<td> 83</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Phoenix</td>
<td> 1002</td>
<td> 64</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Toronto</td>
<td> 1124</td>
<td> 72</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Average</td>
<td> 1085</td>
<td> 70</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">As you can see, the team
you play for this year is most likely the team you played for last year.
On average, 70% of a team's games are played by players who also played
on the team at the end of the previous year.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Now that I have
established these points, let's move on to this question: how good a
predictor of playoff success is regular season success? I again tested
playoff series for the past three years, this time using regular season
points as the sole predictor of series winners. The 'neithers' in the
table below are the result of teams having equal points, and therefore
no winner being predicted. The results:</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 55% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> Year</td>
<td> Series</td>
<td> Right</td>
<td> Wrong</td>
<td> Neither</td>
<td> Pct</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1998/99</td>
<td> 15</td>
<td> 10</td>
<td> 4</td>
<td> 1</td>
<td> .700</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1999/00</td>
<td> 15</td>
<td> 11</td>
<td> 4</td>
<td> 0</td>
<td> .733</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 2000/00</td>
<td> 15</td>
<td> 9</td>
<td> 5</td>
<td> 1</td>
<td> .633</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Total</td>
<td> 45</td>
<td> 30</td>
<td> 13</td>
<td> 2</td>
<td> .689</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">As you can see, regular
season success is marginally better than playoff experience at
predicting playoff winners. What this really shows is that playoff
experience has no apparent effect on the results of the playoff. If
playoff experience were important, it would be better at predicting
winners than regular season points. However, they're virtually identical
as predictors. The reason for this is that playoff experience is
accumulated through playing for a good team. I have shown that players
generally play for the same team from year to year, that good teams are
generally good from year to year, and that good teams are successful in
the playoffs. Therefore, players on good teams will accumulate large
totals of playoff experience not by "knowing what it takes to win in the
playoffs," but by playing for a good team that will tend naturally to
win more, both in the regular season and in the playoffs.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The crucial point is
this: playoff experience is the result of playing for a successful
regular season team. Playoff experience is simply a reflection of
playing for a good team. There is absolutely no evidence that having
greater
playoff experience will affect the result of a playoff series. If
playoff experience were important, it would be better than
regular-season points in predicting playoff series winners; in fact,
it's marginally worse. In reality, it's the quality of the team that
matters, not the playoff experience of the players.</span>Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-41661793256961717452014-08-29T13:00:00.000-03:002014-08-29T13:00:04.462-03:00Puckerings archive: Search for Meaning in RTSS (22 Oct 2001)<i>What follows is a post from my old hockey analysis site
</i><i><b>puckerings.com</b></i><i> (later hockeythink.com). It is
reproduced here for posterity; bear in mind this writing is over a
decade old and I may not even agree with it myself anymore. This post
was originally published on October 22, 2001 and was updated on April
10, 2002.</i><br />
<i> </i>
<br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<span style="font-size: small;"><i><b><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The Search for Meaning in RTSS:Hits and Takeaways</span></b></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;"><i>Copyright Iain Fyffe, 2002</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;"><i>Many thanks to Marc Foster</i></span><br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">In 1997-98, the NHL
introduced its Real-Time Scoring System (RTSS). This computerized system
allows the tracking of many new official statistics, such as ice time,
blocked shots and hits. This has given a wealth of new data to perform
statistical analysis with. But there is a serious question: do the new
statistics really mean anything?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">Ice time is obviously a
meaningful stat. The amount of time a player spends on the ice is a
direct comment on his value, relative to his teammates. But do stats
like hits or takeaways really indicate anything, or are they just
numbers? In this essay, I will show that, indeed, hits and takeaways do
have value.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">If a statistic is to have
value, it must indicate something about a player or team. Hits and
takeaways would seem to indicate how aggressive a player is, by either
making physical contact with the opponent, or by pressuring
him and taking the puck away. But is this good thing? The best way to
answer this question is to determine if the actions represented by these
stats contribute to winning. After all, the point of hockey is to win
the game. If hits and takeaways contribute to winning, then they are
meaningful stats.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">I will examine these
statistics by using correlation to team winning percentage. If the stat
has a positive coefficient of correlation, we know that as the value of
the stat increases, so does the team's winning percentage. The
stat would therefore contribute to winning to some degree.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">The raw stats of hits (H)
and takeaways (TK) themselves have little value. Here are their
correlations to winning percentage, as well as the
correlation of the sum of hits and takeaways (H+TK):</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 97/98</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 98/99</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 99/00</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 00/01</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> Average</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> H</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> -.04</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> -.01</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> -.30</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .20</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> -.04</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> TK</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> n/a</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .02</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> -.04</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .19</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .06</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> H+TK</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> n/a</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .01</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> -.25</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .26</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .01</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">So the raw numbers
themselves have absolutely no relationship to winning or losing. By
themselves, these stats are just numbers. Faced with this fact, we can
try to develop a new stat using these raw data, to see if we can find
any meaning.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">My thought process for
developing this new stat (called the Disciplined Aggression Proxy, or
DAP, for reasons which will become apparent) was as follows. Perhaps the
reason that hits and takeaways did not correlate highly with winning
was because the aggressive play represented by these stats can often
lead to taking penalties. Perhaps if a team were able to play in this
aggressive manner while taking relatively few penalties, they would be
more successful. At first, I used only hits in the formulae, not adding
takeaways until it this was suggested by Marc Foster. There are two ways
to represent
penalties on a team level: penalty minutes (PIM) and times short handed
(TSH). TSH is theoretically superior, since it represents actual
short-handed situations, but as we will see, there is little difference
between the two. The original DAP formulae were as follows:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">Version 1: H / PIM</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">Version 2: H / TSH</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">I then tested the correlations for these formulae, with the following results:</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 97/98</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 98/99</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 99/00</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 00/01</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> Average</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> Version 1</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .30</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .26</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .01</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .39</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .24</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> Version 2</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .18</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .26</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> -.02</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .47</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .22</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">As you can see, the DAP
formulae added much meaning to the stats. The correlations were now out
of the range of having no meaning, into a range (.20 and thereabouts)
where we cannot simply write the relationship off as a fluke.
The 1999/2000 season seems to be a fluke; without it the average
correlation would be higher still. To further test the validity of the
DAP, I reasoned the following. A team that kills penalties well will
suffer less from taking penalties. Therefore, I calculated a new index
for each team, to represent both their relative aggression and their
relative penalty-killing ability. To do this I took the team's DAP
divided by the league DAP, and added the team's
penalty-killing percentage (PK), divided by the league average PK. This
number is only used as a rough test, as it has no real meaning. The
results of this are as follows:</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 97/98</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 98/99</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 99/00</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 00/01</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> Average</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> V.1 + PK</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .36</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .30</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .10</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .43</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .30</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> V.2 + PK</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .25</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .30</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .10</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .47</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .43</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">The correlations are even
higher, which lends more validity to the value of the DAP. Again, note
the apparent flukiness of the 1999/2000 season.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">But the development of
the DAP did not end there. Marc Foster suggested the inclusion of
takeaways along with hits to represent aggressive play, and this change
is a good one. I therefore defined two new versions of the DAP:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">Version 1A: (H + TK) / PIM</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">Version 2A: (H + TK) / TSH</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">The correlations for these are as follows:</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 97/98</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 98/99</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 99/00</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 00/01</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> Average</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> Version 1A</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> n/a</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .27</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .03</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .42</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .24</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> Version 2A</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> n/a</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .26</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .02</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .50</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .26</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">Note that the averages
here is misleading; we should only compare them against averages for the
same three-year period. These averages are .22 for Version 1 and .24
for Version 2. The improvement is small, but still there. I also ran
correlations including the teams' PK, as before:</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 97/98</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 98/99</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 99/00</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> 00/01</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> Average</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> V.1A + PK</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> n/a</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .31</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .13</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .47</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .30</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> V.2A + PK</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> n/a</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .30</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .14</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .57</span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small;"> .34</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">These are the highest correlations we've seen. The averages for Versions 1 and 2 over this period are .28 and .31 respectively.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">Therefore, by
transforming hits and takeaways into the Disciplined Aggression Proxy,
we have found meaning in two of the NHL's new statistics. Now let's
apply our new stat.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">When applying the DAP to
players, I recommend using Version 1A. This is because there is no
player-level stat for the number of times shorthanded. The number of
minor penalties taken by a player would be a fair approximation, but
this data is rarely available. And since Version 1A is only marginally
worse than Version 2A, there is no great loss. I will now discuss some
players who have the best ranking in DAP (Version 1A) over the past two
years. The new stat will shed some new light on the value of some of
these players.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">1. John Madden</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">Madden has ranked 2nd in
the NHL in DAP each of the past two years. This is remarkable
consistency. He is known as perhaps the best checking forward in the
game, and this reputation is well-deserved.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">2. Curtis Leschyshyn</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">Due to his pitiful
offence, Leschyshyn is not given the respect he deserves. He placed 8th
in DAP in 1999/2000, and 4th last year. He is truly an elite player when
it comes to aggressive yet disciplined play, and he deserves
much more respect than he gets.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">3. Ulf Dahlen</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">Dahlen was 11th two years
ago and 7th last year; he's another remarkably consistent performer. He
gets credit as good defensive forward, but perhaps not enough.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">4. Jeff Nielsen</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">This defenceman was 15th
in 1999/2000, and 8th in 2000/01. He's basically an unknown, but
hopefully not for long. His aggressive play deserves
respect.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">5. Steve Rucchin</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">He was 18th in 1999/2000,
and would have placed very highly last year had he not been injured. He
has significant offensive skill to complement his aggressive play.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">6. Jay Pandolfo</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">Pandolfo led the NHL in
DAP in 1999/2000, but slipped to 27th the following year. Still, that's a
very good ranking, and he deserves kudos for it. With Pandolfo and
Madden, the Devils have been loaded with good, aggressive,
talent.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">7. Sami Kapanen</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">Another player whose
reputation is as a strong two-way forward, Kapanen ranked 13th in
1999/2000 and 16th in 2000/01. He deserves his reputation.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">8. Josef Stumpel</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">The first surprising
player on the list, Stumpel is known as a high-skill forward who often
does not give his all. But he ranked 10th in DAP in 1999/2000, and 20th
last year. You may not notice his aggressive play, but it's there.
Don't call this guy a floater anymore.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">9. Juha Lind</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">Lind was in the top 30 in
1999/2000, and rose to 3rd last year. His unfortunate lack of offensive
skill has hurt his playing time, but he is a good grinder.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">10. Sergei Berezin</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">Another surprise, Berezin is regarded as a skilled, soft player. But he was 6th in 1999/2000, and in the top 30 last year.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">Other noteworthy players</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: small;">Viktor Kozlov, Jody Hull,
James Black, Andrew Cassels, Patrick Poulin, Don Sweeney, Robert Kron,
Sergei Brylin, Jonas Hoglund and Mike York all deserve credit for their
aggressive yet disciplined play over the last two years. Some
are already known as two-way players, some are not but probably deserve
to be. Also worth noting are two rookies from last year, Stephane
Robidas (5th in DAP) and Brent Sopel (6th). Keep an eye on these
players. They are solid contributors to their teams.</span>Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-85292193947735616242014-08-22T13:00:00.001-03:002014-08-22T13:00:02.508-03:00Puckerings archive: Goal-Scoring and League Talent Level (25 Sep 2001)<i>What follows is a post from my old hockey analysis site
</i><i><b>puckerings.com</b></i><i> (later hockeythink.com). It is
reproduced here for posterity; bear in mind this writing is over a
decade old and I may not even agree with it myself anymore. This post
was originally published on September 25, 2001 and was updated on April
10, 2002.</i><br />
<br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<i><b><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The Relationship Between Goal-Scoring and League Talent Level</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><i>Copyright Iain Fyffe, 2002</i></span><br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">In this era of an
increasingly watered-down NHL and concurrent low levels of scoring, one
often wonders about the relationship between the level of scoring and
the level of talent in the NHL. This subject was addressed in some
detail by Klein and Reif (KR), in "The Klein and Reif Hockey
Compendium". However, seeing as KR wrote their piece in 1987, it would
be appropriate to re-examine their arguments using the data that we now
have available, specifically the 1987-88 to 2000-01 NHL seasons.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">KR's argument is this:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">"Throughout the history
of the game, in those periods when the talent level in a league has
risen through the consolidation of franchises or the addition of a large
number of skilled players, the level of goal-scoring has consistently
fallen. And when the concentration of talent has been diluted by
expansion or wartime service, goal-scoring has consistently risen. When
rule changes are not a factor and you see the rate of goal-scoring
climb, you know something bad is happening, because more goals means bad
hockey." (p.15)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">KR argue that unless
there is a rule change to blame, if scoring has increased, then the
quality of play has decreased. If scoring dropped, this means the league
talent level has improved. They demonstrate this quite convincingly
with their discussion of the ECHA, NHA, and NHL to 1986-87. To recap
this discussion, I will examine the 56-year period from 1931-32 to
1986-87. The starting point is selected as it follows the last major
rule change, the introduction of forward passing.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">During this 56-year
period, the change in scoring from one year to the next varied from -15%
to +19%. However, for 45 of those years (80% of the years examined),
the change fell between -7% and +7% inclusive. So it seems the normal
variance for scoring from one year to the next is about 7%. We will thus
consider any change of less than 8% from year to year to be normal
variation. Therefore any change of greater than 7% is to be considered
unusual and needing explanation. These are the interesting years. Let us
now examine these years that do not fall within the range of normal
variation, to seek possible
explanations for the changes.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>1932-33: -8% change from prior year</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">There is no apparent
reason for this change. There are no major rule changes, just minor
tweaks. However, since it is just slightly greater than the normal
change, we can safely assume it is a fluke.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>1935-36: -15% change from prior year</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>1936-37: +14% change from prior year</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">This is really only one
change: the significant drop in 1935-36, which was reversed the
following year by a significant increase in scoring. The drop has no
easy explanation; there were no rule changes, and the makeup of the
league did not change. We may have to write this one off as
unexplainable.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>1941-42: +18% change from prior year</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>1942-43: +19% change from prior year</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>1943-44: +13% change from prior year</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>1944-45: -10% change from prior year</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>1945-46: - 9% change from prior year</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Here KR's thesis proves
very true. The loss of players to wartime commitments wreaked havoc on
the level of play in the NHL, and scoring
skyrocketed. As players returned from war, scoring began to drop again.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>1952-53: -8% change from prior year</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Again, there is no apparent explanation for this change. However, the change is only 8%, so it is very close to normal.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>1980-81: +9% change from prior year</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Once again there is no
real explanation here. The WHA had folded two seasons previous; perhaps
there was some sort of delayed effect on the NHL? But again, the change
is only 9%, so it may be a fluke.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">It is also interesting to
note anything we might expect would cause a significant change, but did
not. For instance, the Great Expansion had no
significant effect. This can be explained by the stagnation of the
Original Six teams. There had been only six NHL teams for so long that
the level of talent in the minor leagues had been building up for a long
time. Therefore, the NHL could bear the addition of six new teams
without diluting the overall talent level of the league.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The collapse of the WHA
also had no apparent effect. This is also explainable; the NHL absorbed
only four WHA teams, while all talent from the rival league was now
available. Therefore, the effect washed out to some degree.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Now I will examine KR's thesis using the data from the NHL 1987-88 to 2000-01 seasons. Here is said data.</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 20% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> Year</td>
<td> % change</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1987-88</td>
<td> + 1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1988-89</td>
<td> + 1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1989-90</td>
<td> - 1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1990-91</td>
<td> - 6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1991-92</td>
<td> - 3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1992-93</td>
<td> + 8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1993-94</td>
<td> -11%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1994-95</td>
<td> - 8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1995-96</td>
<td> + 5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1996-97</td>
<td> - 7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1997-98</td>
<td> - 9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1998-99</td>
<td> 0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1999-2000</td>
<td> + 4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 2000-01</td>
<td> 0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">There are four significant changes in this 14-year period: 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1997-98. I will examine each in turn.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>1992-93: +8% change from prior year</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">This year two franchises
were added (Ottawa and Florida), only one year after San Jose joined the
NHL. KR's thesis predicts that scoring will increase in such a
situation, and so it did.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>1993-94: -11% change from prior year</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The addition of Anaheim
and Tampa this year made five expansion franchises in three years. By
KR's thesis, this should have driven scoring
upward. But instead it decreased significantly. Why is this? It is
likely in part due to the increased number of European players in the
NHL, necessitated by the expansion. From 1990-91 to 1993-94, the number
of European players in the NHL grew from about 60 to over 130. However,
this increase is not even enough to stock the new teams, so at best it
would hold scoring steady, not decrease it. It seems KR's thesis is
disproved here. However, with one addition that I will detail later, the
thesis stands.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>1994-95: -8% change from prior year</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">While my explanation for
this is not literally in line with KR, it has the same spirit. This
decrease in scoring is likely the result of the
strike-shortened schedule. With a shorter schedule, each game was more
significant, and therefore (in theory) players pushed themselves more
during the season. They also did not need to worry about tiring out
during an 80-plus game schedule. Therefore, the drop in scoring is
produced by better hockey, and is not surprising.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>1997-98: -9% change from prior year</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">This decrease, coupled
with the previous year's 7% decrease, is likely the result of the talent
level starting to catch up after the runaway expansion of the early
1990's.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Again, we should also
note the things we would expect to have caused a change, but did not.
Specifically, I am speaking of the four expansion teams added over three
years from 1998-99 to 2000-01. Again, by KR's thesis, this
should have caused a noticeable increase in league scoring. It did not;
the
changes over these three years are 0%, +4%, and 0%. Again, this is
contrary to
KR, but with the addition I propose (detailed below), it is explainable.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Adding to the thesis</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">KR's argument is that as
the league talent level is diluted, the league scoring level will
increase. This is true to a point. It seems, however, there is a limit
to this rule. So long as there is an amount of appropriate talent
available, dilution will cause scoring to increase. But as the two
expansions of the 1990's (nine teams added in 10 years) has
demonstrated, there is a breaking point.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The runaway expansion of
recent years has led to the extreme dilution of the talent in the NHL.
Some players in the NHL today would not have even been above-average
players in the AHL in the past. There is a limit to how thin you can
spread talent, before you start scraping the bottom of the major-league
barrel. When you pass this limit, it begins to drive scoring down,
rather than up. The reason for this is twofold.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Offence is more a
function of natural skill than is defence. The players NHL teams have to
resort to now have so little offensive talent that they lower the
amount of offence in the league. The extension of this is a natural
change in strategy. If you have a limited amount of offence on your
team, it is natural to emphasize defence (think Minnesota Wild) in order
to maximize your chances of winning. More teams have to rely on this
sort of defensive play now than ever before, and this also results in
less scoring.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Conclusion</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Diluting the talent level
only drives up scoring to a certain extent. Extreme dilution of talent,
such as what we have seen over the past decade, actually drives down
scoring. So we can add to KR's original thesis. If dilution occurs and
scoring does not increase, and there are no rule changes to explain it,
then you know that the well of legitimate, major-league talent has run
dry.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">We can only hope that the NHL realizes this, and that we do not see any further expansion for a long time.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Reference</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Klein, J. and K.-E. Reif. <i>The Klein and Reif Hockey Compendium</i>. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1987.</span>Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-14130475945883013062014-08-21T13:00:00.000-03:002014-08-21T14:53:15.313-03:00Was Rugby a Significant Influence on Early Hockey?In discussions of early hockey in Montreal, starting in the 1870s, you'll often see claims that rugby football was a significant influence on the early versions of the game. Take <a href="http://publications.mcgill.ca/mcgillnews/2011/12/08/how-montreal-perfected-hockey/" target="_blank">this article</a> as an example, in which many comparisons are made between 1870s ice hockey and rugby. To be fair to author Adam Gopnik, not all of the comparisons he makes are of the direct kind, some are simply the similar physical natures of the two sports; however, I suspect this point is overstated when made in reference to the 1870s version of hockey, which was not as physical as the version of the game we know now. The author's application of modern impressions of hockey is indicated when he refers to "...<i>its combination of being the most flashily brilliant and speedy of games and at the same time the most brutal of contact sports...</i>" Hockey in the 1870s did not feature nearly the speed that it does now; it could not, both because of the equipment used by the players, and the fact that they had to play every minute of the game, forcing the players to pace themselves.<br />
<br />
But the idea of significant rugby influence is well-ingrained in stories about early Montreal hockey. Once again, the article above claims that "...<i>what [James] Creighton was trying to create when he first
codified the rules of hockey in 1873 was a form of rugby on ice, played
according to rules inflected by lacrosse</i>." Now, since we don't have any writing from Creighton himself on the topic, we must ask what the source of this information is. The most likely candidates are the tales told by a number of old-time Montreal hockeyists, some time after the fact.<br />
<br />
Some of these claims are discussed <a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kO0iAAAAIBAJ&sjid=G5kFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=2731%2C2632086" target="_blank">here</a>, in an article penned by E.M Orlick on the origins of ice hockey. Richard Smith claimed (in 1908, some thirty years after the alleged fact) that he had been involved with writing the first set of hockey rules, and used both field hockey and rugby as inspiration. Orlick rightly points out the problems with details in Smith's story, in that the dates do not line up and there is no evidence that Smith was actually a player in the very first recorded matches of hockey in Montreal; he showed up a few years later. Orlick then discusses the claims of William "Chick" Murray, who relayed his tale in 1936 (about 60 years after the alleged fact). Murray stated that it was his idea to pattern the rules on rugby, but to add lacrosse posts as goals. So it seems quite likely that Gopnik's impression of the origin of ice hockey rules were informed by Murray's claims. Again Orlick rightly points out the inconsistencies in Murray's story, and feels justified in rejecting it. I cannot disagree.<br />
<br />
A <a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zXYtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fpgFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=5595%2C4611730" target="_blank">later article</a> by Orlick discusses Henry Joseph, who has a decided advantage over Smith and Murray in that we know he was a player in the first two organized ice hockey matches played in Montreal in 1875. This was written in 1943, and refers to events allegedly occurring as early as 1873, so we're now dealing with statements made 70 years after the fact. Joseph appears to be Gopnik's source that ice hockey was first played in 1873, two years before the first recorded match on March 3, 1875. It is, of course, eminently plausible that ice hockey, specifically the version played in the Victoria rink in Montreal, was played for some time before the first recorded game. Joseph goes on to say that James Creighton suggested a shinny-like game to be played on skates, noting that in Montreal at the time, shinny was played on ice, but not with skates. Finally Joseph claims that this shinny-like game had its rules patterned on rugby.<br />
<br />
So these stories do seem to be the source of the idea that rugby was a significant influence on the first hockey matches in Montreal, perhaps enhanced by the fact that so much of early hockey was connected to McGill University, a stronghold of rugby. If the influence was so great, surely we should be able to detect it in the historical record. So let's have a look at early ice hockey and rugby, and compare their similarities to those between ice hockey and field hockey, a game that, at least superficially, seems to bear a more immediate resemblance.<br />
<br />
<i><b>RULES</b></i><br />
<br />
As discussed at some length in my book <i>On His Own Side of the Puck</i>, the early Montreal hockey code was based directly on English field hockey association rules (which in turn were based on association football [soccer] rules). Here is a comparison of the offside rules from various rule sets.<br />
<br />
<i><b>1877 Montreal offside rule</b></i><br />
<b>Rule 2</b>: When a player hits the ball, any one of the same side who
at such moment of hitting is nearer to the opponents’ goal line is out
of play, and may not touch the ball himself, or in any way whatever
prevent any other player from doing so, until the ball has been played. A
player must always be on his own side of the ball.<br />
<br />
<i><b>1875 Hockey Association offside rule</b></i><br />
<b>Rule 6</b>: When a player hits the ball, and one of the same side who
at such moment of hitting is nearer to the opponents' goal-line is out
of play, and may not touch the ball himself, not in any way whatever
prevent any other player from doing so, until the ball has been played,
unless there are at least three of his opponents nearer their own
goal-line; but no player is out of play when the ball is hit from the
goal-line.<br />
<br />
<i><b>1863 Association Football offside rule</b></i><br />
<b>Rule 6</b>: When a player has kicked the ball, any one of the same
side who is nearer to the opponent's goal line is out of play, and may
not touch the ball himself, nor in any way whatever prevent any other
player from doing so, until he is in play; but no player is out of play
when the ball is kicked off from behind the goal line.<br />
<br />
<i><b>1871 Rugby Football offside rules</b></i><br />
<b>Rule 22</b>: Every player is on side but is put off side if he enters
a scrummage from his opponents' side or being in a scrummage gets in
front of the Ball, or when the ball has been kicked, touched or is being
run with by any of his own side behind him (ie between himself and his
own goal line).<br />
<b>Rule 23</b>: Every player when offside is out of the game and shall
not touch the ball in any case whatever, either in or out of touch or
goal, or in any way interrupt or obstruct any player, until he is again
on side.<br />
<b>Rule 24</b>: A player being offside is put on side when the ball has
been run five yards with or kicked by or has touched the dress or person
of any player of the opposite side or when one of his own side has run
in front of him.<br />
<b>Rule 25</b>: When a player has the Ball none of his opponents who at
the time are offside may commence or attempt to run, tackle or otherwise
interrupt such player until he has run five yards.<br />
<b>Rule 26</b>: Throwing back. It is lawful for any player who has the
Ball to throw it back towards his own goal, or to pass it back to any
player of his own side who is at the time behind him in accordance with
the rules of on side.<br />
<br />
You will note that although both ice hockey and rugby had an offside rule, they were different offside rules. Early ice hockey is sometimes called a "backwards game" in the sense that rugby is; that is, the object of play can be passed backward to teammates, but cannot move ahead (see rugby rule 26). This was not the case in hockey. The puck itself could move forward, so long as the pass recipient was not ahead of the puck at the time the pass was made. So you could pass the puck ahead of your winger, who could skate up to meet it. Indeed, in his 1899 book <i>Hockey: Canada' Royal Winter Game</i>, Art Farrell explained that this was the ideal method for making a pass; note that the offside rule had not changed at all by 1899.<br />
<br />
If you go rule-by-rule, it's absolutely clear that field hockey played a much larger part in the rules of early ice hockey. I would go so far as to say that there is no reason to believe rugby had any influence at all on the rules, if you actually look at the rules. Even the sort-of-similar rules (such as offsides) are handled differently. Joseph claimed that rugby used one referee and two umpires, as we know that early ice hockey did. But the 1871 rugby rules make no mention of either, instead specifying that the team captains are the sole arbiters of infractions. However, lacrosse did use one referee and two umpires.<br />
<br />
<i><b>POSITIONS</b></i><br />
<br />
The earliest reference to positions in early Montreal ice hockey we have is from 1876, which identified players in a match as forwards, half-backs, backs and goaltenders. Goaltenders were referred to in 1875, but this was the first time other positions were named. Some of the rugby influence claims state that rugby positions were used (except, of course, for the curious addition of a goalkeeper). Neither modern rugby (nor modern field hockey) positions bear much apparent resemblance to this set-up. However, if we do look at groups of players rather than individual positions, in rugby today players will be referred to as forwards, half-backs and backs. No goaltender, of course.<br />
<br />
However, this does not seem to be terminology contemporary to early ice hockey. <a href="http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/match/18901.html" target="_blank">Here</a>, for example, we see that rugby in the 1870s featured forwards, half-backs, three-quarter-backs, and full-backs. Which is still quite close to the early ice hockey setup. However, we must also consider field hockey in this equation.<br />
<br />
<i>Hockey: Historical and Practical</i> is a volume on English (field) hockey, written by J. Nicholson Smith and Philip A. Robson and published in 1899. As the title suggests, it discusses both the history of field hockey, and how it was played. When detailing the positions on the field, Smith and Robson break the players into four categories: the forwards, the half-backs, the backs and the goal-keeper. These are precisely the positions that were used in 1870s hockey in Montreal. So it seems that even if rugby used such nomenclature, it was not unique to that sport. And indeed this would make field hockey a better fit, since rugby does not use a goaltender.<br />
<br />
<b><i>EQUIPMENT</i></b><br />
<br />
It should be plainly obvious that the equipment used in early ice hockey was much more similar to that of field hockey than to rugby. Rugby has no sticks, and the ball is much too large to be used for hockey. The goal markers were much different as well. Ice hockey added skates of course, but you cannot credit that idea to rugby, clearly.<br />
<br />
<i><b>GAME PLAY</b></i><br />
<br />
We have already noted that the difference in the offside rules produce a significant effect on the game play of these sports. In rugby, the ball could only move backward. In field hockey and ice hockey, it could move forward so long as the players involved were onside.<br />
<br />
The objects of rugby are quite different than ice hockey. You scored goals by kicking the ball over the crossbar and between the posts, and of course you could score touch downs, which have no equivalent in ice hockey or field hockey. In terms of the object of the game, it's clearly field hockey that is more similar.<br />
<br />
Rugby, then as now, involved scrummages (which have no equivalent in ice hockey), and allowed tackling, which ice hockey did not. You were not permitted to take hold of a hockey player and drag him down, even if he did have the puck. In rugby, players could pick up the ball and catch it out of the air before beginning a run while holding on to the ball. There was nothing like this in hockey.<br />
<br />
So all we're left with in terms of game play is the vague sense of physicality mentioned by Gopnik. Now, I believe that the physicality in the early version of Montreal hockey can easily be overstated, if it is thought of in modern terms. In its earliest days, ice hockey certainly allowed contact, but it was not the constant body-checking we see in the game today. Indeed it could not have been, since players expending their energy on such endeavours would not have lasted the 60 minutes they were required to play each match. However, there was certainly some rough and physical play, whereas in field hockey there was a rule in place that was designed to prevent body contact (playing right to left).<br />
<br />
If you want to see this is as a rugby influence on early ice hockey, I'm not going to stop you. Indeed many of the players involved in the early Montreal matches were rugby football players. But it seems fairly clear that it was field hockey one ice, perhaps sprinkled with a taste of rugby. The level of physicality in early ice hockey was not equal to that in rugby; it was certainly more than field hockey, but it was also certainly less than rugby.<br />
<br />
<i><b>CONCLUSION</b></i><br />
<br />
Going through this process, I cannot see how rugby can be said to have been a significant influence on early Montreal ice hockey. There are several claims of this, however they were all made at least three decades after the fact, and are part of stories that tend to have rather large inconsistencies with history in them. In all of the ways discussed above, with one possible exception, field hockey is a clearer source of inspiration for early Montreal hockey than rugby. When you couple this with the fact that claims of rugby influence were all made well after the fact and rely solely on fallible human memory, you reach the conclusion that there is no particular reason to believe rugby played a role.<br />
<br />
Since McGill was such a rugby stronghold, perhaps these McGillers (Smith, Murray, Joseph) just associated everything with rugby, when in fact there were other sports much closer in nature. But whatever the reason, it appears that their claims do not stand up to scrutiny.Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-22419062217814290872014-08-19T13:00:00.001-03:002014-08-19T22:35:06.042-03:00Hall of Fame Standards for the Major-League Era (Part Two)This year's new edition of the <a href="http://www.hockeyabstract.com/2014edition" target="_blank">Hockey Abstract</a> includes a lengthy chapter on the Inductinator, which is a system I devised to determine implicit standards for the Hall of Fame, trying to figure out <b>why </b>each Hall of Fame player was selected as such. It may not be that the best or most deserving players are inducted according to your personal standards or indeed mine, but the Inductinator proceeds with the assumption that the Hall of Fame Selection Committee acts in a reasonably rational manner, and has a reason for each of its selections, even if the justification for using such a reason might be weak.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://hockeyhistorysis.blogspot.ca/2014/08/hall-of-fame-standards-for-major-league.html" target="_blank">Last time</a> we had a look at goaltenders and defencemen who played in what I call the Major-League Era, specifically the years 1912 to 1929 when the Stanley Cup became the domain of only a top few hockey leagues. Today we'll be looking at the forwards from this era. Remember that the system is designed so that every player with an Inductinator score of 100 or more meets the implicit Hall of Fame standards.<br />
<br />
For most players, the criteria are pretty straightforward. If we look at the top man as an example, Newsy Lalonde. He earns 22 points for the senior-level hockey games he played in excess of 200, and another 42 points for the points he scored in excess of that number. He earns 67 points for his senior career points-per-game average; anyone in excess of 0.95 gets points for this, up to a maximum of 70. Lalonde receives 43 points for his 19 seasons of senior hockey; 14 is the minimum number to earn any points in this category. Newsy earns a ridiculous number of points for his top-four finishes in major-league scoring. He led a major league in scoring three times, was second once, third once and fourth four time, resulting in 112 points. Only Joe Malone (with four) and Fred Taylor (with five) led a major league in scoring more often during this period. Lalonde also served as a player-coach in the major leagues for nine seasons, and earns 60 points for that, giving him a total of 346. He was also head coach in the NHL for seven seasons after his playing career was over, but only those players with at least nine such seasons earn any points for it. It may seem odd to reward a player for something that happened after his playing career, but without this category there would be no way to explain Jack Adams' induction into the player category in 1959.<br />
<br />
This isn't the only post-career accomplishment that has to be considered in this era to explain some player selections. You might notice Conn Smythe on the list below, with 60 points on the scale despite playing literally only a handful of senior games. All of these points come from the fact that he was the coach of a Canadian Olympic hockey team (in 1928). Without this massive amount of points, you could not explain Frank Rankin's induction; he was the coach of the 1924 team. Ranking was quite a good player, but had a very short career. His high career points-per-game gives him 47 points, and the other 60 come from the Olympics. It's even worse in the case of Steamer Maxwell, who is recognized as the coach of the 1920 Olympic team, and receives 100 points on the Inductinator scale for this. You can explain the extra 40 points either because he was the first Olympic coach, or because he had a longer senior career than Rankin or Smythe. Once again, Maxwell was a good player in his day, though he never played professionally. He was an extremely fast rover, but he used his speed largely in defence, and never scored very much. He's nowhere near the Hall of Fame purely as a player.<br />
<br />
There are some other kludgy work-arounds needed in this era, awarding a large amount of points to a player for an accomplishment that would not seem to be worth that much at first glance. Shorty Green is probably the best example. Based on his playing career alone, his Inductinator score would be precisely zero. He was a decent player, but nothing special. There are two things for which he might be renowned, both of which arise from his captaincy of the 1924/25 Hamilton Tigers. This was the first (and to date, only) NHL club that went from worst to first in the span of a single season. Green was also the leader of the Hamilton player strike before the 1925 playoffs, which earned them a good deal of fame. So we can assign arbitrary values to these events, and give Short Green 50 points for each of them to get to the Hall. It's not terribly satisfying, but it works.<br />
<br />
Rusty Crawford is another one. Based purely on his career numbers, despite his very long career Crawford would score only a 50. The only thing that sticks out about him at all, that other players cannot match, is the range of his major-league career. He is the only player from this, so far as I can tell, to have played for a major-league team in every Canadian province that had such a team (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Québec). He played for the Vancouver Maroons, Calgary Tigers, Saskatoon Crescents, Toronto Arenas, Ottawa Senators and Quebec Bulldogs in his career. I can't find anyone else who meets this criteria. Newsy Lalonde missed out Alrberta and Tommy Dunderdale didn't play in Ontario. They're Hall of Famers nonetheless. Art Gagne and Eddie Oatman both also hit four provinces, but not five; Gagne missed BC and Oatman, Saskatchewan. So if we give Crawford 50 points for this feat, his induction makes sense.<br />
<br />
Rewinding a bit, there are a number of things that Newsy Lalonde missed out on for Inductinator points. Players who won at least three Stanley Cup championships earn points for the feat, while Lalonde had only one. Captaining a Stanley Cup championship, and scoring a Cup-winning goal also garner points. Playing and scoring goals in the Olympics are also rewarded, as are Allan Cup accomplishments. The Hart and Byng awards are also valuable, though they arrived relatively late in this time period.<br />
<br />
As you can see from the table below, there are a number of players who could just as easily be Hall-of-Famers as not. Bernie Morris, Corb Denneny, <a href="http://hockeyhistorysis.blogspot.ca/2011/12/harry-smith-only-goal-scorer.html" target="_blank">Harry Smith</a> and Dubbie Kerr are all only a few points off of the 100 threshold. Personally I would have put each of these men in before Rusty Crawford among others, but the Inductinator is not about merit, about who <i>should be</i> in the Hall of Fame. It's about explaining who <i>is</i> in the Hall. It's an attempt to shed some light on history, not to call down the efforts of the selection committee.<br />
<br />
We'll finish up our look at the Inductinator next week, when we examine the Hall-of-Fame players from the Challenge Era, up to 1911. <br />
<style type="text/css">
table.tableizer-table {
border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif
font-size: 11px;
}
.tableizer-table td {
padding: 4px;
margin: 3px;
border: 1px solid #ccc;
}
.tableizer-table th {
background-color: #104E8B;
color: #FFF;
font-weight: bold;
}
</style><br />
<table class="tableizer-table">
<tbody>
<tr class="tableizer-firstrow"><th>FORWARD</th><th>HoF</th><th>SCORE</th><th>GP</th><th>G</th><th>A</th><th>PTS</th><th>PIM</th></tr>
<tr><td><b>Newsy Lalonde</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>346</b></td><td><b>344</b></td><td><b>443</b></td><td><b>94</b></td><td><b>537</b></td><td><b>806</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Joe Malone</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>277</b></td><td><b>278</b></td><td><b>345</b></td><td><b>73</b></td><td><b>418</b></td><td><b>221</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Fred Taylor</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>242</b></td><td><b>206</b></td><td><b>218</b></td><td><b>110</b></td><td><b>328</b></td><td><b>219</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Frank Nighbor</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>231</b></td><td><b>438</b></td><td><b>255</b></td><td><b>119</b></td><td><b>374</b></td><td><b>324</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Didier Pitre</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>231</b></td><td><b>344</b></td><td><b>313</b></td><td><b>79</b></td><td><b>392</b></td><td><b>457</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Cy Denneny</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>177</b></td><td><b>398</b></td><td><b>310</b></td><td><b>90</b></td><td><b>400</b></td><td><b>450</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Dick Irvin</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>160</b></td><td><b>324</b></td><td><b>367</b></td><td><b>93</b></td><td><b>460</b></td><td><b>409</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Ernie Russell</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>151</b></td><td><b>100</b></td><td><b>176</b></td><td><b>16</b></td><td><b>192</b></td><td><b>299</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Duke Keats</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>150</b></td><td><b>301</b></td><td><b>234</b></td><td><b>117</b></td><td><b>351</b></td><td><b>764</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Frank Fredrickson</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>145</b></td><td><b>366</b></td><td><b>246</b></td><td><b>112</b></td><td><b>358</b></td><td><b>499</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Harry Broadbent</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>141</b></td><td><b>385</b></td><td><b>224</b></td><td><b>63</b></td><td><b>287</b></td><td><b>829</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Frank Foyston</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>140</b></td><td><b>367</b></td><td><b>255</b></td><td><b>82</b></td><td><b>337</b></td><td><b>206</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Tommy Dunderdale</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>140</b></td><td><b>302</b></td><td><b>260</b></td><td><b>74</b></td><td><b>334</b></td><td><b>609</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Mickey MacKay</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>138</b></td><td><b>422</b></td><td><b>274</b></td><td><b>118</b></td><td><b>392</b></td><td><b>334</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Jack Walker</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>138</b></td><td><b>444</b></td><td><b>262</b></td><td><b>99</b></td><td><b>361</b></td><td><b>129</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Hobey Baker</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>130</b></td><td><b>41</b></td><td><b>65</b></td><td><b>33</b></td><td><b>98</b></td><td><b>2</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Billy Burch</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>127</b></td><td><b>412</b></td><td><b>166</b></td><td><b>73</b></td><td><b>239</b></td><td><b>255</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Jimmy Gardner</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>120</b></td><td><b>169</b></td><td><b>90</b></td><td><b>29</b></td><td><b>119</b></td><td><b>431</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Frank Rankin</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>107</b></td><td><b>21</b></td><td><b>63</b></td><td><b>0</b></td><td><b>63</b></td><td><b>0</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Scotty Davidson</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>107</b></td><td><b>49</b></td><td><b>52</b></td><td><b>18</b></td><td><b>70</b></td><td><b>150</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Harry Watson</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>106</b></td><td><b>60</b></td><td><b>94</b></td><td><b>20</b></td><td><b>114</b></td><td><b>2</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Gord Roberts</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>106</b></td><td><b>171</b></td><td><b>207</b></td><td><b>44</b></td><td><b>251</b></td><td><b>325</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Tommy Smith</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>105</b></td><td><b>213</b></td><td><b>365</b></td><td><b>33</b></td><td><b>398</b></td><td><b>359</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Jack Darragh</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>104</b></td><td><b>258</b></td><td><b>208</b></td><td><b>73</b></td><td><b>281</b></td><td><b>355</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>George Hay</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>102</b></td><td><b>410</b></td><td><b>208</b></td><td><b>118</b></td><td><b>326</b></td><td><b>145</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Jack Adams</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>102</b></td><td><b>297</b></td><td><b>249</b></td><td><b>56</b></td><td><b>305</b></td><td><b>518</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Babe Dye</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>101</b></td><td><b>281</b></td><td><b>216</b></td><td><b>48</b></td><td><b>264</b></td><td><b>221</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Moose Goheen</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>101</b></td><td><b>143</b></td><td><b>65</b></td><td><b>15</b></td><td><b>80</b></td><td><b>0</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Barney Stanley</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>101</b></td><td><b>265</b></td><td><b>190</b></td><td><b>94</b></td><td><b>284</b></td><td><b>257</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Steamer Maxwell</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>100</b></td><td><b>37</b></td><td><b>20</b></td><td><b>12</b></td><td><b>32</b></td><td><b>63</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Shorty Green</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>100</b></td><td><b>126</b></td><td><b>75</b></td><td><b>18</b></td><td><b>93</b></td><td><b>183</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Rusty Crawford</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>100</b></td><td><b>303</b></td><td><b>165</b></td><td><b>69</b></td><td><b>234</b></td><td><b>435</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Harry Hyland</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>100</b></td><td><b>155</b></td><td><b>192</b></td><td><b>34</b></td><td><b>226</b></td><td><b>398</b></td></tr>
<tr><td>Bernie Morris</td><td>no</td><td>99</td><td>237</td><td>202</td><td>83</td><td>285</td><td>139</td></tr>
<tr><td>Corb Denneny</td><td>no</td><td>98</td><td>350</td><td>225</td><td>72</td><td>297</td><td>365</td></tr>
<tr><td>Harry Smith</td><td>no</td><td>92</td><td>112</td><td>246</td><td>8</td><td>254</td><td>229</td></tr>
<tr><td>Dubbie Kerr</td><td>no</td><td>91</td><td>166</td><td>191</td><td>45</td><td>236</td><td>340</td></tr>
<tr><td>Eddie Oatman</td><td>no</td><td>85</td><td>320</td><td>198</td><td>101</td><td>299</td><td>456</td></tr>
<tr><td>Tony Conroy</td><td>no</td><td>84</td><td>186</td><td>54</td><td>14</td><td>68</td><td>80</td></tr>
<tr><td>Art Gagne</td><td>no</td><td>82</td><td>395</td><td>179</td><td>90</td><td>269</td><td>434</td></tr>
<tr><td>Louis Berlinguette</td><td>no</td><td>80</td><td>346</td><td>92</td><td>57</td><td>149</td><td>304</td></tr>
<tr><td>Odie Cleghorn</td><td>no</td><td>77</td><td>299</td><td>231</td><td>65</td><td>296</td><td>444</td></tr>
<tr><td>Herb Drury</td><td>no</td><td>72</td><td>294</td><td>59</td><td>16</td><td>75</td><td>205</td></tr>
<tr><td>Cully Wilson</td><td>no</td><td>65</td><td>355</td><td>204</td><td>85</td><td>289</td><td>814</td></tr>
<tr><td>Fred Harris</td><td>no</td><td>61</td><td>282</td><td>175</td><td>81</td><td>256</td><td>449</td></tr>
<tr><td>Conn Smythe</td><td>no</td><td>60</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr>
<tr><td>Bert McCaffrey</td><td>no</td><td>52</td><td>321</td><td>103</td><td>49</td><td>152</td><td>202</td></tr>
<tr><td>Jack McDonald</td><td>no</td><td>34</td><td>244</td><td>195</td><td>59</td><td>254</td><td>179</td></tr>
<tr><td>Carson Cooper</td><td>no</td><td>33</td><td>341</td><td>215</td><td>74</td><td>289</td><td>97</td></tr>
<tr><td>Ty Arbour</td><td>no</td><td>31</td><td>370</td><td>137</td><td>69</td><td>206</td><td>184</td></tr>
<tr><td>Don Smith</td><td>no</td><td>27</td><td>189</td><td>189</td><td>27</td><td>216</td><td>359</td></tr>
<tr><td>Billy Boucher</td><td>no</td><td>25</td><td>252</td><td>116</td><td>41</td><td>157</td><td>442</td></tr>
<tr><td>Sibby Nichols</td><td>no</td><td>21</td><td>99</td><td>102</td><td>27</td><td>129</td><td>150</td></tr>
<tr><td>Harry Meeking</td><td>no</td><td>17</td><td>274</td><td>106</td><td>41</td><td>147</td><td>330</td></tr>
<tr><td>Charley Tobin</td><td>no</td><td>14</td><td>201</td><td>154</td><td>39</td><td>193</td><td>139</td></tr>
<tr><td>Jimmy Herbert</td><td>no</td><td>11</td><td>238</td><td>89</td><td>33</td><td>122</td><td>255</td></tr>
<tr><td>Ken Mallen</td><td>no</td><td>10</td><td>182</td><td>182</td><td>27</td><td>209</td><td>277</td></tr>
<tr><td>Harry Scott</td><td>no</td><td>9</td><td>123</td><td>178</td><td>7</td><td>185</td><td>182</td></tr>
<tr><td>Alf Skinner</td><td>no</td><td>9</td><td>257</td><td>117</td><td>32</td><td>149</td><td>432</td></tr>
<tr><td>Carl Kendall</td><td>no</td><td>8</td><td>67</td><td>33</td><td>19</td><td>52</td><td>52</td></tr>
<tr><td>Skene Ronan</td><td>no</td><td>5</td><td>138</td><td>108</td><td>25</td><td>133</td><td>244</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-76213152152664730822014-08-18T14:06:00.000-03:002014-08-18T14:06:22.627-03:00On His Own Side of the Puck - New FormatsEarlier this year I published <a href="http://hockeyhistorysis.blogspot.ca/p/on-his-own-side-of-puck.html" target="_blank"><i>On His Own Side of the Puck</i></a>, the first book discussing the origin of the rules of ice hockey. I'm happy to announce that it is now available in a wider variety of formats.<br />
<br />
You can get the paperback or Kindle edition from Amazon <a href="http://www.amazon.com/On-His-Own-Side-Puck/dp/0993685110/ref=tmm_pap_title_0" target="_blank">here</a>, or you can download a PDF copy <a href="http://store.payloadz.com/details/2107334-ebooks-sports-on-his-own-side-of-the-puck.html" target="_blank">here</a>.Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-74739460799912198782014-08-15T13:00:00.001-03:002014-08-15T13:00:03.608-03:00Puckerings archive: Effect of Rest of NHL Team Performance (10 Sep 2001)<i>What follows is a post from my old hockey analysis site
</i><i><b>puckerings.com</b></i><i> (later hockeythink.com). It is
reproduced here for posterity; bear in mind this writing is over a
decade old and I may not even agree with it myself anymore. This post
was originally published on September 10, 2001 and was updated on November 12, 2002.</i>
<br />
<br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<i><b><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The Effect of Rest on NHL Team Performance</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><i>Copyright Iain Fyffe, 2002</i></span><br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">What effect does the
amount of rest an NHL team has before a game have on the outcome of the
game? We would probably expect that the more rest a team has, the better
they will do. However, there is the possibility of too much rest
leading to teams being “rusty”, and not performing as well. This simple
study examines this question.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Using data from 1998/99
and 1999/2000, I compiled the records of all NHL teams based upon the
number of days off since their last game. For comparability’s sake, I
ignored the “1 point for an OT loss” rule that came into effect in 1999.
Here are the results:</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 60% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td> Tot</td>
<td> Tot</td>
<td> 98/99</td>
<td> 98/99</td>
<td> 99/00</td>
<td> 99/00</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Days rest</td>
<td> GP</td>
<td> Pct</td>
<td> GP</td>
<td> Pct</td>
<td> GP</td>
<td> Pct</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 0</td>
<td> 850</td>
<td> .450</td>
<td> 410</td>
<td> .456</td>
<td> 440</td>
<td> .444</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 0</td>
<td> 850</td>
<td> .450</td>
<td> 410</td>
<td> .456</td>
<td> 440</td>
<td> .444</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1</td>
<td> 2130</td>
<td> .503</td>
<td> 1041</td>
<td> .500</td>
<td> 1089</td>
<td> .506</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 2</td>
<td> 899</td>
<td> .526</td>
<td> 463</td>
<td> .531</td>
<td> 436</td>
<td> .521</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 3</td>
<td> 378</td>
<td> .525</td>
<td> 180</td>
<td> .492</td>
<td> 198</td>
<td> .556</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 4</td>
<td> 130</td>
<td> .519</td>
<td> 60</td>
<td> .575</td>
<td> 70</td>
<td> .471</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 5 or more</td>
<td> 70</td>
<td> .600</td>
<td> 33</td>
<td> .530</td>
<td> 37</td>
<td> .662</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The results match our
expectations quite well. Teams perform the worst when they played the
night before, having no time off. There is some suggestion that too much
time off may not be good, since at four days off there is a drop in
winning percentage. It is a small drop, and is probably not
statistically significant. But remember, we would actually expect an
increase in percentage, so it seems the benefits of additional rest are
offset by the effect of rust, shall we say.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">There is one more
interesting thing to note in this study. The average NHL team had 108.3
days of rest between their first game of the season and their last game.
This average is identical in 1998/99 and 1999/2000. However, the range
of days off among teams went from (103,112) in 1998/99 to (104,111) in
1999/2000, and the standard deviation dropped from 1.8 to 1.4 days.
Therefore, the NHL schedule got a little fairer in 1999/2000, with teams
having more similar amounts of days off.</span>Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-54219505703936107892014-08-12T13:00:00.000-03:002014-08-13T00:26:22.009-03:00In-Depth Review: L'histoire du hockey au Québec, Part 5We're up to part five of my in-depth review of Donald Guay's 1990
book <i>L'histoire du hockey au Québec: Origine et développement
d'un phénomène culturel avant 1917</i> ("The History of Hockey
in Quebec: The origin and development of a cultural phenomenon before
1917"). We're still working through the quite extensive third chapter; after this post we'll about one-third of the way through the book.<br />
<br />
Today I'm going to look at Guay's discussion of the development of the major eastern senior hockey leagues from 1886 to 1917. On page 77 he gives us a nifty graphic representation of the subject matter, which I cannot provide a scan of without ruining my copy of the book. So instead, I re-created it below.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj60Y9IVJhlgUksnuxGLSYV1gWmysPKDAhJ0mbPn9Q7h6VPlVkJxignU52_5fRpEn1CZInyhWVJzvT60wXFwKylA5GCjqN5Ya_mEBE3j9ZQunHPpHj1T1A_WP7gqciMco4IhbMuD8prWdk/s1600/Hockey+League+Lineage+1886+1917+per+Guay.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj60Y9IVJhlgUksnuxGLSYV1gWmysPKDAhJ0mbPn9Q7h6VPlVkJxignU52_5fRpEn1CZInyhWVJzvT60wXFwKylA5GCjqN5Ya_mEBE3j9ZQunHPpHj1T1A_WP7gqciMco4IhbMuD8prWdk/s1600/Hockey+League+Lineage+1886+1917+per+Guay.png" height="640" width="443" /></a></div>
The Amateur Hockey Association of Canada (AHAC), which was formed in 1886, went along fairly swimmingly for the first decade of its existence. In 1897, the executive of the league passed a fateful resolution, but one that made a good deal of sense. With this resolution, the champion team of the AHAC intermediate section for a year could apply for admission into the senior ranks the following season, subject to the majority vote of all AHAC clubs (senior, intermediate and junior).<br />
<br />
The Ottawa Capitals had, the season before, applied for admission into the senior AHAC. The Capitals were the champions of the Central Canada Hockey Association (CCHA), but as the AHAC did not recognize that league as a senior one, the Capitals instead joined the AHAC intermediate division for 1897/98. They were intermediate champions in 1898, and that's when the fun began.<br />
<br />
As was their right, the Capitals applied to join the senior ranks of Canada's greatest hockey league. Guay notes that after a long debate and appeals to fair play, the team was admitted by a vote of 23 to 11. All of the intermediate and junior clubs were in favour of the motion, as were the senior Shamrocks. The older clubs - Ottawa, Québec, AAA and Victorias - were all vigorously opposed. So, they exhibited the very best in amateur sportsmanship, and took their pucks and went home. These four clubs withdrew from the AHAC, and formed the Canadian Amateur Hockey League (CAHL). The Shamrocks eventually joined them, which was really their only option, and Guay notes that when drafting the CAHL constitution, the new executive made sure that it would require a <b>unanimous</b> vote to admit a new club to the senior level.<br />
<br />
Guay states that after this split, the AHAC ceased operations entirely, but this not accurate. Michel Vigneault's dissertation on the history of hockey in Montreal makes it clear that the AHAC continued to operate at the intermediate and junior levels for several seasons, meaning that it should not be included at all in the illustration above since they were not senior. Guay's illustration is also inaccurate since it shows the Capitals splitting off to play in a league with Brockville and Cornwall. But this is a reversal of history; these three teams made up the CCHA before the Capitals joined the AHAC. At the senior level, there was no split; the senior AHAC became the CAHL.<br />
<br />
Guay then discusses the Federal league, and notes that <i>le National de Montréal</i> were the first senior-level French-Canadian hockey club. When this club transferred to the CAHL in 1905, they were replaced by the Montagnards. The author suggests that the battle between the CAHL and FAHL that ensued in the mid-nineteen-oughts is the reason that the French teams became accepted in senior hockey. The Nationals had been rebuffed by senior hockey before, but with a rival league to battle, establishing a French-Canadian fanbase was important. I certainly cannot argue against Guay's conclusion here, and it's a very interesting observation.<br />
<br />
The author proceeds with the development of the CAHL into the Eastern Canada league, but his illustration does not take note of the cross-pollination that occurred between the CAHL and FAHL, as Ottawa defected from the CAHL to the FAHL, and then went back, taking the Wanderers with them. Guay does correctly describe that the Eastern Canada league did not undertake a smooth transition to the NHA. In fact, arguably, the direct line of descent of AHAC to CAHL to ECAHA to ECHA ends with the Canadian Hockey Association, which began the 1909/10 hockey season but did not complete it, being absorbed by the National Hockey Association mid-season.<br />
<br />
Guay's direct line between the Federal league and the NHA is really also invalid. Only one team from the 1908/09 FHL season actually played in the NHA in 1909/10. The Wanderers came over from the ECHA, and the Canadiens were an entirely new team. The greatest representation in the inaugural NHA season was actually from the Temiskaming Professional Hockey League (Cobalt and Haileybury), thanks to J. Ambrose O'Brien's money. The NHA was not a continuation of any league when it first started, it was assembled from bits and pieces, but Guay's direct line from the Federal league to this one would suggest otherwise. With the NHA and CHA merged into one, senior hockey in Canada was well in the hands of the professional leagues.<br />
<br />
Overall, Guay gets quite a lot of the details wrong in the development of senior hockey in eastern Canada into the professional game in the 1910s. I can't give him a failing grade, but I can't say that I'm impressed:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtyxUney_aOGMuZw0cZF7ToyXqedFMbnDVDJpmUOu5zgIdd82zR__Cd5ZBNNILmlqqT2BYkeuxjvR0kme_vHCu4WB0Cl8Jk9X9OmTTHQ8oA4ud96rsr3tb1QYXcO_7bu9ehrDsoUd9z9w/s1600/Hockey+League+Lineage+1886+1917+per+Guay+marked+up.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtyxUney_aOGMuZw0cZF7ToyXqedFMbnDVDJpmUOu5zgIdd82zR__Cd5ZBNNILmlqqT2BYkeuxjvR0kme_vHCu4WB0Cl8Jk9X9OmTTHQ8oA4ud96rsr3tb1QYXcO_7bu9ehrDsoUd9z9w/s1600/Hockey+League+Lineage+1886+1917+per+Guay+marked+up.png" height="640" width="442" /></a></div>
Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-30301898542246949492014-08-11T11:15:00.000-03:002014-08-14T21:46:55.999-03:00Hall of Fame Standards for the Major-League Era (Part One)Any longtime fan of hockey knows that the identity of the
players in the Hockey Hall of Fame, and of the players who have not
been inducted, can be a source of great debate among the faithful.
Almost everyone has a favoured played they really feel deserve the
honour, and can name several players already in the Hall that
probably shouldn't be there, especially not ahead of their preferred
hockeyist. These disagreements arise not only because of the
selection committee's opaqueness when it comes to the selection
process, but also because there are obviously no objective standards
as to who should be a Hall-of-Famer and who should not. You cannot
look at a player's career, add up all his awards and accomplishments,
compare the total to a chart, and arrive at a “yes” or “no”
answer. It's just not that simple.<br />
<br />
However, even though there are no objective standards, we can try
to figure out whether the Hall of Fame selection committee has any
<i>implicit</i> standards; that is, standards that can be determined
based on who has been inducted into the Hall of Fame, and just as
importantly who has not, in a sort of reverse engineering of the
selection standards. Such a system could be used to discuss past
selections, but perhaps more interestingly it could also be used to
predict future inductees based on the career records of active or
recently-retired players. So, can we examine the career statistical
records of Hall-of-Famers and non-Hall-of-Famers, and come up with a
formula that represents the basis the selection committee apparently
used to select the players for the honour?<br />
<br />
As it turns out, we can derive these standards, and we call the
resulting system the Inductinator. The Inductinator calculates a
score for every hockey player, and any player who achieves a score of
<b>100 or more</b> meets the implicit standards of the Hall of Fame
selection committee. It's important to remember that this system is
not concerned with who <i>should</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
or </span><i>should not</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span>be
in the Hockey Hall of Fame, but rather to determine whether there are any set of standards that the selection committee could have used for the honourees. It's
descriptive rather than prescriptive; it does not deal with what
should be, but what is.<br />
<br />
The Inductinator results for players whose careers were primarily after 1930 make up the bulk of my contribution to <i>Hockey Abstract 2014</i>, available now. Here at <i>Hockey Historysis</i>, I'm going to take it back even further, and today we're going to look at the Inductinator for players whose careers primarily spanned 1912 to 1929, which I refer to the as the "major-league era" here, since it was the first time that competition for the the Stanley Cup was restricted to the major professional league or leagues (NHA, NHL, PCHA, WCHL and WHL).<br />
<br />
Like later eras, the system addresses forwards, defencemen and goaltenders separately. Later eras are generally easier, because of greater consistency in the statistics (since top players only played in one league for the most part) and because of the existence of annual individual awards. So while I was able to arrive at implicit standards that perfectly discriminate between Hall-of-Famers and non-Hall-of-Famers for 1930 and beyond, it's to be expected that earlier eras are more difficult. And indeed, there are some players from this era that I am not able to statistically make a Hall-of-Famer without also elevating dozens of other players who have not been honoured to the minimum score of 100. But it's actually only three players that I cannot account for, although a couple of others require something of a cheat to get them in, as we'll see. Just like in the Hockey Abstract, I'm going to go position-by-position, starting in goal.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Hall of Fame Standards for Major-League Era Goaltenders</b><br />
<b> </b>
<br />
As it turns out, the goaltenders for this era are really, really easy to develop implicit standards for. So easy, in fact, that there is an almost limitless number of ways in which you could do it. Also, you could do it with a single one of a number of statistics.<br />
<br />
For example, as you can see below, for goaltenders who played primarily in this era, there are only five netminders who played at least 333 top-level games, and they're all in the Hall of Fame. So you could say that any goalie who played at least 11 major-league seasons is a Hall-of-Famer. You could even say that any goalie who won a Stanley Cup as a starter is a Hall-of-Famer. There are other goalies who won a Cup in the years 1912 to 1929, however their careers were primarily after this era, and so are not included in this group.<br />
<br />
Of course I did not want to use any of these simplistic ideas for the Inductinator, so I put together something that seemed reasonable, considering not only the Hall-of-Famers but other goalies as well. I'll use Georges Vezina to illustrate. Vezina played 15 seasons of top-level hockey; he gets seven points for each of those seasons beyond the eighth, for 49 points. He gets 40 points for winning at least one Stanley Cup as a starter, and since he had at least one win for every two games played, he earned points there as well. He receives one point for each .001 that his winning percentage (wins divided by games played) exceeds .460, for 67 points. He died tragically in mid-career, and the Hall of Fame loves that kind of thing, so he gets 40 points for that as well. He also gets the maximum 30 points for his career games played. This brings his total to 226, well above the 100 minimum and more than any other netminder of the era. Note that for career statistics, for seasons before 1926/27 we consider professional stats, and after that season NHL stats only.<br />
<br />
The only thing Vezina misses out on is points for his GAA relative to league average. He had a career GAA of 3.40, which the league average for the seasons in which he played was 3.41. He would have received points if his GAA was .90 of the league average or less. Alec Connell, for instance, meets the Inductinator standard with his GAA alone, earning 114 points that way. It should be noted that while Percy LeSueur and especially Paddy Moran look bad by GAA, they played largely in earlier times than the others, when scoring was much higher. For the first half of Moran's career, he played in leagues that featured more than six goals per game.<br />
<style type="text/css">
table.tableizer-table {
border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif
font-size: 11px;
}
.tableizer-table td {
padding: 4px;
margin: 3px;
border: 1px solid #ccc;
}
.tableizer-table th {
background-color: #104E8B;
color: #FFF;
font-weight: bold;
}
</style><br />
<table class="tableizer-table">
<tbody>
<tr class="tableizer-firstrow"><th>GOALTENDER</th><th>HoF</th><th>SCORE</th><th>GP</th><th>W</th><th>GAA</th></tr>
<tr><td><b>Georges Vezina</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>226</b></td><td><b>328</b></td><td><b>173</b></td><td><b>3.41</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Alec Connell</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>205</b></td><td><b>417</b></td><td><b>193</b></td><td><b>1.91</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Clint Benedict</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>203</b></td><td><b>440</b></td><td><b>239</b></td><td><b>2.44</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Hugh Lehman</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>181</b></td><td><b>422</b></td><td><b>220</b></td><td><b>3.29</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Percy LeSueur</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>178</b></td><td><b>170</b></td><td><b>98</b></td><td><b>4.31</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Hap Holmes</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>140</b></td><td><b>409</b></td><td><b>198</b></td><td><b>2.81</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Paddy Moran</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>107</b></td><td><b>206</b></td><td><b>98</b></td><td><b>5.24</b></td></tr>
<tr><td>Hal Winkler</td><td>no</td><td>83</td><td>203</td><td>100</td><td>2.28</td></tr>
<tr><td>Bert Lindsay</td><td>no</td><td>64</td><td>150</td><td>66</td><td>5.37</td></tr>
<tr><td>Jake Forbes</td><td>no</td><td>26</td><td>210</td><td>85</td><td>2.76</td></tr>
<tr><td>Charles Stewart</td><td>no</td><td>18</td><td>77</td><td>30</td><td>2.45</td></tr>
<tr><td>Hec Fowler</td><td>no</td><td>17</td><td>186</td><td>83</td><td>3.64</td></tr>
<tr><td>Bill Laird</td><td>no</td><td>10</td><td>53</td><td>30</td><td>2.96</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<b>Hall of Fame Standards for Major-League Era Defencemen</b><br />
<b> </b>
<br />
Defencemen are a much more varied group than the goaltenders when it comes to Hall-of-Famers. There are 15 honoured defenders from this era, compared to five goaltenders. It is worth noting that players are included in this era if they had even one full season after 1911. This is the only way we can make sense of the inclusion or exclusion of certain players.<br />
<br />
Defencemen receive points from many things for their Inductinator score. Games played (adjusted to consider any seasons missed due to military service), points scored and points per game are all important. The number of senior seasons played, and the number played at the highest level are also considered. Stanley Cups won, and being the captain of a Stanley Cup champion are also very important. The number of years that the defenceman was a player-coach is included, and if he had a very long career as a coach after his playing days were over, he received some points for that. Players whose careers were ended early by injury or death have an adjustment for this fact.<br />
<br />
Since Québec-born Francophone players and US-trained players were fairly rare in this time period, such players receive a bonus to their Inductinator scores. Without this adjustment, it would be extremely difficult to see how Jack Laviolette had a Hall-of-Fame career.<br />
<br />
One player from this era that you might have wondered about is Gordon "Phat" Wilson, the great senior player for Port Arthur. Wilson never played professionally, and never played in the best senior leagues either. What he did do, and what it seems the Hall of Fame selection committee wished to reward, is be in the Allan Cup playdowns year in and year out. His teams qualified for the Allan Cup eight times and won the championship three times, and Wilson played 41 Allan Cup matches, scoring 29 points as a defenceman. No one else from this era can match these accomplishments, and as such it seems clear that Allan Cup play is what earned Phat Wilson his place in the Hall. <br />
<br />
The only one that I simply cannot explain with any kind of implicit standards is George McNamara. Although he was a very famous player in his day, especially in conjunction with his brother Howard with whom he shared the moniker "Dynamite Twins" due to their powerful body-checking, there is nothing remarkable about his career. If anything, his brother Howard had the more impressive career, and yet it is George who is in the Hall of Fame. Here he scores a big fat zero on the Inductinator as a player, and I cannot provide any reason for him to have been inducted based on his days as a player.<br />
<br />
The only thing that makes him stand out from his brother is that after his career, he was the coach of an Allan-Cup winning team, with Sault Ste. Marie in 1924. For some early players, the selection committee clearly did consider post-playing career accomplishments, as we will see. But it would be incredible to say that an Allan Cup championship as a coach for a former player would be worth, by itself, selection to the Hall of Fame. This was during probably the toughest era for the Allan Cup, since it was after a formal playoff system was instituted for the Allan Cup, and before the establishment of minor-league hockey which siphoned off so many quality senior players. Moreover, Eddie Carpenter, who scores at nine on the Inductinator for his playing career, was the coach of Port Arthur as they won two Allan Cups in 1925 and 1926. So if McNamara were to be enshrined for this accomplishment, surely Carpenter would have been as well. This strongly suggests tells us that this was not the implicit standard that McNamara benefited from. I gave both McNamara and Carpenter 20 points for this accomplishment, but that only puts George up to 20, though it does move him ahead of his brother who scores 17 based on his playing career.<br />
<br />
McNamara's score of zero as a player led me to a deep search for anything that made him stand out. I decided to check newspaper reports from the time that he was selected for the Hall of Fame, and made what could turn out to be a rather startling discovery. I checked several different Canadian newspapers from April 28, 1958, and they all say the same thing when discussing the newly-elected members of the Hall of Fame for that year. <a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=98pUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pTsNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5294%2C5102638" target="_blank">Here</a> is an example from the Regina <i>Leader-Post</i>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>NEW NAMES</i><br />
<br />
<i>Those added were:</i><br />
<br />
<i>Builders. Senator Donat Raymond, Montreal; the late George McNamara, Toronto; George Dudley, Midland, Ont.; the late Jim Norris Sr., Detroit; Conn Smythe, Toronto; Al Pickard, Regina; and Lloyd Turner, Calgary.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Players with the teams they were most closely identified with. Frank Boucher, New York; Frank (King) Clancy, Ottawa and Toronto...</i>"</blockquote>
George McNamara was listed as a builder, not as a player. Now, it remains entirely possible that the media was given erroneous information, and that McNamara was in fact supposed to be listed as a player. Indeed the Hockey Hall of Fame itself lists him as an Honoured Player. Frankly, his selection would make a great deal more sense in the builder category. A SIHR member related to me that McNamara contributed a substantial amount of cash toward
the construction of the International Hockey Hall of Fame in Kingston, and that he was generally quite philanthropic after his playing career was done, so it would make a great deal more sense as a basis for his induction than what he did on the ice.<br />
<br />
However, it seems that this is ultimately a red herring, that the player category is where McNamara was inducted. This was confirmed by a SIHR member via a contact at the Hall of Fame. But yet another SIHR member, Andrew Ross, actually <a href="http://hoghee.blogspot.ca/2006/07/should-howard-mcnamara-be-in-hockey.html" target="_blank">blogged about the McNamara induction</a> a few years ago. He noted that in a letter, Frank Selke Sr. (who was a member of the Hall of Fame selection committee) wrote that "<i>when George was admitted [to the Hall] Howard's wife told a friend of
mine that George could not carry Howard's skates. I asked [Art] Ross and
Lester [Patrick] about this and they said, which one was Howard?</i>"<br />
<br />
So perhaps it was supposed to be Howard. He would certainly have been a better choice based on his playing career, but the Inductinator still would not have been able to justify it. The McNamaras were a bit larger than life, and perhaps their reputation was all that was needed. Regardless, the selection of George McNamara is surrounded by quite a bit of confusion.<br />
<br />
Next time we will look at the forwards from this era.<br />
<br />
<table class="tableizer-table">
<tbody>
<tr class="tableizer-firstrow"><th>DEFENCEMAN</th><th>HoF</th><th>SCORE</th><th>GP</th><th>G</th><th>A</th><th>PTS</th><th>PIM</th></tr>
<tr><td><b>Eddie Gerard</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>249</b></td><td><b>250</b></td><td><b>170</b></td><td><b>76</b></td><td><b>246</b></td><td><b>325</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>George Boucher</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>218</b></td><td><b>496</b></td><td><b>151</b></td><td><b>91</b></td><td><b>242</b></td><td><b>927</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Sprague Cleghorn</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>209</b></td><td><b>377</b></td><td><b>174</b></td><td><b>105</b></td><td><b>279</b></td><td><b>849</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Lester Patrick</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>206</b></td><td><b>227</b></td><td><b>169</b></td><td><b>71</b></td><td><b>240</b></td><td><b>187</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Harry Cameron</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>180</b></td><td><b>350</b></td><td><b>220</b></td><td><b>95</b></td><td><b>315</b></td><td><b>490</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Reg Noble</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>173</b></td><td><b>541</b></td><td><b>195</b></td><td><b>109</b></td><td><b>304</b></td><td><b>982</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Art Ross</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>164</b></td><td><b>185</b></td><td><b>98</b></td><td><b>34</b></td><td><b>132</b></td><td><b>563</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Joe Hall</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>141</b></td><td><b>240</b></td><td><b>159</b></td><td><b>40</b></td><td><b>199</b></td><td><b>913</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Moose Johnson</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>109</b></td><td><b>257</b></td><td><b>122</b></td><td><b>50</b></td><td><b>172</b></td><td><b>505</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Herb Gardiner</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>109</b></td><td><b>277</b></td><td><b>76</b></td><td><b>47</b></td><td><b>123</b></td><td><b>147</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Jack Laviolette</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>102</b></td><td><b>235</b></td><td><b>98</b></td><td><b>34</b></td><td><b>132</b></td><td><b>489</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Joe Simpson</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>100</b></td><td><b>397</b></td><td><b>127</b></td><td><b>76</b></td><td><b>203</b></td><td><b>274</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Si Griffis</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>100</b></td><td><b>149</b></td><td><b>83</b></td><td><b>43</b></td><td><b>126</b></td><td><b>181</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Phat Wilson</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>100</b></td><td><b>117</b></td><td><b>56</b></td><td><b>24</b></td><td><b>80</b></td><td><b>148</b></td></tr>
<tr><td>Bobby Rowe</td><td>no</td><td>99</td><td>291</td><td>123</td><td>56</td><td>179</td><td>567</td></tr>
<tr><td>Goldie Prodger</td><td>no</td><td>91</td><td>234</td><td>115</td><td>40</td><td>155</td><td>262</td></tr>
<tr><td>Frank Patrick</td><td>no</td><td>88</td><td>124</td><td>105</td><td>38</td><td>143</td><td>106</td></tr>
<tr><td>Clem Loughlin</td><td>no</td><td>80</td><td>383</td><td>80</td><td>44</td><td>124</td><td>342</td></tr>
<tr><td>Art Duncan</td><td>no</td><td>80</td><td>382</td><td>96</td><td>69</td><td>165</td><td>406</td></tr>
<tr><td>Lloyd Cook</td><td>no</td><td>74</td><td>231</td><td>114</td><td>59</td><td>173</td><td>210</td></tr>
<tr><td>Walter Smaill</td><td>no</td><td>68</td><td>140</td><td>101</td><td>35</td><td>136</td><td>231</td></tr>
<tr><td>Hamby Shore</td><td>no</td><td>67</td><td>189</td><td>121</td><td>31</td><td>152</td><td>566</td></tr>
<tr><td>Bert Corbeau</td><td>no</td><td>60</td><td>341</td><td>83</td><td>55</td><td>128</td><td>939</td></tr>
<tr><td>Billy Coutu</td><td>no</td><td>57</td><td>300</td><td>45</td><td>21</td><td>67</td><td>532</td></tr>
<tr><td>Percy Traub</td><td>no</td><td>51</td><td>318</td><td>32</td><td>34</td><td>66</td><td>551</td></tr>
<tr><td>Leo Reise</td><td>no</td><td>50</td><td>329</td><td>80</td><td>54</td><td>134</td><td>276</td></tr>
<tr><td>Duke Dukowski</td><td>no</td><td>42</td><td>356</td><td>66</td><td>48</td><td>114</td><td>424</td></tr>
<tr><td>Muzz Murray</td><td>no</td><td>42</td><td>126</td><td>44</td><td>4</td><td>52</td><td>69</td></tr>
<tr><td>Gord Fraser</td><td>no</td><td>30</td><td>279</td><td>63</td><td>31</td><td>94</td><td>495</td></tr>
<tr><td>Eddie Carpenter</td><td>no</td><td>29</td><td>192</td><td>52</td><td>12</td><td>64</td><td>330</td></tr>
<tr><td>Bobby Trapp</td><td>no</td><td>28</td><td>257</td><td>47</td><td>45</td><td>92</td><td>264</td></tr>
<tr><td>Harry Mummery</td><td>no</td><td>27</td><td>239</td><td>62</td><td>32</td><td>94</td><td>602</td></tr>
<tr><td><b>George McNamara</b></td><td><b>yes</b></td><td><b>20</b></td><td><b>139</b></td><td><b>37</b></td><td><b>17</b></td><td><b>54</b></td><td><b>291</b></td></tr>
<tr><td>Slim Halderson</td><td>no</td><td>19</td><td>218</td><td>62</td><td>44</td><td>106</td><td>318</td></tr>
<tr><td>Howard McNamara</td><td>no</td><td>17</td><td>152</td><td>54</td><td>20</td><td>74</td><td>456</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-44447715288436929602014-08-08T13:00:00.001-03:002014-08-08T13:00:02.200-03:00Puckerings archive: Isolating Team Defence (01 Aug 2001)<i>What follows is a post from my old hockey analysis site <b>puckerings.com</b>
(later hockeythink.com). It is reproduced here for posterity; bear in
mind this writing is over a decade old and I may not even agree with it
myself anymore. This post
was originally published on August 1, 2001 and was updated on
April 10,
2002.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<i><b><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Isolating Team Defence</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><i>Copyright Iain Fyffe, 2002</i></span><br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Probably the most
difficult aspect of hockey to quantify is defence. Among official stats,
we basically only have goals-against average (team) and plus-minus
(individual). I will not discuss plus-minus, as my emphasis here is on
team defence. Another way of looking at defence is by using marginal
goal analysis, which forms the basis for the Point Allocation system<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070623114426/http://www.puckerings.com/research/ptalloc.html"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: navy;"></span></span></a>. This essay details another way of examining team defence, Defensive Winning Percentage.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Goals-against average is
not sufficient for the evaluation of team defence, for two reasons.
First, it varies with the level of goal-scoring in general, making
direct comparisons across years difficult. Second, and most important,
goals-against average is made up of two things: team defence and
goaltending. What we need is a method for separating the two.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The DWP method stems from the Neutral Winning Percentage system<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070623114426/http://www.puckerings.com/research/nwinpct.html"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: navy;"></span></span></a>
for goaltenders. In that essay, we arrive at a winning percentage for
goaltenders that is (for the most part) attributable only to the
goaltender, not to the team he plays for. And since offence is
relatively easy to quantify, that leaves only one facet of the game not
measured: defence.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">What we need now is a
formula that combines all of the following elements: team winning
percentage, offence, defence, and goaltending. No such formula exists,
but we can adapt one for our use. Bill James developed a Pythagorean
Winning Percentage formula for baseball, which uses offence and defence
together to calculate an expected winning percentage. It works quite
well. Marc Foster of the HRA adapted this concept to hockey, and the formula
(for modern times) looks something like this:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> TWP = GF^2 / (GF^2 + GA^2)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Where TWP is the team’s
(expected) winning percentage, GF is goals for and GA is goals against.
The exponent is more accurately set at 2.03, but for our purposes, we
will use the simpler exponent of 2.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Goals against are
determined by two things: defence and goaltending. For our purposes
(creating a measure of team defence), we will make an assumption on how
to separate the two. Since at any time there are (usually) five players
on the ice who are responsible for defence, and only one for
goaltending, we will assume that defence is five times more important
than goaltending in determining goals against.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">To keep the presentation
constant, we will work only with winning percentages. This has the
additional benefit of making numbers from one year directly comparable
with numbers from another. We have team winning percentage (TWP) and
goaltender (neutral) winning percentage (GWP) so far. In order to
calculate defensive winning percentage (DWP), we will first need to
calculate offensive winning percentage (OWP).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">To calculate OWP, we use a
method similar to the one used in calculating GWP. First, we compile
the records of all teams in the league for each level of goals scored
(0, 1, 2, 3, etc.). This gives us a winning percentage determined by the
number of goals you score, independent of how many goals you allow.
Thus, it measures only offence.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Second, we compile the
number of times each team scores each number of goals. However, since we
want this to be free of any bias created by the opponent’s defence, we
must make an adjustment. For each opponent, we calculate a multiplier
based on their goals-against average relative to the league
goals-against average. Thus, if a team allows 3.00 goals per game, and
the league average is 2.50, this team will have a multiplier of 0.83
(2.50/3.00), reflecting the relative ease with which you can score on
this opponent. So if you score 5 goals against this opponent, you get
credit for only 4.15 (5 x 0.83), which is rounded off to 4.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Now, using the winning
percentages for each number of goals and the number of times each team
scores each number of goals, we can calculate a weighted-average winning
percentage. This is the OWP, and it (in theory) reflects only the
quality of team offence.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Now, we can express the Pythagorean Formula as follows, bearing in mind the assumptions we have made thus far:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> TWP = OWP^2 / {OWP^2 + [1- (5/6 x DWP + 1/6 x GWP)]^2}</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">With some simple algebraic manipulation, the formula for DWP is:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"> DWP = 1.2 - .2 x GWP - 1.2 x OWP x (1/TWP - 1)^.5</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">One of the nice things
about using the Pythagorean Formula is that it captures the synergies
that exist in hockey. Winning is not linear; the results of
above-average goaltending, offence, and defence is greater that the sum
of the individual parts. With this method, having a .500 OWP, GWP and
DWP will produce a .500 TWP. However, if several of these factors are
above-average, the TWP will not increase linearly. Results for 2000/01
are included at the end of this essay; examine them to see what I mean.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">DWP is really only a rough measure. When examining it, please remember the following points:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">(a) it absorbs all the error present in the Pythagorean Formula,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">(b) it assumes defence is fives times as important as goaltending in preventing goals,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">(c) it assumes the GWP and OWP calculations are accurate, and</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">(d) it indicates only how defence was played, not the potential for defence; it can be influenced by strategy.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>2000/01 NHL Results</b></span><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 50% cellspacing=px;"><tbody>
<tr>
<td> Team</td>
<td> TWP</td>
<td> OWP</td>
<td> GWP</td>
<td> DWP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Anaheim</td>
<td> .372</td>
<td> .404</td>
<td> .487</td>
<td> .473</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Atlanta</td>
<td> .354</td>
<td> .446</td>
<td> .485</td>
<td> .380</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Boston</td>
<td> .488</td>
<td> .498</td>
<td> .467</td>
<td> .494</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Buffalo</td>
<td> .591</td>
<td> .483</td>
<td> .585</td>
<td> .600</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Calgary</td>
<td> .421</td>
<td> .445</td>
<td> .492</td>
<td> .475</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Carolina</td>
<td> .518</td>
<td> .451</td>
<td> .512</td>
<td> .576</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Chicago</td>
<td> .402</td>
<td> .461</td>
<td> .459</td>
<td> .433</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Colorado</td>
<td> .650</td>
<td> .609</td>
<td> .536</td>
<td> .557</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Columbus</td>
<td> .396</td>
<td> .406</td>
<td> .523</td>
<td> .494</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Dallas</td>
<td> .634</td>
<td> .535</td>
<td> .559</td>
<td> .600</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Detroit</td>
<td> .652</td>
<td> .566</td>
<td> .531</td>
<td> .598</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Edmonton</td>
<td> .549</td>
<td> .554</td>
<td> .484</td>
<td> .501</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Florida</td>
<td> .348</td>
<td> .436</td>
<td> .526</td>
<td> .379</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Los Angeles</td>
<td> .543</td>
<td> .557</td>
<td> .507</td>
<td> .485</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Minnesota</td>
<td> .384</td>
<td> .375</td>
<td> .563</td>
<td> .517</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Montreal</td>
<td> .390</td>
<td> .465</td>
<td> .499</td>
<td> .402</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Nashville</td>
<td> .470</td>
<td> .418</td>
<td> .579</td>
<td> .552</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> New Jersey</td>
<td> .659</td>
<td> .610</td>
<td> .517</td>
<td> .570</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> NY Islanders</td>
<td> .299</td>
<td> .394</td>
<td> .438</td>
<td> .388</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> NY Rangers</td>
<td> .433</td>
<td> .555</td>
<td> .435</td>
<td> .351</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Ottawa</td>
<td> .640</td>
<td> .595</td>
<td> .536</td>
<td> .557</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Philadelphia</td>
<td> .591</td>
<td> .521</td>
<td> .521</td>
<td> .576</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Phoenix</td>
<td> .530</td>
<td> .458</td>
<td> .561</td>
<td> .570</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Pittsburgh</td>
<td> .567</td>
<td> .591</td>
<td> .491</td>
<td> .482</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> St.Louis</td>
<td> .598</td>
<td> .564</td>
<td> .519</td>
<td> .541</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> San Jose</td>
<td> .561</td>
<td> .474</td>
<td> .586</td>
<td> .580</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Tampa Bay</td>
<td> .329</td>
<td> .428</td>
<td> .495</td>
<td> .368</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Toronto</td>
<td> .518</td>
<td> .490</td>
<td> .503</td>
<td> .532</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Vancouver</td>
<td> .506</td>
<td> .531</td>
<td> .429</td>
<td> .485</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Washington</td>
<td> .561</td>
<td> .508</td>
<td> .552</td>
<td> .550</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-21631052430420252792014-08-08T11:00:00.000-03:002014-08-08T11:00:00.761-03:00Hockey Abstract 2014 - Out Now!One project I've been working on this summer is contributing to a new edition of Rob Vollman's <a href="http://www.hockeyabstract.com/2014edition" target="_blank"><i>Hockey Abstract</i></a>. I've known Rob for a very long time, since early on in the internet hockey analytics days when I was publishing research on <i>Puckerings.com</i>. He wrote and published the first edition of the Abstract last year. This year, he recruited me and another long-time chum of ours, Tom Awad (of GVT fame) to contribute to it. We're very excited to be able to work on a project like this together after all these years, and I think we've put together a very solid product.<br />
<br />
<i>Hockey Abstract 2014</i> is primarily devoted to the analysis of current players and teams, of course. However, my main contribution to the book is a thorough discussion of the players in the Hall of Fame. The <a href="http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/puck/article.php?articleid=585" target="_blank">Inductinator</a> was a tool I developed at <i>Hockey Prospectus</i>, designed to predict future Hall-of-Fame inductees based on data from the modern (post-expansion) players who were already in the Hall. It was an attempt to discover <i>implicit</i> Hall-of-Fame standards; it is meant to predict who <i>will be</i> honoured, not necessarily who <i>should be</i>. Anyone with a score of 100 or more on the Inductinator is expected to be a Hall-of-Famer, with higher scores having shorter waiting times than lower scores.<br />
<br />
For the Abstract, I first refined my model based on recent Hall of Fame inductions, but being me I wasn't happy just discussing the present and future, I wanted to go back in time as well. So I extended the Inductinator all the way back to 1930, when the NHL adopted essentially modern offside rules. Although I was initially skeptical that I would be able to do so, ultimately I was actually able to develop implicit standards for all players back to 1930 such that every player who is in the Hall of Fame scores at least 100, while every player who is not scores at most 99. So the Inductinator actually performs two functions: not only are we able to predict future Hall-of-Famers with it, but we can shed some light on past Hall-of-Famers as well, to see what the selection committee has apparently considered to be important in selecting players.<br />
<br />
Although in the Abstract I only take the analysis back to 1930, I have also extended the Inductinator back to the beginning of the first hockey league in Canada, in 1886. I have not been able to achieve a 100% success rate at isolating Hall-of-Famers from the other players before 1930, however there are only a few exceptions. Next week I will be posting some discussion of early Hall-of-Famers so you can see what I mean.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, please have a look at the 2014 edition of <i><a href="http://www.hockeyabstract.com/2014edition" target="_blank">Hockey Abstract</a></i>. I don't think you'll be disappointed. It's available in both print and PDF formats.Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-56743976654964416052014-08-01T13:00:00.010-03:002014-08-01T13:00:02.781-03:00Puckerings archive: Unbiased Standings (31 Jul 2001)<i>What follows is a post from my old hockey analysis site
</i><i><b>puckerings.com</b></i><i> (later hockeythink.com). It is
reproduced here for posterity; bear in mind this writing is over a
decade old and I may not even agree with it myself anymore. This post
was originally published on July 31, 2001 and was updated on November 13, 2002.</i>
<br />
<br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<i><b><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Unbiased Standings</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><i>Copyright Iain Fyffe, 2002</i></span><br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">As we all know,
unbalanced schedules (that is, not playing the same number of games all
other teams) create bias in the final standings for any given year.
Teams that play within weaker divisions may be overrated, since they
play more games against weaker teams, and teams playing in stronger
divisions may be underrated.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Using the 1995/96 NHL
season, I calculated an unbiased ranking of teams. That is, for each
team I calculated the winning percentage versus every other team, and
computed the simple average of these percentages. This eliminates the
distortion created by playing different numbers of games against certain
teams. I then converted these percentages into a number of points for
82 games, which produced a new overall ranking. Here are the
team-by-team results:</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 40% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> Team</td>
<td> Old Pts</td>
<td> New Pts</td>
<td> Old Rank</td>
<td> New Rank</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Anaheim*</td>
<td> 78</td>
<td> 82</td>
<td> t-17</td>
<td> 13</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Boston</td>
<td> 91</td>
<td> 89</td>
<td> 8</td>
<td> t-9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Buffalo*</td>
<td> 73</td>
<td> 70</td>
<td> 20</td>
<td> 20</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Calgary</td>
<td> 79</td>
<td> 81</td>
<td> t-15</td>
<td> t-14</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Chicago</td>
<td> 94</td>
<td> 100</td>
<td> 6</td>
<td> 5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Colorado</td>
<td> 104</td>
<td> 102</td>
<td> 2</td>
<td> 3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Dallas*</td>
<td> 66</td>
<td> 63</td>
<td> t-22</td>
<td> 23</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Detroit</td>
<td> 131</td>
<td> 128</td>
<td> 1</td>
<td> 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Edmonton*</td>
<td> 68</td>
<td> 68</td>
<td> t-22</td>
<td> 23</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Florida</td>
<td> 92</td>
<td> 89</td>
<td> 7</td>
<td> t-9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Hartford*</td>
<td> 77</td>
<td> 84</td>
<td> 19</td>
<td> 12</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Los Angeles*</td>
<td> 66</td>
<td> 65</td>
<td> t-22</td>
<td> 22</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Montreal</td>
<td> 90</td>
<td> 90</td>
<td> 9</td>
<td> 8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> New Jersey*</td>
<td> 86</td>
<td> 81</td>
<td> 12</td>
<td> t-14</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> NY Islanders*</td>
<td> 54</td>
<td> 56</td>
<td> 24</td>
<td> 24</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> NY Rangers</td>
<td> 96</td>
<td> 97</td>
<td> 5</td>
<td> 6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Ottawa*</td>
<td> 41</td>
<td> 46</td>
<td> 26</td>
<td> 26</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Philadelphia</td>
<td> 103</td>
<td> 107</td>
<td> 3</td>
<td> 2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Pittsburgh</td>
<td> 102</td>
<td> 101</td>
<td> 4</td>
<td> 4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> St.Louis</td>
<td> 80</td>
<td> 79</td>
<td> t-13</td>
<td> 16</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> San Jose*</td>
<td> 47</td>
<td> 47</td>
<td> 25</td>
<td> 25</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Tampa Bay</td>
<td> 88</td>
<td> 87</td>
<td> 11</td>
<td> 11</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Toronto</td>
<td> 80</td>
<td> 74</td>
<td> t-13</td>
<td> 18</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Vancouver</td>
<td> 79</td>
<td> 76</td>
<td> t-15</td>
<td> 17</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Washington</td>
<td> 89</td>
<td> 91</td>
<td> 10</td>
<td> 7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Winnipeg</td>
<td> 78</td>
<td> 72</td>
<td> t-17</td>
<td> 19</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">For most teams, the difference is minor. However, some are worth noting.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Hartford wins the
Divisional Whipping-Boy Award, for being the most victimized by the
unbalanced schedule. They move up 7 points when the bias is removed, and
move up 7 places in the overall standings. Quite a difference, eh?
Imagine Hartford in the playoffs!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Toronto wins (?) the
Abuser of the Year Award, for taking advantage of the system. They lose 6
points, and 5 places in the standings when everything is equalized.
They shouldn’t have even been in the playoffs, with their standing of
18th overall.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The playoff picture would
have been quite different. Teams marked with a star in the above table
missed the playoffs in reality. Ideally, the top 16 teams would make the
playoffs, rather than the mishmash of divisional winners and
conference-based determinations.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The playoff teams that
shouldn’t have made it are Toronto, Vancouver, and Winnipeg. Speaking as
a Canadian hockey fan, maybe this system isn’t so bad after all.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The non-playoff teams
that should have made it are Anaheim, Hartford, and New Jersey. It’s a
travesty that the Devils, ranked 12th in the league overall in reality,
were denied the chance to defend their championship.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">I’m not arguing that
unbalanced scheduling should be abandoned. The realities of travel costs
prohibit that. However, it is an interesting exercise to see who
benefits and who suffers from the arrangement. Just food for thought.</span>Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-44120540677655837042014-07-29T13:00:00.000-03:002014-07-29T13:00:01.141-03:00In-Depth Review: L'histoire du hockey au Québec, Part 4<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-CA</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
This is the fourth part of my in-depth review of Donald Guay's 1990 book <i>L'histoire
du hockey au Québec: Origine et développement d'un phénomène culturel avant
1917</i> ("The History of Hockey in Quebec: The origin and development of
a cultural phenomenon before 1917"). Please note that since the book is
written in French, any time I quote from the book, I will provide both the
original passage in bold italics, followed by my translation in regular
italics.<br />
<br />
Here I begin to address chapter three, which discusses the organization of hockey in Quebec. I'm not sure yet how many posts it will take to cover this chapter, but it will be a few since this is by far the longest chapter in the book, taking up over one-third of the total page count. But let's get started.<br />
<br />
Guay begins by noting that one charactestic of the organization of sports is the tendecy for teams to join together to form leagues, made up of teams of approximately equal strength. This was and is generally done along the lines of age groups - juvenile, junior, intermediate and senior - though this is not always the case (for example, commercial leagues that are organized by employer or by profession.) The explosion in the number of hockey leagues in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is an illustration of the enormous growth in popularity of hockey in Canada. The first hockey league was formed in 1886, and Guay notes that by 1917, 81 different hockey leagues had been mentioned in the Montreal press. This isn't to say that there were 81 hockey leagues in 1917, since many had come and gone by that point, but the fact is clear. The growth in the game in Canada was indeed remarkable.<br />
<br />
Before the Amateur Hockey Association of Canada (AHAC) came into being in 1886, there was the Montreal Winter Carnival hockey tournament, the first of which was held in 1883. McGill won the Carnival Cup that winter over the Montreal Victorias and Quebec HC. This tournament was also played in 1884 and 1885, but the carnival was cancelled in 1886. Two things happened as a result of this cancellation, one which Guay makes note of and one which he omits. Guay does not mention that there was a winter carnival hockey tournament played in 1886, but it was in Burlington, Vermont as two Montreal teams travelled there to take on a local side. This was the first international hockey tournament, though admittedly it doesn't have much relevance to the development of hockey in Montreal.<br />
<br />
Guay does discuss the 1886 Montreal city championships. With the carnival tournament cancelled, the clubs of the city decided to play a season-long series to determine the champion for the year. Each of the four clubs (AAA, Victorias, McGill, and the eventual champion Crystals) would play each other club twice over the winter. This illustrates that the clubs were not simply playing in the carnival tournaments for fun or sport; they specifically wanted to crown a champion. As such, even though in chapter one Guay suggests that sport is played with the goal of honourable victory, and that the stake can be something as simple as the satisfaction of winning, the hockey clubs of Montreal had already moved beyond that. Winning wasn't enough; they wanted recognition for their victories.<br />
<br />
Indeed, it seems the creation of the AHAC was in part due to the desire for recognition. Guay quotes a Montreal Gazette sports writer, who in December 1886 suggested that the AHAC would provide "<i>a higher standard of excellence, both as a game and in the eyes of the public</i>." (p.75). As such it seems clear that the views of the public were relevant to sport, or at the very least to the organization of sport. This is not something that Guay addressed when addressing his proposed dichotomy of games versus sports with his six criteria in chapter one of the book, and indeed it illustrates the issue of making such a binary distinction.<br />
<br />
Now, Guay's distinction was between game and sport, not between organized sport and non-organized sport or whatever you might call it, but the principle is the same. These are best viewed as continuums, where particular versions of an activity can lay at any point along the scale. The creation of a hockey league increased the organization in hockey, certainly, but one cannot say that it created organization in hockey, since there was some level of organization in hockey already. Drawing a line in the middle of the scale and declaring that everything to one side of the line is "organized hockey" (while the other side is not) is far too simplistic and limits understanding. This also applies to making such a distinction between game and sport.<br />
<br />
Guay notes that the AHAC modelled their constitution on that of the Dominion Lacrosse Association, and points out the tendency for amateur athletic organizations to centralize authority rather than allow for democratic decision-making. This results in sweeping powers being given to a small group of executives. Sometimes even a single powerful individual could serve as judge, jury and executioner in amateur sport. Guay is absolutely correct to point out that this put the AHAC <i><b>«en situation de conflit d'intérêt permanent...»</b></i> ("<i>in a permanent situation of conflict of interest.</i>") (p. 76)<br />
<br />
Ultimately it would be this tendency for centralized authority in amateur hockey which would spped along the later development of the professional version of the game, as the draconian rulings handed down by the Ontario Hockey Association in the late 1890s forced former amateur hockeyists to seek money for their efforts as they were forced out of the "pure" sport. Guay does not really address the fact that this centralized authority, and the issues that he rightly states it creates, would seem to disqualify amateur hockey from this time from his previous definition of "sport", since fair play would so often be left aside for petty politics and tyrannical decrees by executives.<br />
<br />
It also seems professional hockey would thus be excluded from his definition of sport, since monetary concerns would seems overtake sportsmanship. Indeed the moral panic of anti-professionalism started early in hockey. Guay notes that a Gazette sports writer in 1888 suggested that the Montreal AAA and other clubs might be paying their players. Readers rebuffed him, but he said the future would bear him out. It's odd that the AAA would be the only team specifically mentioned by the writer; years later when eastern hockey became openly professional, the Winged Wheelers were one of two teams to withdraw from the league rather than become a pro side.<br />
<br />
Guay begins to delve into the history of AHAC seasons. Strangely enough, when the AHAC began play in the winter of 1886/87, they did not use the series system that the Montreal teams had adopted for 1886. They played a challenge system in 1887, wherein the team currently holding the championship title could be challenged by another team, and the winner of that game would become the current title-holder, and on and on until the season came to a close, when the team holding the title at that time was declared the season's champion. A series system was played in 1888, but the league returned to a challenge format from 1889 to 1892, at least in part to make it easier for teams outside Montreal to participate. The Ottawa and Quebec clubs would have difficulty playing a series system due to the financial constraints of amateur hockey.<br />
<br />
The results of the 1892 season illustrate the significant issue with the challenge system. Ottawa won nine straight matches during the season, but lost their final challenge match to the Montreal AAA, who had failed in three previous challenges that season. But there was no more time for hockey that winter, and as such, the AAA (with their record of one win and three losses) was declared champion over Ottawa (who had nine wins and one loss). The system had previously been called "supremely ridiculous" in 1890 (p.81), when the AAA had gone undefeated in nine matches, and it was recognized that if they had lost their last match, they would not have been champions. The absurdity of the system should be apparent to any modern hockey fan, and was realized by at least some fans at the time, but it was the system they used.<br />
<br />
The thing is, and this is not from Guay but my own observation, that hockey today still effectively uses a challenge system to decide the season's champion. The concept of annual playoffs appended to the regular season is exactly the same as using a challenge system to decide a champion. The regular season, played as a series, is merely used to seed the playoffs, which is a challenge system. The league (for example, the NHL) decides which teams are allowed to challenge which other teams based on the results on the regular season, until it comes down to a winner-take all final series, after all other teams have been eliminated by losing four out of seven games, regardless of how many they had won before that time.<br />
<br />
In theory, an NHL team could go 82-0 in the regular season and sweep the first three rounds of the playoffs to reach the championship final with a record of 94-0. Their opponent could be a team that was 41-41 during the season and won the first three rounds in seven games each, for a record of 53-50. And yet, if the latter team beats the former four games out of seven (raising their season record to 57-53), they will be declared champion over the team that won 97 out of 101 games that year. The possibility of this sort of result was recognized to be "supremely ridiculous" in 1890, and yet now it is so deeply ingrained in North American hockey that most fans would not understand any other way of doing it. Annual playoffs are taken for granted in North American sports, and I don't think many fans really stop to consider this potential absurdity.<br />
<br />
When a series system was finally adopted on a permanent basis by the AHAC for the 1892/93 season, the move was hailed, as the fixed schedule of game would be much better for the fans, which again illustrates the importance the views of the public had in the development of organized hockey. Once again Guay mentions this but does not really give it due consideration, and how it affects his ideas about the criteria that are representative of sports.<br />
<br />
Next time, we'll get into some of the trials and tribulations faced by amateur hockey in the late 20th century, many of which it ultimately brought on itself.Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4949598516429271901.post-75060541421610444402014-07-25T13:00:00.001-03:002014-07-25T13:00:00.134-03:00Puckerings archive: Neutral Winning Percentage (27 Jul 2001)<i>What follows is a post from my old hockey analysis site <b>puckerings.com</b>
(later hockeythink.com). It is reproduced here for posterity; bear in
mind this writing is over a decade old and I may not even agree with it
myself anymore. This post
was originally published on July 27, 2001 and was updated on
April 9,
2002.</i><br />
<br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<i><b><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Neutral Winning Percentage</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><i>Copyright Iain Fyffe, 2002</i></span><br />
<hr noshade="noshade" />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">This essay describes a
method for evaluating goaltenders which is, in theory, free from bias
created by the team the goalie plays for and the teams he faces. It
developed from an idea proposed by Marc Foster, president of the Hockey
Research Association. This idea was to adapt Michael Wolverton's
support-neutral pitcher records for used in hockey.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Support-neutral records
remove the effect of team offence from a pitcher’s won-lost record,
thereby producing a result that more fairly evaluates a pitcher’s
performance. Foster proposed to adapt this method to calculate
offence-neutral records for goaltenders, as follows.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Each goaltender’s season
is broken down by the number of times which he allows zero goals in a
game, one goal in a game, two goals, and so on. The records for all
teams in the league are then broken down based on the number of goals
they allowed in each game. We then use these league numbers to compute
an expected record for the goaltender, based on the number of times he
allowed each number of goals against.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">For instance, the breakdown by goals against for the 2000/01 NHL season is as follows:</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 50% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> GA</td>
<td> #</td>
<td> W</td>
<td> W%</td>
<td> L</td>
<td> L%</td>
<td> T</td>
<td> T%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 0</td>
<td> 186</td>
<td> 172</td>
<td> .92</td>
<td> 0</td>
<td> .00</td>
<td> 14</td>
<td> .08</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1</td>
<td> 406</td>
<td> 316</td>
<td> .78</td>
<td> 28</td>
<td> .07</td>
<td> 62</td>
<td> .15</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 2</td>
<td> 595</td>
<td> 340</td>
<td> .57</td>
<td> 141</td>
<td> .24</td>
<td> 114</td>
<td> .19</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 3</td>
<td> 520</td>
<td> 171</td>
<td> .33</td>
<td> 275</td>
<td> .53</td>
<td> 74</td>
<td> .14</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 4</td>
<td> 365</td>
<td> 58</td>
<td> .16</td>
<td> 275</td>
<td> .75</td>
<td> 32</td>
<td> .09</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 5</td>
<td> 228</td>
<td> 16</td>
<td> .07</td>
<td> 206</td>
<td> .90</td>
<td> 6</td>
<td> .03</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 6</td>
<td> 111</td>
<td> 5</td>
<td> .05</td>
<td> 104</td>
<td> .94</td>
<td> 2</td>
<td> .01</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 7+</td>
<td> 49</td>
<td> 0</td>
<td> .00</td>
<td> 49</td>
<td> .00</td>
<td> 0</td>
<td> .00</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td> 2460</td>
<td> 1078</td>
<td></td>
<td> 1078</td>
<td></td>
<td> 304</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">So, if a goalie allows 2
goals in a game, we expect him to win 57% of the time, lose 24% of the
time, and tie 19%. We therefore give him credit for 0.57 wins, 0.24
losses, and 0.19 ties for each game in which he allows 2 goals. We
multiply the number of games in which he allows each number of goals by
the appropriate factors for wins, losses and ties. Adding the results
gives us a won-lost-tied record. We then convert the record into a
winning percentage, so we can compare goaltenders directly.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">This winning percentage
is offence-neutral. The number of goals the goaltender’s team scores has
no effect upon the percentage. The bias resulting from playing for a
high- or low-scoring team is eliminated.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Foster’s idea, as
presented above, is a good first step. But we can go further and remove
even more team-related bias from a goaltender’s record. This is, in
fact, the point of this exercise: to remove all team effects from a
goalie’s record, so we can evaluate the goalie based solely upon his
efforts.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">We have already
eliminated the distortion caused by team offence. Two types of
distortion remain: distortion from team defence, and distortion from
opponent’s offence. Fortunately, both of these can be compensated for.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Distortion from team defence</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">In the essay entitled
“Goaltender Perseverance: a Useless Stat”, I demonstrate that the number
of shots a goalie faces is a function of his team. Thus, a goaltender
who faces a large number of shots is being unfairly penalized for
playing for his particular team. This distortion must be removed to
effectively compare goaltenders.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">To control for this
distortion, we should not evaluate a goalie based on the actual number
of goals he allows, but on the number of goals he would allow when
facing an average number of shots. In this was, we remove the bias
resulting from facing a high or low number of shots.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Unfortunately, some
distortion will remain. Team defence affects not only the number of
shots faced, but the quality of shots faced. However, this distortion
cannot be removed because we cannot determine the effect it has on a
goalie’s save percentage. Still, this distortion is present in all
methods currently used for evaluating goaltenders (including save
percentage), so even if it is present in Neutral Winning Percentage,
this method is still an improvement.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Distortion from opponent's offence</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The idea here is
basically the same as Keith Woolner’s Pitcher’s Quality of Opposition.
If a goalie faces teams who are more better shooters (that is, have
higher scoring percentages), he will give more goals, even when his
shots against are normalized.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">A goaltender’s adjusted
goals against in a game (based on average shots) should therefore be
further adjusted, depending on the shooting percentage of the team
faced. When facing a team with an above-average shooting percentage, the
goals against would be adjusted downward, reflecting the greater
challenge faced. Conversely, a low-shooting-percentage team produces an
upward adjustment.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>Application of the method</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">For each game, the
goaltender’s actual save percentage for that game is applied to an
adjusted number of shots to produce an adjusted number of goals against.
This goals against figure is rounded to the nearest whole number, since
it is impossible to allow 2.3 goals in a game (for example).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">The adjusted shots against is calculated thusly:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">LgShotsPerGame x (LgShootPct/OppShootPct)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Where:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">LgShotsPerGame is the total shots in the league divided by the total games played in the league</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">LgShootPct is the total goals in the league divided by the total shots in the league</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">OppShootPct is the opponent’s goals divided by the opponent’s shots</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">Each level of adjusted
goals against (0,1,2...) is compiled for each goaltender, and the record
is then computed as described earlier.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">One further thing needs
discussion: what to do when a goalie does not play a full game. In such a
case, the same process is used, but instead of receiving credit for a
full game, the goalie receives credit for whatever portion of the
opponent's shots he faced. For instance, if a goaltender faces half the
shots in a game, the resulting wins, losses and ties for that game are
each multiplied by one-half.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>2000/01 NHL results</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">I computed the Neutral
Winning Percentage (NWP) for all goalies for the 2000/01 NHL season.
Complete results follow. For discussion purposes, here are the leaders
and trailers in NWP (minimum 30 ‘decisions’):</span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 50% cellspacing=px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td> Leaders</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Trailers</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 1.</td>
<td> Manny Fernandez</td>
<td> .611</td>
<td></td>
<td> 1.</td>
<td> Dan Cloutier</td>
<td> .430</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 2.</td>
<td> Mike Dunham</td>
<td> .610</td>
<td></td>
<td> 2.</td>
<td> J.S.Aubin</td>
<td> .437</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 3.</td>
<td> Dominik Hasek</td>
<td> .604</td>
<td></td>
<td> 3.</td>
<td> Mike Vernon</td>
<td> .449</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 4.</td>
<td> Yevgeny Nabokov</td>
<td> .599</td>
<td></td>
<td> 4.</td>
<td> Trevor Kidd</td>
<td> .451</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 5.</td>
<td> Sean Burke</td>
<td> .594</td>
<td></td>
<td> 5.</td>
<td> Guy Hebert</td>
<td> .452</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 6.</td>
<td> Roman Cechmanek</td>
<td> .593</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Mike Richter</td>
<td> .452</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td> Roberto Luongo</td>
<td> .593</td>
<td></td>
<td> 7.</td>
<td> Bob Essensa</td>
<td> .456</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 8.</td>
<td> Manny Legace</td>
<td> .566</td>
<td></td>
<td> 8.</td>
<td> Marc Denis</td>
<td> .456</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 9.</td>
<td> Ron Tugnutt</td>
<td> .556</td>
<td></td>
<td> 9.</td>
<td> Jocelyn Thibault</td>
<td> .472</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> 10.</td>
<td> Patrick Lalime</td>
<td> .554</td>
<td></td>
<td> 10.</td>
<td> Damian Rhodes</td>
<td> .482</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td> Patrick Roy</td>
<td> .554</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">So, even though Fernandez
and Dunham were marginally better, Hasek was a good choice as Vezina
winner. It remains to be seen whether the young goalies, such as
Fernandez, Dunham, Nabokov, Luongo and Legace, will be able to maintain
their high levels of performance. Players like Vernon and Richter seem
to be surviving on reputation alone.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;">One of the great
advantages of this method is that numbers from one year to the next are
directly comparable. Since NWP is based on the averages for that season,
we need make no further adjustments to compare different seasons. A
.600 NWP is just as impressive in 2000/01 as it is in 1990/91 or
1980/81.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial;"><b>2000/01 NHL Neutral Winning Percentages</b></span><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" style="width: 70% cellspacing=px;"><tbody>
<tr>
<td> Goalie</td>
<td> Team(s)</td>
<td> Dec</td>
<td> NWP</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Goalie</td>
<td> Team(s)</td>
<td> Dec</td>
<td> NWP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Aebischer</td>
<td> Col</td>
<td> 23.0</td>
<td> .489</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Kochan</td>
<td> TB</td>
<td> 5.1</td>
<td> .422</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Aubin</td>
<td> Pgh</td>
<td> 34.2</td>
<td> .437</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Kolzig</td>
<td> Wsh</td>
<td> 70.8</td>
<td> .545</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Belfour</td>
<td> Dal</td>
<td> 60.9</td>
<td> .541</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> LaBarbera</td>
<td> NYR</td>
<td> 0.1</td>
<td> 1.000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Bierk</td>
<td> Min</td>
<td> 1.0</td>
<td> .100</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Lalime</td>
<td> Ott</td>
<td> 59.7</td>
<td> .554</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Billington</td>
<td> Wsh</td>
<td> 10.9</td>
<td> .583</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Larocque</td>
<td> Chi</td>
<td> 2.5</td>
<td> .240</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Biron</td>
<td> Buf</td>
<td> 15.3</td>
<td> .529</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Legace</td>
<td> Det</td>
<td> 35.0</td>
<td> .566</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Boucher</td>
<td> Phi</td>
<td> 24.8</td>
<td> .355</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Luongo</td>
<td> Fla</td>
<td> 43.4</td>
<td> .593</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Brathwaite</td>
<td> Cgy</td>
<td> 44.5</td>
<td> .528</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Maracle</td>
<td> Atl</td>
<td> 12.5</td>
<td> .448</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Brodeur</td>
<td> NJ</td>
<td> 69.8</td>
<td> .527</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Mason</td>
<td> Nsh</td>
<td> 0.9</td>
<td> .389</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Burke</td>
<td> Phx</td>
<td> 59.8</td>
<td> .594</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> McLean</td>
<td> NYR</td>
<td> 20.3</td>
<td> .451</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Cechmanek</td>
<td> Phi</td>
<td> 56.4</td>
<td> .593</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> McLennan</td>
<td> Min</td>
<td> 36.4</td>
<td> .533</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Cloutier</td>
<td> TB-Van</td>
<td> 31.5</td>
<td> .430</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Moss</td>
<td> Car</td>
<td> 9.2</td>
<td> .250</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Dafoe</td>
<td> Bos</td>
<td> 41.4</td>
<td> .545</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Nabokov</td>
<td> SJ</td>
<td> 60.9</td>
<td> .599</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Denis</td>
<td> Clb</td>
<td> 30.2</td>
<td> .465</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Naumenko</td>
<td> Ana</td>
<td> 1.2</td>
<td> .083</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Dipietro</td>
<td> NYI</td>
<td> 18.2</td>
<td> .390</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Noronen</td>
<td> Buf</td>
<td> 1.9</td>
<td> .395</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Dunham</td>
<td> Nsh</td>
<td> 46.5</td>
<td> .610</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Osgood</td>
<td> Det</td>
<td> 46.9</td>
<td> .504</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Esche</td>
<td> Phx</td>
<td> 22.2</td>
<td> .471</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Ouellet</td>
<td> Phi</td>
<td> 1.3</td>
<td> .538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Essensa</td>
<td> Van</td>
<td> 34.0</td>
<td> .456</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Parent</td>
<td> Pgh</td>
<td> 5.3</td>
<td> .509</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Fankhouser</td>
<td> Atl</td>
<td> 4.3</td>
<td> .535</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Passmore</td>
<td> LA-Chi</td>
<td> 17.6</td>
<td> .497</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Fernandez</td>
<td> Min</td>
<td> 40.5</td>
<td> .611</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Potvin</td>
<td> Van-LA</td>
<td> 57.3</td>
<td> .496</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Fichaud</td>
<td> Mtl</td>
<td> 1.0</td>
<td> .550</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Raycroft</td>
<td> Bos</td>
<td> 10.8</td>
<td> .454</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Fiset</td>
<td> LA</td>
<td> 5.3</td>
<td> .377</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Rhodes</td>
<td> Atl</td>
<td> 34.0</td>
<td> .482</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Flaherty</td>
<td> NYI-TB</td>
<td> 18.5</td>
<td> .389</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Richter</td>
<td> NYR</td>
<td> 43.8</td>
<td> .452</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Fountain</td>
<td> Ott</td>
<td> 0.9</td>
<td> .389</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Roussel</td>
<td> Ana-Edm</td>
<td> 16.6</td>
<td> .434</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Gage</td>
<td> Edm</td>
<td> 4.4</td>
<td> .307</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Roy</td>
<td> Col</td>
<td> 58.9</td>
<td> .554</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Garon</td>
<td> Mtl</td>
<td> 9.2</td>
<td> .505</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Salo</td>
<td> Edm</td>
<td> 71.7</td>
<td> .507</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Giguere</td>
<td> Ana</td>
<td> 33.5</td>
<td> .534</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Scott</td>
<td> LA</td>
<td> 0.4</td>
<td> .000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Grahame</td>
<td> Bos</td>
<td> 7.9</td>
<td> .418</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Shields</td>
<td> SJ</td>
<td> 18.6</td>
<td> .548</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Gustafson</td>
<td> Min</td>
<td> 4.0</td>
<td> .463</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Skudra</td>
<td> Bos</td>
<td> 18.5</td>
<td> .384</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Hackett</td>
<td> Mtl</td>
<td> 16.3</td>
<td> .387</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Snow</td>
<td> Pgh</td>
<td> 33.5</td>
<td> .525</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Hasek</td>
<td> Buf</td>
<td> 64.2</td>
<td> .604</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Tallas</td>
<td> Chi</td>
<td> 10.5</td>
<td> .405</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Healy</td>
<td> Tor</td>
<td> 14.3</td>
<td> .339</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Terreri</td>
<td> NJ-NYI</td>
<td> 14.7</td>
<td> .422</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Hebert</td>
<td> Ana-NYR</td>
<td> 49.8</td>
<td> .452</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Theodore</td>
<td> Mtl</td>
<td> 54.9</td>
<td> .530</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Hedberg</td>
<td> Pgh</td>
<td> 9.1</td>
<td> .560</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Thibault</td>
<td> Chi</td>
<td> 63.4</td>
<td> .472</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Hirsch</td>
<td> Wsh</td>
<td> 0.3</td>
<td> 1.000</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Tugnutt</td>
<td> Clb</td>
<td> 51.8</td>
<td> .556</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Hnilicka</td>
<td> Atl</td>
<td> 31.0</td>
<td> .495</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Turco</td>
<td> Dal</td>
<td> 21.1</td>
<td> .609</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Holmqvist</td>
<td> NYR</td>
<td> 2.0</td>
<td> .300</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Turek</td>
<td> StL</td>
<td> 53.1</td>
<td> .505</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Hurme</td>
<td> Ott</td>
<td> 21.3</td>
<td> .491</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Vanbiesbrouck</td>
<td> NYI-NJ</td>
<td> 43.4</td>
<td> .486</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Irbe</td>
<td> Car</td>
<td> 72.7</td>
<td> .545</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Vernon</td>
<td> Cgy</td>
<td> 37.1</td>
<td> .449</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Johnson</td>
<td> StL</td>
<td> 28.0</td>
<td> .546</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Vokoun</td>
<td> Nsh</td>
<td> 34.6</td>
<td> .542</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Joseph</td>
<td> Tor</td>
<td> 67.6</td>
<td> .538</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Weekes</td>
<td> TB</td>
<td> 55.5</td>
<td> .509</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Khabibulin</td>
<td> TB</td>
<td> 2.0</td>
<td> .525</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Whitmore</td>
<td> Bos</td>
<td> 3.6</td>
<td> .139</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Kidd</td>
<td> Fla</td>
<td> 38.7</td>
<td> .451</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> Yeremeyev</td>
<td> NYR</td>
<td> 3.6</td>
<td> .208</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Kiprusoff</td>
<td> SJ</td>
<td> 2.6</td>
<td> .558</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Iain Fyffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10700943806242207382noreply@blogger.com0