KoreAmBear;842321377 said:

---

Also the Kings win a great percentage of the face-offs. Yes, forechecking by grinders like Williams, Stoll and Brown really is key. Getting a finisher like Gaborik at the trade deadline was also big for the Kings, who were not scoring goals until the playoffs.

---

It's reminescent of 2 years ago when the Kings picked up Carter and that really seemed to ignite them. Gaborik is sorta an anomoly player for the Kings. A true offensive guy, whereas the majority of their guys really are true two way or defensive guys.

moonpod;842321399 said:

---

It's reminescent of 2 years ago when the Kings picked up Carter and that really seemed to ignite them. Gaborik is sorta an anomoly player for the Kings. A true offensive guy, whereas the majority of their guys really are true two way or defensive guys.

---

Both Carter and Gaborik from Columbus. Thank you Blue Jackets!

The two sports are so similar when the playoffs begin. Seems what becomes the game winning hit or defensive play in baseball and/or what enables that shot to go in and that one to hit the post or deflect into the net off a defenseman's skate is in the hands of the gods. As an aside, the college team I follow, Boston University, in the NCAA championship game a few years ago, scored 2 goals in the last 2 minutes to tie and won in OT. (think the Bruins did something similar vs Leafs last year game 7). In hockey and baseball, ya never know.

Lord Stanley wants to go back to the Kings:rollinglaugh:

BearNIt;842321423 said:

---

Lord Stanley wants to go back to the Kings:rollinglaugh:

---

We will welcome him back with open arms! Go Kings Go!

LocoOso;842321454 said:

---

We will welcome him back with open arms! Go Kings Go!

---

+1

BearNIt;842321423 said:

---

Lord Stanley wants to go back to the Kings:rollinglaugh:

---

Well, he certainly doesn't seem to want to come anywhere near the Bay Area. Or Vancouver, for that matter.

moonpod;842321355 said:

---

I think teams tend to "tighten up" and play less "wide open" hockey in the playoffs. So the teams that "skate better" (Chicago. San Jose) don't necessarily do as well in the playoffs vs a team with a bunch of grinders and a solid goalie and that plays opportunistic offense (LA)

---

In some years this may be true, but this season scoring has actually been higher in the playoffs than it was in the regular season. 5.62 goals per game in the playoffs so far, vs. 5.32 in the regular season.

GB54 said:

---

Playoffs are much more physical but less penalties are called. This favors tougher, more relentless teams, ones that can wear down the opposition. Depth is much more important because the playoffs are a war of attrition. Goaltending is better because you are only seeing number ones and the best rise to the occasion. (The biggest surprise about the Hawks and Kings was how average the goalies were both with save % under 90). Match ups and coaching and special teams are more important because you are playing three to four lines and two to three sets of D over multiple games against the same team. Normally all this favors teams with strong backlines, exceptional goal tending and physical teams that can forecheck and pressure the opposition. Most of these games are usually decided by breaks, opportunism and mistakes

---

Re penalties, there have been more PP opps in the playoffs than in the regular season: 7.1 power play opportunities per game in the playoffs vs. 6.5 in the reg season. PP percentages are almost identical (18.0% in playoffs vs 17.9% in reg season), and there have been more PP goals in playoffs than in reg season (1.3 per game vs. 1.2).


Re depth, I think depth is actually less important in the playoffs. With more on the line and (on average) more rest between games, teams have been riding their big guns more, and playing their 4th liners and 3rd pair d-men less.

E.g., Hawks used Keith more in playoffs than regular season, but Leddy less in playoffs than reg season.

Same for Kings with Doughty.

Re goaltending, scoring is actually up. I see no evidence that goaltending has been better in the playoffs than it was in the reg season.

sycasey said:

---

People do say these things, but at the same time they have those theories about baseball, and there are always plenty of examples to disprove the claim. That's another sport where the playoff results tend to feel pretty random (but there are fewer playoff teams and a longer regular season, so the champion is less likely to be flukey).

So I don't know. I can see the idea that the Kings play a more playoff-friendly style, but then again the Blackhawks would seem to have a similar style to the Sharks, and they won the Stanley Cup last year.

---

I agree completely. There is huge tendency to seek reasons for outcomes that are largely random, and this over-attribution is especially prevalent in sports. Randomness is greater in hockey than in any of the other big 4 sports, but stat-heads and traditionalists alike are constantly trying to explain the outcomes.

Maybe Kings are so good in the playoffs because they have size and grit? Or maybe they are good because they dominate Corsi and other possession stats, and this was bound to lead to more goals scored eventually?

Or maybe the truth is that the Kings got to the finals with a playoff record of 12-9. They were hardly dominant, despite their size, grit, and Corsi numbers. Hawks were 11-7 in the playoffs and Habs were 10-7. But each was less fortunate than Kings in the way their wins were arranged.

LA is a very good team that had some bad luck/under-performance in the regular season, added a blue chip forward at trade deadline, and has had some good luck/over-performance in the playoffs. I hesitate to read much more into their playoff success than that.

Mr. Frumble;842322254 said:

---

LA is a very good team that had some bad luck/under-performance in the regular season, added a blue chip forward at trade deadline, and has had some good luck/over-performance in the playoffs. I hesitate to read much more into their playoff success than that.

---

And as long as the cup comes to LA...being just a little better or luckier than the other teams is good enough. GO KINGS GO!

Game yesterday was INTENSE!

Only one other team has a shot at the Cup. Lucky or not, they are plenty good. Our FB team needs whatever the Kings have.

1979bear;842322264 said:

---

Only one other team has a shot at the Cup. Lucky or not, they are plenty good. Our FB team needs whatever the Kings have.

---

Yup. I would love for us to luck into a Rose Bowl. We were unlucky in 1994 when we had a made for Rose Bowl team, but our two most important players went down in a game we were leading 21-3 in the third quarter. We were unlucky in 2004 that there was one less BCS game. We were unlucky that Mack Brown was so desperate. We were unlucky in 2006 when about 10 things mysteriously happened in relative rapid succession v. Arizona that made us lose that game (we were up 17-0 at halftime even playing horribly). Luck is a good thing too (not Andrew but the concept). I noticed that weird things happen to us in years ending 4 (good but weird and then winding up in a face plant). Maybe this is our year (at least to have some success, then face plant)? Right now, ANY success would be appreciated. We had NO success last year. That win over Portland State last season did not feel like a win.

KoreAmBear;842322267 said:

---

Yup. I would love for us to luck into a Rose Bowl. We were unlucky in 1994 when we had a made for Rose Bowl team, but our two most important players went down in a game we were leading 21-3 in the third quarter. We were unlucky in 2004 that there was one less BCS game. We were unlucky that Mack Brown was so desperate. We were unlucky in 2006 when about 10 things mysteriously happened in relative rapid succession v. Arizona that made us lose that game (we were up 17-0 at halftime even playing horribly). Luck is a good thing too (not Andrew but the concept). I noticed that weird things happen to us in years ending 4 (good but weird and then winding up in a face plant). Maybe this is our year (at least to have some success, then face plant)? Right now, ANY success would be appreciated. We had NO success last year. That win over Portland State last season did not feel like a win.

---

We're also unlucky in that probably our two best teams in this stretch (1991 and 2004) happened in the same year as another Pac-10 program having a historically GREAT season (UW, USC). In a different year those teams may have been good enough to make the Rose Bowl.

sycasey;842322275 said:

---

We're also unlucky in that probably our two best teams in this stretch (1991 and 2004) happened in the same year as another Pac-10 program having a historically GREAT season (UW, USC). In a different year those teams may have been good enough to make the Rose Bowl.

---

Yup completely aware of that. Meanwhile, Furd goes to the RB in the 1999 season (Boller's freshman year) in a historically bad Pac-10 year. Furd lost to Texas 66 to something that year, as well as to San Jose State, yet recovered to qualify for the Rose Bowl.

My point was about penalties not necessarily power plays. Penalties don't always equate to power plays. There is less chippy stuff called and much less fighting which means less double minors and majors. This in spite of the fact that there is much more hitting.

Disagree about goal tending being equal in regular and post season. The best-like the best pitchers- do raise their games. Also number of goals trends downward as the playoffs advance although this year was anomalous in that both semi finalists had high scoring games. See Nate Silver and another link

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/whos-the-hottest-goalie-in-the-nhl-playoffs/

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/round-2-when-the-goals-go-away-in-the-nhl-playoffs/article18583679/?service=mobile

Also will disagree about depth. Four potential seven game series means a lot of guys are hurt and gassed. Plus you are getting hit much more than in the regular season-that affects both body and psyche. None of the injuries are really stated until after the series.

I think the outcomes are often random but the strategy to build a cup winner focuses on physical teams with strong team D's and goaltending with the objective being to wear down opponents and win a low scoring game. Now there a ton of variables that make that not work include individual heroics, luck, experience and character

moonpod;842322262 said:

---

And as long as the cup comes to LA...being just a little better or luckier than the other teams is good enough. GO KINGS GO!

Game yesterday was INTENSE!

---

Amen to that! Rangers actually played well, they were fast and fresh, but it didn't matter in the end. 1 down, 3 more to go.

Go Kings Go!

GB54;842322311 said:

---

Disagree about goal tending being equal in regular and post season. The best-like the best pitchers- do raise their games. Also number of goals trends downward as the playoffs advance although this year was anomalous in that both semi finalists had high scoring games. See Nate Silver and another link

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/whos-the-hottest-goalie-in-the-nhl-playoffs/

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/round-2-when-the-goals-go-away-in-the-nhl-playoffs/article18583679/?service=mobile

Also will disagree about depth. Four potential seven game series means a lot of guys are hurt and gassed. Plus you are getting hit much more than in the regular season-that affects both body and psyche. None of the injuries are really stated until after the series.

I think the outcomes are often random but the strategy to build a cup winner focuses on physical teams with strong team D's and goaltending with the objective being to wear down opponents and win a low scoring game. Now there a ton of variables that make that not work include individual heroics, luck, experience and character

---

As I said in my previous post, in some years scoring is down in the playoffs relative to regular season, but this season it is up.

There is no evidence that goaltending has been better in the 2014 playoffs than it was in the regular season. The goals per game data suggest the opposite.

The Mirtle article is not really on point, as it is talking about scoring levels dipping from the first round to the second round, and uses data from the 12 and 13 playoffs to show that in those years save percentage rose as the playoffs went on, and goals scored declined.

This year, scoring has been higher in the playoffs than it was in the regular season, and there has been pattern as the playoffs have progressed:
Round 1 had 5.88 goals per game (282 in 48)
Round 2 had 4.70 goals per game (127 in 27)
Round 3 had 6.62 goals per game (86 in 13).


The 538 article is also not really on point, as it discusses hot goalies, and how hot goaltending is important to winning, rather than whether overall goaltending improves in the playoffs.

Re depth, I have not done or seen a systematic analysis of stars' icetime in playoffs vs. regular season, but looking at the two marquee D-men, Keith and Doughty, their ice time (in absolute minutes per game and in percentage of total D-man ice time (thus accounting for OT games) has gone up in the playoffs).

Four potential seven game series is a lot of hockey, but due to the extra offdays it is fewer games per week than the regular season. E.g., Kings have played the most games of anyone, 22, but that has been over 50 days, with their next one not scheduled until Saturday. That is a slower pace than regular season.

Yes, the games are more intense, but because of the higher stakes that is all the more reason to ride your big guns more.


Re your larger point, that "the strategy to build a cup winner focuses on physical teams with strong team D's and goaltending with the objective being to wear down opponents and win a low scoring game," is there any evidence to support this? The Hawks have won two of the last five Cups, and are not particularly physical, or good defensively.

Mr. Frumble;842322334 said:

---

As I said in my previous post, in some years scoring is down in the playoffs relative to regular season, but this season it is up.

There is no evidence that goaltending has been better in the 2014 playoffs than it was in the regular season. The goals per game data suggest the opposite.

The Mirtle article is not really on point, as it is talking about scoring levels dipping from the first round to the second round, and uses data from the 12 and 13 playoffs to show that in those years save percentage rose as the playoffs went on, and goals scored declined.

This year, scoring has been higher in the playoffs than it was in the regular season, and there has been pattern as the playoffs have progressed:
Round 1 had 5.88 goals per game (282 in 48)
Round 2 had 4.70 goals per game (127 in 27)
Round 3 had 6.62 goals per game (86 in 13).


The 538 article is also not really on point, as it discusses hot goalies, and how hot goaltending is important to winning, rather than whether overall goaltending improves in the playoffs.

Re depth, I have not done or seen a systematic analysis of stars' icetime in playoffs vs. regular season, but looking at the two marquee D-men, Keith and Doughty, their ice time (in absolute minutes per game and in percentage of total D-man ice time (thus accounting for OT games) has gone up in the playoffs).

Four potential seven game series is a lot of hockey, but due to the extra offdays it is fewer games per week than the regular season. E.g., Kings have played the most games of anyone, 22, but that has been over 50 days, with their next one not scheduled until Saturday. That is a slower pace than regular season.

Yes, the games are more intense, but because of the higher stakes that is all the more reason to ride your big guns more.


Re your larger point, that "the strategy to build a cup winner focuses on physical teams with strong team D's and goaltending with the objective being to wear down opponents and win a low scoring game," is there any evidence to support this? The Hawks have won two of the last five Cups, and are not particularly physical, or good defensively.

---

I think you dismiss Silver too quickly. As he points out goalie save percentage is statistically the biggest determinant of a team's success and an increase in that % in playoffs a key determinant of playoff success. I concede that doesn't mean that all goal tending is better in the playoffs; but when it is better a team can go deep

As far as depth goes, more minutes for Keith, Doughty, Chara, Subban, etc is not an argument against needing depth. These guys are the bell weathers of their teams and will always be on the ice when needed though Keith and Chara both looked ineffective at times. The depth argument is more important for second and third sets of D. You know that Keith will be on the ice when Kopitar is but the Kings have three good lines running now and it's the second and third sets of D that will be ruthlessly attacked and exploited. I think the depth argument is hard to quantify as regular season vs playoff minutes don't seem regularly available but I think you put too much emphasis on time (rest)and not enough on the physical condition of the athletes. NHL players more than any others play through injuries .

With regard to types of teams that are built for the Cup I think there is some evidence that team defense is correlates with success. Here are the regular season rankings (least goals per game)for the last four finalists

2014. Kings #1 vs Rangers #4
2013 Chicago #1 vs Boston #3
2012 Kings #2 vs Jersey #9
2011 Vancouver #1 vs Boston #2
2010 Chicago 6 vs Philly 15

GB54;842322657 said:

---

I think you dismiss Silver too quickly. As he points out goalie save percentage is statistically the biggest determinant of a team's success and an increase in that % in playoffs a key determinant of playoff success. I concede that doesn't mean that all goal tending is better in the playoffs; but when it is better a team can go deep

---

I agree with Silver in that save percentage is the biggest determinant of a team's success, and that an increase in save % in playoffs is a key determinant of playoff success. My point is that this is irrelevant to the question of whether goaltending in general improves in the playoffs.
(And, as a side note, the more interesting question is how to predict which goalies will rise to the top in the playoffs. Goaltending seems like one of the most random elements in a sport that is already random. Check out the Vezina finalists - much more turnover here than with Norris or Hart. And in playoffs, due to small sample, even more randomness. Lots of Steve Penneys.)

GB54;842322657 said:

---

As far as depth goes, more minutes for Keith, Doughty, Chara, Subban, etc is not an argument against needing depth. These guys are the bell weathers of their teams and will always be on the ice when needed though Keith and Chara both looked ineffective at times. The depth argument is more important for second and third sets of D. You know that Keith will be on the ice when Kopitar is but the Kings have three good lines running now and it's the second and third sets of D that will be ruthlessly attacked and exploited. I think the depth argument is hard to quantify as regular season vs playoff minutes don't seem regularly available but I think you put too much emphasis on time (rest)and not enough on the physical condition of the athletes. NHL players more than any others play through injuries .

---

Yes, i agree that my measure is not ideal. But I haven't found an article addressing the point, and I don't have the time to do a systematic comparison of 3rd pair D-men or 4th line forward icetime in reg season vs. playoffs. I did Nick Leddy, because it was apparent that he was seeing less ice time in the playoffs, and the stats bore this out, but of course that is only one guy and I shouldn't read anything into that.
if you know of a study, let me know.

GB54;842322657 said:

---

With regard to types of teams that are built for the Cup I think there is some evidence that team defense is correlates with success. Here are the regular season rankings (least goals per game)for the last four finalists

2014. Kings #1 vs Rangers #4
2013 Chicago #1 vs Boston #3
2012 Kings #2 vs Jersey #9
2011 Vancouver #1 vs Boston #2
2010 Chicago 6 vs Philly 15

---

That is interesting. I went back to the full year lockout and here are the rankings in GF.

2006 Car 3 vs. Edm 13.5 (two-way tie for 13th)
2007 Ana 7.5 vs. Ott 2
2008 Det 3 vs. Pit 7
2009 Pit 5 vs. Det 1
2010 Chi 3 vs Phi 10
2011 Det 8 vs. Van 1
2012 LA 29 vs. NJD 11.5
2013 Chi 2 vs. Bos 11
2014 LA 25 vs. NYR 18

For GA:
2006 Car 18.5 Edm 13
2007 Ana 7 Ott 10
2008 Det 1 Pit 8
2009 Pit 18 Det 19
2010 Chi 5 Phi 14.5
2011 Bos 1 Van 3
2012 LA 2 NJD 8
2013 Chi 1 Bos 3
2014 LA 1 NYR 4

avg GF ranking of the two finalists has been 9th.
avg GA ranking of the two finalists has been 8th.

Just curious. Has there been any team in the playoffs that have won more overtime games than the Kings?

bonsallbear;842323445 said:

---

Just curious. Has there been any team in the playoffs that have won more overtime games than the Kings?

---

The Habs won 10 OT games in the 93 playoffs.

The NHL is the one professional sport where one player... in this case the goalie... can carry a team to a championship.

In 2012 Jonathan Quick established himself as an elite goaltender, dominated the competition and basically lifted the the Kings to the Stanley Cup. Last night's performance was classic Quick. It didn't matter how many shots on goal the Rangers got, they were not scoring last night. Not when Quick is dialed in like that.

3 down, one to go. Go Kings Go!

LocoOso;842323451 said:

---

The NHL is the one professional sport where one player... in this case the goalie... can carry a team to a championship.

In 2012 Jonathan Quick established himself as an elite goaltender, dominated the competition and basically lifted the the Kings to the Stanley Cup. Last night's performance was classic Quick. It didn't matter how many shots on goal the Rangers got, they were not scoring last night. Not when Quick is dialed in like that.

3 down, one to go. Go Kings Go!

---

Quick is the new Roy. #GoKingsGo!

Mr. Frumble;842323438 said:

---

I agree with Silver in that save percentage is the biggest determinant of a team's success, and that an increase in save % in playoffs is a key determinant of playoff success. My point is that this is irrelevant to the question of whether goaltending in general improves in the playoffs.
(And, as a side note, the more interesting question is how to predict which goalies will rise to the top in the playoffs. Goaltending seems like one of the most random elements in a sport that is already random. Check out the Vezina finalists - much more turnover here than with Norris or Hart. And in playoffs, due to small sample, even more randomness. Lots of Steve Penneys.)



Yes, i agree that my measure is not ideal. But I haven't found an article addressing the point, and I don't have the time to do a systematic comparison of 3rd pair D-men or 4th line forward icetime in reg season vs. playoffs. I did Nick Leddy, because it was apparent that he was seeing less ice time in the playoffs, and the stats bore this out, but of course that is only one guy and I shouldn't read anything into that.
if you know of a study, let me know.







That is interesting. I went back to the full year lockout and here are the rankings in GF.

2006 Car 3 vs. Edm 13.5 (two-way tie for 13th)
2007 Ana 7.5 vs. Ott 2
2008 Det 3 vs. Pit 7
2009 Pit 5 vs. Det 1
2010 Chi 3 vs Phi 10
2011 Det 8 vs. Van 1
2012 LA 29 vs. NJD 11.5
2013 Chi 2 vs. Bos 11
2014 LA 25 vs. NYR 18

For GA:
2006 Car 18.5 Edm 13
2007 Ana 7 Ott 10
2008 Det 1 Pit 8
2009 Pit 18 Det 19
2010 Chi 5 Phi 14.5
2011 Bos 1 Van 3
2012 LA 2 NJD 8
2013 Chi 1 Bos 3
2014 LA 1 NYR 4

avg GF ranking of the two finalists has been 9th.
avg GA ranking of the two finalists has been 8th.

---

Yes, but the team with the better defensive ranking won 7 out of 8 of those cups.

Are you a Corsi or Fenwick fan? Can't say I am.

GB54;842323464 said:

---

Yes, but the team with the better defensive ranking won 7 out of 8 of those cups.

---

Indeed. You may have something there.

What I would like to see is a simple examination of when two teams meet in the playoffs, what percentage of the time does the team with more regular season points win, what percentage of the time does the team with more regular season GF win, what percentage of the time does the team with fewer regular season GA win, etc. Could also break it down to only consider series when there is a significant difference between the two teams for the variable in question.


What surprised me most about those GF and GA ranking stats is how anomalous the Kings are.

Over those 9 seasons, only 5 of the 18 finalists have been in the bottom half of the league in GF or GA. The 09 Pens and Hawks were 18th and 19th in GA, the 14 NYR were 18th in GF, and then you have the 12 and 14 LAK who were 29th and 25th in GF.

I doubt any other NHL team that was second last in GF or GA has ever won the Cup (or even made the finals) in the expansion era. In fact, I doubt any NFL, MLB, or NBA team has made its league's finals after having finished in the bottom 2 in runs/points for or against in the regular season. I doubt even bottom 6 teams have made the finals any other time, and the LAK have done it twice in three seasons.

And in each its not like they won in the playoffs with stellar D and a lackluster offense. Rather, in both 12 and 14, the offense came alive in the playoffs.

In 2012, they went from 2.29 GF/game in reg season (29th/30 teams) to 2.85 GF/game in playoffs (3rd/16 teams).

In 2014, they went from 2.42 GF/game in reg season (26th/30) to 3.50 GF/game in playoffs (1st/16).

Trade deadline additions (Carter in 12 and Gaborik in 14) explain part of it, but there is more to it than that.

For me, at least, the question isn't how do they turn on the offense in the playoffs, but how does such a good offense coast during the regular season? How can an offense that looks so good on paper, and that performs so well in the playoffs, be so awful in the regular season?

GB54;842323464 said:

---

Are you a Corsi or Fenwick fan? Can't say I am.

---

I think there is a place for advanced stats in the game, but I don't think Corsi and Fenwick are particularly good. If there were a better measure of puck possession, I think it may have decent predictive power.

It doesn't help that the biggest proponents of Corsi and Fenwick, at least in the mainstream media, are guys like Mirtle who do not appear to be very intelligent or convincing.

And more than advanced stats, I think there a place for analytical thinking in the game. What Bill James and Pete Palmer did for baseball was, IMHO more about changing how we think about the game, and how we use/interpret already available data, than in inventing new stats to measure it.

Hockey will always be more challenging because the game is continuous rather than discrete, but I think some progress could be made.

Mr. Frumble;842323475 said:

---

Indeed. You may have something there.

What I would like to see is a simple examination of when two teams meet in the playoffs, what percentage of the time does the team with more regular season points win, what percentage of the time does the team with more regular season GF win, what percentage of the time does the team with fewer regular season GA win, etc. Could also break it down to only consider series when there is a significant difference between the two teams for the variable in question.


What surprised me most about those GF and GA ranking stats is how anomalous the Kings are.

Over those 9 seasons, only 5 of the 18 finalists have been in the bottom half of the league in GF or GA. The 09 Pens and Hawks were 18th and 19th in GA, the 14 NYR were 18th in GF, and then you have the 12 and 14 LAK who were 29th and 25th in GF.

I doubt any other NHL team that was second last in GF or GA has ever won the Cup (or even made the finals) in the expansion era. In fact, I doubt any NFL, MLB, or NBA team has made its league's finals after having finished in the bottom 2 in runs/points for or against in the regular season. I doubt even bottom 6 teams have made the finals any other time, and the LAK have done it twice in three seasons.

And in each its not like they won in the playoffs with stellar D and a lackluster offense. Rather, in both 12 and 14, the offense came alive in the playoffs.

In 2012, they went from 2.29 GF/game in reg season (29th/30 teams) to 2.85 GF/game in playoffs (3rd/16 teams).

In 2014, they went from 2.42 GF/game in reg season (26th/30) to 3.50 GF/game in playoffs (1st/16).

Trade deadline additions (Carter in 12 and Gaborik in 14) explain part of it, but there is more to it than that.

For me, at least, the question isn't how do they turn on the offense in the playoffs, but how does such a good offense coast during the regular season? How can an offense that looks so good on paper, and that performs so well in the playoffs, be so awful in the regular season?




I think there is a place for advanced stats in the game, but I don't think Corsi and Fenwick are particularly good. If there were a better measure of puck possession, I think it may have decent predictive power.

It doesn't help that the biggest proponents of Corsi and Fenwick, at least in the mainstream media, are guys like Mirtle who do not appear to be very intelligent or convincing.

And more than advanced stats, I think there a place for analytical thinking in the game. What Bill James and Pete Palmer did for baseball was, IMHO more about changing how we think about the game, and how we use/interpret already available data, than in inventing new stats to measure it.

Hockey will always be more challenging because the game is continuous rather than discrete, but I think some progress could be made.

---

I agree. It is different to quant because it is a flow game with many not a few players and multiple matchups. The other thing that complicates is that it is a symbiotic game. Who you play with matters a lot. A trained chimp could score 20 goals playing along Joe Thornton (hell I could probably score 10 and I'm in my 60's) but the resultant high corsi numbers are meaningless. It's also meaningless if your first objective is to keep Sydney Crosby from scoring rather than score yourself.

Also agree about the Kings. For some reason their symbiotic powers seem to rise in the post season. They just seem to start peaking on all facets of the game at the right time. Now, we all know that the regular season in the NHL in some ways is jockeying for position but I don't think Sutter takes his foot off these guys throats. He's a tough guy.

My wife-no hockey analyst-but having been forced to watch many games through decades- came in and watched a couple of minutes of last nights game and said "the Kings have a plan as a team, the Rangers are flying solo" It was a good observation. The Kings seem to just elevate their games within the context of a team-do all the many things together and help each other play better. If this was easy to quantify, everyone would do it.

GB54;842323498 said:

---

A trained chimp could score 20 goals playing along Joe Thornton (hell I could probably score 10 and I'm in my 60's) but the resultant high corsi numbers are meaningless.

---

but are these regular season or playoff goals?

ColoradoBear1;842323512 said:

---

but are these regular season or playoff goals?

---

Regular season. I'd be in traction if it was playoffs.

GB54;842323515 said:

---

Regular season. I'd be in traction if it was playoffs.

---

the chimp might be ok though.

ColoradoBear1;842323516 said:

---

the chimp might be ok though.

---

For playoffs you need an orangutan. Not a beast you want to meet in a corner.

GB54;842323498 said:

---

I agree. It is different to quant because it is a flow game with many not a few players and multiple matchups. The other thing that complicates is that it is a symbiotic game. Who you play with matters a lot. A trained chimp could score 20 goals playing along Joe Thornton (hell I could probably score 10 and I'm in my 60's) but the resultant high corsi numbers are meaningless. It's also meaningless if your first objective is to keep Sydney Crosby from scoring rather than score yourself.

---

Yes, and this is a perfect example of the type of analytical thinking that is so absent in hockey discussion. Quality and quantity of ice time matters a lot. But you rarely see it taken into account. Scoring 25 goals playing 15 minutes a night, with no PP time, and mediocre linemates, is very different from scoring 25 goals playing 22 minutes a night, including 4 minutes of PP time, and with good linemates.

In other sports opportunity is taken into account far more often - batting average, OPS, FG%, rushing average, etc. take into account opportunity by definition. But simply looking at goals, assists and points does not, and few hockey "analysts" adjust their thinking for it.

GB54;842323498 said:

---

Also agree about the Kings. For some reason their symbiotic powers seem to rise in the post season. They just seem to start peaking on all facets of the game at the right time. Now, we all know that the regular season in the NHL in some ways is jockeying for position but I don't think Sutter takes his foot off these guys throats. He's a tough guy.

My wife-no hockey analyst-but having been forced to watch many games through decades- came in and watched a couple of minutes of last nights game and said "the Kings have a plan as a team, the Rangers are flying solo" It was a good observation. The Kings seem to just elevate their games within the context of a team-do all the many things together and help each other play better. If this was easy to quantify, everyone would do it.

---

I agree - Sutter is such a no-nonsense guy, that I just can't see him encouraging, or even permitting, guys to float through the regular season and then suddenly step up their game in the playoffs.

When I have time I am going to try and look at this some more. E.g., how much of the LAK increase in playoff scoring is attributable to PP scoring vs ES scoring, addition of Gaborik, the big guns (Kopitar, Gaborik, Carter, Williams, and Brown) stepping up their scoring, 3rd and 4th line scoring going up, d-men scoring, etc.

Long live the Kings! And may this thread live on forever. Thank you to the Sharks for blowing the 3-0 lead in epic fashion. Couldn't have done it without them. What a game.

YuSeeBerkeley;842324613 said:

---

Long live the Kings! And may this thread live on forever. Thank you to the Sharks for blowing the 3-0 lead in epic fashion. Couldn't have done it without them. What a game.

---

hear hear. The Sharks are classic chokers, and the Kings are Classic!

Cal Panda Bear;842306985 said:

---

Wow Kings just plain suck...

---

Sure.