Learning to Win Small
by Becca H on Nov 9, 2010 11:04 AM EST
Email
Print
"If you're lucky enough to make the playoffs, one-goal games and how you play in them is a real important factor, because in the playoffs every game is so close. [W]hen you're playing these one-goal games and you're having success, it means the players are buying in to what you have to do all the time." - Bruce Boudreau, 11/8/10
When the final seconds of regulation ticked away against the Flyers Sunday night, one thing was for certain - regardless of the outcome, the winner would walk away with the slimmest of possible victories. It marked the seventh time in this young season that the Capitals would be engaged in a one-goal battle, with five of those being decided via overtime or a shootout, and last night's victory gave the Caps a fairly gaudy record of 6-1-0 in those seven games.
Consider that through fourteen games last year the Caps had ten such nail-biting finishes, and were only 4-2-4 in those games - four wins and six losses in the type of game that dominated the early 2009-10 season for the Caps and the type of game that tends to dominate the postseason. And over the course of the '09-'10 season the Caps would be involved in 31 more one-goal contests and finish with a record of 20-8-13 in those games, losing more than they won and ultimately being unable to hold onto a much larger lead when it really counted.
This year, as early as it is, they've shown improvement. Never mind the fact that the Caps have let teams like Toronto back into games or that they've surrendered the first goal in many of these games - when the games were tied and/or the Caps were down, they did what they had to do, what all good teams do. They rallied.
It’s a promising start, if not fully indicative of how the team has played overall - twelve of a possible fourteen points earned in games where the other team is within a goal of tying or winning the game is huge for a team that once only seemed comfortable in lopsided victories. Equally promising is how they've done it. For instance, they're getting victories from multiple sources, with a different guy playing the hero in each of the one-goal victories:
- 10/11 vs. Ottawa: After a fairly uninspiring game (to put it mildly), Alex Ovechkin did what Alex Ovechkin does best - he simply fired the puck. The deceptively tricky shot evaded Ottawa goaltender Pascal Leclaire, got the captain on the board at last and gave the Caps their second win of the year.
- 10/13 vs. New York Islanders: Two nights later the Caps were ensnared in a goaltenders' duel between Michal Neuvirth and Dwayne Roloson, and it was looking more and more like it was going to take a weird hop, a deflection, a screen, something to break the stalemate. Enter Nicklas Backstrom, who picked up his first of the year in Mike Knuble-esque fashion and put the Caps ahead late in the third period.
- 10/16 vs. Nashville: Sure, we mock him for that "if you want bread, go to the bakery" quote a lot - and he definitely could make it more of a habit than he has in recent months - but Brooks Laich got the game-winner because he did one thing and did it well: he went to the net and got the two points for his team.
- 10/23 vs. Atlanta: It was a night on which Alexander Semin shone, as he picked up his first hat trick of the year and, save for a horrible last-minute shift by his teammates, might have had the game-winner himself. But it was Tomas Fleischmann who finished it off in overtime, capitalizing on some hard work by Eric Fehr for the huge game-winner.
- 11/3 vs. Toronto: Another night, another big goal by Alexander Semin, who tied up a game that had gotten away from the Caps late in the third and then added extra fireworks by rifling a slapshot past goaltender Jonas Gustavsson at point blank range for the shootout clincher.
- 11/7 vs. Philadelphia: After a fairly even, solid, back-and-forth contest, Mike Green took advantage of what the Flyers seem to do best (take penalties at bad times) by doing what he seems to do best - winning the game in overtime. Probably a good thing Coach didn't make them go offside, no?
The Caps are also back to making teams regret taking penalties (despite the relatively slow start with the extra man) and have gotten the game-tying or game-winning goal while on the power play four different times. To some extent that's a product of a little luck and of course the discretion of the referees; but it's also often a product of simply outworking the other team and forcing them to take a penalty (or two). We've seen it before - if they're not moving their feet, if they're not working and pressing and frustrating the other team, those calls just don't come. Power plays may be more advantageous in the extra frame but the Caps are forcing other teams to be in that position in the first place...and making them pay.
The result of the diverse scoring, the power play success, some solid defensive play and more than a little superhuman goaltending thrown in is that the Caps find themselves high in the standings where they belong instead of scrambling for points to merely stay afloat and keep pace. Unlike last year where wins were lopsided and losses painfully close, the Caps have made adjustments and taken yet another small but measurable step forward.
And there is, perhaps, something to the idea that learning to win like this now could pay dividends in the playoffs. Because whether the success rate in such games is directly linked to postseason success or not, learning how to win without shellacking the other team, adjusting to the style of play and having the discipline required to execute it...well, those are the kinds of lessons that might just come in handy further down the road.
110 comments
|
9 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Agree wholeheartedly. One of the most encouraging and eye-opening posts I’ve seen on Japer’s in a while. Kudos!
by Charlie Foxtrot on Nov 9, 2010 11:15 AM EST up reply actions
a one-goal battle…the type of game that tends to dominate the postseason
Do we know this to be true? Not doubting you, exactly, just wondering if there have been studies to look at goal differentials between regular season games and playoff games.
We're Hüsker Dü and we're on MTV. Who are you, and what are you on?
REALLY rough count:
89 playoff games last year, 40 one goal games (45% of games), compared to 23.9% in the regular season (or 587 1GG).
87 playoff games in ’08-09, 38 1GG (43.6%), compared to 23% in the regular season (or 567 1GG).
83 playoff games in ’07-08, 38 1GG (45.7%), compared to 21.7% in the regular season (or 536 1GG).
"DON'T SAY THAT! Please! That is the worst, most stupid thing anyone could say! Cause it quite clearly isn't "only a game." I mean if it was do you honestly think I'd care this much?"
by Bald Pollack on Nov 9, 2010 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 9 recs
Bless you for doing the legwork on that, BP…I admittedly did not, it’s just something everyone seems to say and appears to be true, but I had no numbers to back that up.
If anyone needs me, I'll be at Kettler.
Meh, bored.
It would seem to make sense though, since you’re removing the Isles, Panthers and other associated flotsam once you get to the playoff rounds.
"DON'T SAY THAT! Please! That is the worst, most stupid thing anyone could say! Cause it quite clearly isn't "only a game." I mean if it was do you honestly think I'd care this much?"
by Bald Pollack on Nov 9, 2010 11:50 AM EST up reply actions
Of course, fellow Victory drinker.
"DON'T SAY THAT! Please! That is the worst, most stupid thing anyone could say! Cause it quite clearly isn't "only a game." I mean if it was do you honestly think I'd care this much?"
Thanks for the research, and, yes, that’s what I was thinking too: The disparity between the playoff teams is smaller than all NHL teams as a group, therefore the games should be more tightly contested just through a reduced talent-gap.
We're Hüsker Dü and we're on MTV. Who are you, and what are you on?
by bilspacecadet on Nov 9, 2010 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
Do Empty Nets matter?
25 Empty Net goals were scored in 2009-2010 playoffs, 10 of those increased a 1 goal lead to a two goal win.
That’s a great point. I think they do matter but it’s a nice asterisk point to have for perspective.
Think twice before you speak, and then you may be able to say something more insulting than if you spoke right out at once.
To some extent, they do – of course if we disregard ENGs we can add the most recent Boston game into the “one-goal game” category and the record jumps to 7-1-0 but a goal is a goal, it counts the same whether there’s a goalie or not and the fact is it makes the margin more comfortable (if only for 30 seconds or so) than an actual one-goal lead.
I will say that the ENG Ovechkin got was one of the toughest I’ve seen him score – even I, renowned Bruins-hater, was impressed with how well they defended that empty net. It was almost like having a goalie in net (which of course then puts it back into the two-goal game category).
If anyone needs me, I'll be at Kettler.
It does make the final seconds easier, for sure, but I’d say it’s probably offset by the essential shorthanded time that comes before it.
I’ve always found ENGs to be good things— it’s the “Finish Them” attitude that the Caps have lacked in the past at times— having to work a man down when you’re tired, clear the puck out, put it in net and go home.
And, agreed— the way they defended that goal was a thing of beauty, if eventually unsuccessful.
It was harder to score that ENG than on Tim Thomas!
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
That’s why Ovechkin was hustling so hard on that play…
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I don’t know if Becca and BP were factoring them in, but to me at least, it doesn’t matter much. It’s not like I would value the stat more, if it jumped from 45% to 60% of games. The one-goal game is (and would still be) the most important type of win to get, as it bears the strongest correlation to overall success.
Country Gentlemen's Pig Fertilizer Gazette
Dunny-on-the-World
This is as good a place to start as any though it doesn’t ration out 2GG’s with an ENG or not. Those who feel compelled can go for it.
"DON'T SAY THAT! Please! That is the worst, most stupid thing anyone could say! Cause it quite clearly isn't "only a game." I mean if it was do you honestly think I'd care this much?"
Overtime and shootout games are generally a coin toss, though. The fact that they’re 5-0 when games last more than 60 minutes means that there’s either likely to be a regression to the mean or the Caps continue to be very lucky. And, frankly, I don’t know if good luck in the regular season translates into success in the postseason.
It’s how they’ve played in overtime, though. They’re not giving up scoring chances, they’re possessing the puck, and they’re closing out games before the shootout. Part of me appreciates that.
On the other hand, I wish they weren’t going to extra time, either.
Well, also remember that regular season OT is 4-4, which gives a team like the Caps more opportunity to score, compared with full strength OT in the playoffs, which allows teams to dictate a more defense style.
On the flipside of that coin, especially if you look at the Capitals last year, they struggled 4-on-4. Mostly because the game gets a lot more wide-open, and their style of play was more prone to giving up goals. Doesn’t bode well for OT.
by Charlie Foxtrot on Nov 9, 2010 11:34 AM EST up reply actions
I disagree. I think the shootout is generally a coin toss, but the space that OT’s 4v4 offers seems to lend itself well to the Caps’ offensive strengths.
"Do you see my fist? It was fists like these that built quaint Canadian cities out of the harsh Canadian wilderness, etc. etc."
Not in Seattle anymore.
by SeattleCapsFan on Nov 9, 2010 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
From what I’ve seen this year their puck possession and set up on the 4v4 seems much more disciplined, and while they focus on offense they don’t completely forget about defense. They SHOULD have been good at OT last year too, but one turnover and the puck was all but in the back of our net. So it looks to me that this year they’ve been able to strengthen the 4v4 weaknesses while somewhat maintaining the offensive focus.
It’s all about maturity, IMO. Then again, this is now me going entirely off memory, so I could be making this up.
"Do you see my fist? It was fists like these that built quaint Canadian cities out of the harsh Canadian wilderness, etc. etc."
Not in Seattle anymore.
by SeattleCapsFan on Nov 9, 2010 11:41 AM EST up reply actions
Except if you sit down and watch the overtime games, the Capitals have typically dominated play 4-on-4 (not counting the recent Boston game as it was 5-on-4 for the P.P.). It doesn’t seem like they’re going back and forth with teams in OT, and just happen to get the game-winning possession. They’ve been consistently been playing solid hockey.
Will they lose some OT games? Of course, but I don’t think it’s some sort of luck component. If you play well, you should win in OT most of the time.
by Charlie Foxtrot on Nov 9, 2010 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
Overtime and shootout games are generally a coin toss, though.
Is that you, Ron Wilson?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Do you have anything empirical to back that up?
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Any given game is close to a coin flip. Roughly 40-60%, I think. If you go on pure Fenwick% or Corsi% then each team is between ~40%-58%, which is only 59% for the better team (not counting shootouts). I can’t think of a reason why 1-goal game winning% should differ too much from overall winning%.
by red army line on Nov 9, 2010 3:28 PM EST up reply actions
It’s a tiny sample. But they’re winning games (so far) that they didn’t win last year. So the question is, do you buy or sell that they’ve learned something about how to win close games?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
The answer to this question lies in whether 1-goal victories are a “repeatable skill” in hockey. In other words, do the same teams consistently demonstrate higher win pct (or point pct) in one goal games from year to year?
I’ve gotten busy at work and haven’t looked into it. And frankly I’m not sure how to go about even collecting that data.
My gut tells me the answer is “no”, but I’m certainly open to the possibility that I’m wrong here.
Patron saint of quality footwear.
Further reading:
http://www.behindthenethockey.com/2009/10/21/1095507/rich-pollock-on-one-goal-games-in#23154862
http://www.puckprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=323
Patron saint of quality footwear.
More reading
http://www.puckprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=300
Patron saint of quality footwear.
Yet more reading on the topic of 1-goal games.
http://brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com/2009/10/close-games-part-2.html
Patron saint of quality footwear.
My question is: what’s the goal differential? And if you really want to go nuts, what’s the variance on GA and GF?
If all of your games are close, they’re all low scoring, and you win significantly more than 50%, then I’d say you’re a good defensive team and all those 1-goal victories are skill.
If most of your games involve 8-10 goals between the two teams, and there are a lot of 5-4 victories with a few 4-0 losses mixed in there, then you’re probably getting lucky.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Nov 9, 2010 5:03 PM EST up reply actions
I’m buying it for now. The whole mentality and game play seems too different to just be a fluke.
Think twice before you speak, and then you may be able to say something more insulting than if you spoke right out at once.
(Michal Neuvirth)
You perhaps knew me better as "Your Nation's Capital." Same great commentary, now with 100% more transparency!
by EmilyB on Nov 9, 2010 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Based on a quick glance at the data and analysis provided in the articles I linked above, my initial conclusion is that winning 1-goal games is a repeatable skill only for the NJD. Everyone else is in the cruel hands of fate.
And as far as the NJD go, their skill at winning 1-goal games seems to rely almost entirely in winning in OT and the shootout, which don’t really offer us any predictive value as far as the playoffs go.
I stress that this is a preliminary conclusion, as I have not really sorted all the data or thought it through for any time.
Patron saint of quality footwear.
I think being able to win 1-goal games falls under the “one-season-luck” category. Part of it would also be, I bet, a team that’s either good or awesome offensively and good or awesome defensively would see fewer 1-goal games and reduce our sample.
by red army line on Nov 9, 2010 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
I think that’s what the data show, too. I’ll also note that as far as the Cup goes, the data show the following (just restricting myself to the finalists, and just for grins):
08 – 09
PIT: +2 in 1-goal games
DET: +7
07-08
PIT: Even
DET: Even
06 – 07
ANA: -1
OTT: -12
05 – 06
CAR: +15
EDM: even
Nothing screams causation out of this data set, although it’s a pretty unsophisticated analysis.
Patron saint of quality footwear.
What I’d really want to see is all teams in the NHL broken out by half seasons; does winning a lot of close games in the first half predict how well they’ll do in the second half? That way you get mostly the same rosters, or as close as you can.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Nov 9, 2010 2:56 PM EST up reply actions
Sell. They haven’t done it with great third periods. Unless having a goalie play great in the third is “learning how to win close games” I still want to see more. The one game where I was actually impressed with how well they locked it down in the third isn’t even on this list: Carolina.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Well, part of it is locking down and part of it is stepping up. And even if you include the two third-period goat rodeos against TOR and BOS, the Caps are 7th in the League in 3rd-period goals for and 10th in 3rd-period goals against.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
One-run games are often used as a yardstick of whether a baseball team is overperforming or underperforming, i.e., if they’re winning a lot more one-run games than they’re losing (and they’re playing a lot of one-run games), they’re overperforming and their record is better than it should be. See, e.g., the Nationals in April and May of last year.
I don’t think that metric is applicable to hockey for a couple of reasons. One is that every game which goes to overtime is necessarily a one-goal game. The second is that empty-net goals are a confounding factor; a team leading by one goal with one minute remaining is going to have a prime scoring chance if they can get control of the puck and lug it to the opposing team’s blue line.
To this end, there are a couple of games I’d include here: Friday night against Boston, in which the Caps got a late one-goal lead after letting the Bruins come back from three-zip, and put an empty-netter on the board in the last minute (and, for that matter, on a pretty good shift in the B’s zone). I think that the Wild game also deserves a mention, as that was a game in which the Caps went down two goals in the third period and made far too late a push to score.
I don’t think that metric is applicable to hockey for a couple of reasons.
Also important to note that in baseball, unlike in hockey, you can score anywhere from 1-4 runs with a swing of the bat and runs can be scored even if you don’t have dominant hitters. It would seem to me (although I have no evidence to back this up, just time spent as a baseball fan) that one-run games are much less prevalent in baseball than one-goal games in hockey.
If anyone needs me, I'll be at Kettler.
One-run games are much less prevalent in baseball than one-goal games in hockey.
Given that average runs in a 2010 MLB game was 8.77 and average goals in a 2009-2010 NHL game was 5.53, I’d venture to guess that you’re right. More total points/goals/runs should mean fewer one point games, I’d be willing to bet (the eye test says there are far fewer NFL games decided by one point, if we carry it even further). Especially with sudden death OT in the NHL that only exists half the time in MLB (i.e. if the home team is the one scoring).
Eat, drink, and be merry! And then drink some more.
When I want a loaf of bread I don’t go to the bakery. I actually make it myself.
I wonder how that would translate in a hockey analogy
I would view this past Philly game as a different one goal game than say the Toronto game or Nashville game. This Flyers game, where neither team was up by more than one goal, was more of the “playoff” type game BB alluded to.
Its great that the team is winning such games, but I’m more concerned about games like the Nashville or Toronto. Games where the Caps were behind or ahead by 2 or more goals and end up winning by 1. The team can neither afford to get behind by multiple goals early nor give up big leads late in the playoffs and be successful.
You just aren’t going to have alot of success having to come back against a solid defensive team like Nashville in the playoffs. You also can’t afford to take your foot off the gas against teams when you are up big. I’ll be alot more comfortable about this teams success in the playoffs when they show the ability to come out strong in games and not let up despite the score.
Just trying to capture the spirit of the thing...
by dcsportsfan1 on Nov 9, 2010 11:49 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
I, for one, would be very excited to know that we are having to try to come back in the playoffs against a solid defensive team like Nashville. Nashville is in the Western Conference. Last I checked, the Caps only play Western Conference Teams if we make the Stanley Cup Finals. That would make me very happy.
Everything sounds smarter in Tikkanesse....
I think one thing I appreciate about the Caps this year is how many games are won with the Caps scoring two or fewer goals. They’ve beaten up on two teams pretty badly (and both by five-goal margins and 7-2 scores), but it’s particularly interesting that they haven’t allowed more than four goals in a game yet, and they’ve only allowed four goals in three games. It’s not just that the Caps are beating teams 3-2, 3-1, 2-1, etc., but that we’re forcing them to beat us 3-1, 4-2, etc.
by Wheeler on Nov 9, 2010 12:02 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I totally agree with you on this….I think mentally they’ve shortened the time it takes them to get their $ht straightened out. Last year it would just take too long, hence the MTL series. Plus in the previous two years when the Caps would go on a scoring run they wouldn’t be able to tighten down and prevent the other team from coming back a bit. But this year…both the Devils and the Flames games are indicative of the kind of prolonged tight defense that they can actually play with decent athletic goaltending.
by funkyalligator on Nov 9, 2010 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t know how you can just put faith in the NJD and CGY games when we have the TOR and BOS games. Then factor in that both CGY and NJD are kind of a mess and TOR and BOS are the better teams and we couldn’t hang and I’m just not that optimistic about the NJD and CGY “lockdowns.”
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
I think the biggest underlying cause of this is that the team is now 8th in the league in GA/G more so than some intangible notion of “learning how to win close games.” Some of that is Neuvirth, I think some of it is that we’re starting to see John Carlson and Karl Alzner have an impact at this level. The more I see of them, the better I feel about this team’s chances down the road.
But isn’t playing better defense and getting better goaltending part of learning how to win close games? It’s pretty hard to do the latter without the former, and it’s hard to do the former and not have the latter happen (unless you’re blowing teams out, which could also happen down the road).
If anyone needs me, I'll be at Kettler.
I’d say they can get credit for “learning” D, but not G. They just brought up a better goalie than they had last year.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Then toss out the goaltending and look at the way the team’s playing D. Plus Neuvirth was here for games last year and didn’t play as consistently well, so yes, learning how to play better in net is part of the ongoing evolution of the team.
If anyone needs me, I'll be at Kettler.
I’m not sure I agree with that. He had a bad game in TOR when he had no NHL practice time and the bad weekend in Florida. Other than that he was pretty solid. Bottom line, though, he didn’t really get a chance to take the goalie job last year like he did this year, and this year he’s better than what we had last year.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Don’t discount that an improved D has a positive impact on a G – the Caps are down 3 SOG against per game over last year.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Which is a huge deal. Huge. That’s about a goal every three games, or the difference between a replacement-level forward and Patrick Marleau by GVT, assuming that everyone had to bump up.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Nov 9, 2010 3:38 PM EST up reply actions
It shouldn’t be a goal every three games, not with a goalie saving .900-.910 (which isn’t even that good).
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
If it was 3.333 shots per game * 3 games = ~10 shots, and your .900 SV% goalie lets in one of the ten. Some rounding there, but it’s close.
3 shots * 4 games = 12 shots, and if Neuvy is stopping .914, that’s one goal allowed. So call it a goal every 3-4 games.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Right, I just don’t think that’s a huge deal without more context. What is happening to the shot quality? Which game is that extra goal coming in? What is the team’s goals for per game?
The stat community likes to break it down as far as it can and then cross categories to make conclusions like what Knee said. I fundamentally don’t believe that allowing 3 fewer shots per game is the same as increasing Dave Steckel to Patrick Marleau. That just doesn’t pass the smell test for me, however the math works it out.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
You can’t really tell which game it’s going to come in, only that on average that’s what you’re looking at. You can get lucky or less lucky on an individual game basis, or even an individual scenario basis.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Nov 9, 2010 3:50 PM EST up reply actions
Obviously you can’t tell which game the goal is going to come, I’m just not that sold that 3 shots a game has as big an impact as you think it does.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Thanks for that.
I’m saying that if we look at a game after the fact and the caps gave up 27 or 24 shots my impression isn’t substantially different. I understand that if you simply aggregate the shots over the course of a season then the math tells you that more goals are going in, and I don’t disagree with that premise, but I think there are a lot of in-game situational things that can make a bigger difference than just those 3 shots against.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
If anyone every figures out predictive values for an individual game, they’ll have figured out the holy grail of all sports statistics. No one is even close right now.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Nov 9, 2010 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
Hey, a little snark now and then keeps you young.
Having said that, as sarcastic as that was meant to be there is something to it – as KHTD has pointed out to some extent, the quality of shots is often more important than the quantity (something we also discussed in relation to goaltender performance).
If the Caps are cutting down on shots in general, even by an “insignificant” number like 2 or 3 per game, and if high quality shots are probably fewer and further between than your average shot, it’s possible that one, two or even three of those shots being eliminated per game are of the higher quality. It also accounts for the Caps not giving up second and third chances as much, which they do seem to be doing.
If anyone needs me, I'll be at Kettler.
I don’t think 2 or 3 shots is meaningless, I’d sure rather they didn’t give them up (and on the point of rebounds, maybe some if it has to do with Neuvirth not leaving many laying around). I just disagree with KHtaD over how important it is. He said it was huge, and then likened it to upgrading Steckel to Marleau. That just doesn’t make sense to me.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Ceteris paribus, it’s a pretty big deal. 3-4 extra wins over the course of the season means a lot in terms of seeding. Obviously, which shots are prevented and who from has a large influence on the value of those three shots, but on average, 3 shots is a very big deal.
Now, over a short series like a playoff, it may not matter at all.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Nov 9, 2010 4:49 PM EST up reply actions
Fine, I relent. We’ll see if they keep it up. If they let up 246 fewer shots on the season then that will have to have some impact.
3-4 wins wouldn’t have mattered much to us last year, and seeding isn’t going to be a concern for us. It’s how we play when we get there. But for other teams, yes, seeding (or even making it) will be huge.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
I’m not sure how a difference of between .25 and .33 in goals against average isn’t a big deal.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
What is happening to the shot quality?
There are some teams that can affect shot quality against, but it’s generally teams that employ Lemaire and Hitchcock-style traps. Otherwise, it’s pretty even for the whole league, assuming the coaches do their job matching their best defensive-pair with the 1st line and so on. If the team is preventing shots from the grinders, that’s less valuable than preventing shots from the 1st line, but I have no idea how that breaks down, hence using the league-average.
Which game is that extra goal coming in?
It’s not that regular. On a basic level, you can treat each given shot as a coinflip with a weighted side. Let’s say a back-door tap-in has a 99% chance to go in (think Varly on Crosby for that 1%) and a shot from the red line has a 1% to go in. Everything else falls somewhere in-between the two and while each individual event may be causal, teams can’t consistently control it, or they would. Because the other team has a vote in what happens on the ice, and because humans aren’t perfect, the results end up probabilistic. You could end up with two of those extra shots going in, or one, or none, or even all three, unlikely as that is. What you can’t tell is which is going to be which ahead of time, so you may not end up with 18 extra goals over the course of the year, but 24 or 12 or whatever. There’s a range of probabilities.
The point is, you can count on the Caps being less likely to yield a goal in a given game. They may not meet that expectation, but over the course of the season it adds up a lot.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Nov 9, 2010 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
There are some teams that can affect shot quality against, but it’s generally teams that employ Lemaire and Hitchcock-style traps.
But now you’re specifically talking about a full-game control. From what I’ve gathered, when a team trails they shoot more, but from further away. So maybe those three extra shots are coming with the Caps up, and they are lower quality shots. Maybe that’s not the best way to make my point given the Caps have gotten trounced in two recent third periods, but I’m trying to highlight the fact that all these numbers and “events” are not fungible. (And since we are talking about the Caps giving up fewer shots, not more shots, I could also suggest that the Caps getting off to the slow starts has led to them playing more catch up, and thus getting a benefit from the score-effect on Corsi.) Treating all of those shots as the same isn’t necessarily accurate. (And jumping to equating it to upgrading Dave Steckel to Patrick Marleau is even more problematic for me.) In a strict sense, yes, more shots mean more goals. But I’m not absolutely convinced that 3 shots a game is as huge, huge, a deal as you believe they are.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
That’s pretty much league average, ~.910. Obviously if your goalie is better, it’s less important, but even if your goalie is saving .93% (Vezina-caliber), you’re still saving 7 goals per 33 games, or a little better than a goal every five games, which puts you in Miiko Koivu or Jonathan Toews territory. Best case scenario under a Vezina goal-tending assumption is you’re giving up the difference between Jeff Carter and a replacement-level player.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Nov 9, 2010 3:47 PM EST up reply actions
I think the better D can almost be pretty solely attributed to the PK.
Our GA/A was good for 16th at 2.77.
Our PK was good for 25th at 78.8%.
BUT, our 5-5 GA/60 was 2.2, behind only NJ.
Our 4-5 GA/60 was 7.2, good for 24th.
Random sidenote, Nashville can’t pk? Their 4-5 GA/60 was 8.2, even worse than us!
So we could play D last year, we just couldn’t PK to save our life.
Proud member of the Popsicle Division of the Cupcake Conference.
Not solely to the PK…I think blocking shots has a lot to do with it too. Last year the Caps were 12th in Blocked Shots where as this year they are currently 6th…who knows if it really matters but to me I’ve noticed a lot of our players laying their bodies out. Although it can lead to goals…i.e. Erskine against Boston.
by funkyalligator on Nov 9, 2010 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe, but careful, since blocked shots on the whole aren’t correlated to winning (r value is about -0.04, I believe). Each individual block is good, but too many and you’re spending too much time in your own zone (as is the case with Sloskine).
by red army line on Nov 9, 2010 1:58 PM EST up reply actions
Blocked shots, like hits and just about every other stat, should be used to create the larger picture – too many and the team is clearly getting hemmed into their zone, but as a whole if it’s trending up slightly it shows a greater commitment to defense, a greater willingness to sacrifice the body, etc. Combine it with things like zone time and total shots attempted (missed, blocked, shots on goal) to get a better idea of what we’re looking at – my sense is they’re just doing it more, and that’s great.
If anyone needs me, I'll be at Kettler.
Admittedly, I haven’t seen a ton of games this season, but from what I have seen I don’t really see it. The difference when I look at the totals is not very big—could easily be luck. I think it’s more the Caps getting hemmed in—FaheySloskine.
From NHL.com I’m getting 15 bks/gm this season, 14 last season. That’s only 1 shot a game.
I quickly ran a blks/gm number from BtN (2009, 2010—at least 10 mins/gm, though) and I’m getting 9.42 in 2009, 9.67 in 2010. That’s 1/4 of the difference accounted for.
too many and the team is clearly getting hemmed into their zone
The team leaders in BFON60 this season: Fahey, Gordon, Chimera, Fehr, Erskine, Flash (then the list gets to the good players. Last season: Carlson, Erskine, Schultz, Green, Alzner, Sloan, Backstrom.
Via Timeonice, I’m getting 42.82 negative Corsi events per game for last season (5-on-5), while this season (using the numbers I compiled) I’m getting 41.2. I’m getting 36 for 2008-2009 and 39 for 2007-2008. Meanwhile, the Caps were allowing 30.9 SA/gm last year and 27.9 this season (around 27 in 07-08, 29 in 08-09). The Caps were better at limiting shots in 2007-2008 and are at it again this season.
5 shots against per game on the PK this season versus 5.38 last season. Maybe blocks helped here, but it’s not much. The shot difference accounts for less than five goals over the course of a season (Theo and Varly had low PK sv% last season). I guess the rest of the blocks difference would more or less be here, so a little under a shot a game. The blocks are about a goal per 10 games (assuming ~90% PKsv%). Definitely a positive, but not huge—I don’t think that’s really contributing much to the Caps’ 6-1 record in 1-goal games this season.
They are blocking more shots, but it’s not as if they’re throwing themselves in front of every shot like Quintin Laing. More importantly, I think, they are also simply allowing the opposition slightly fewer chances to shoot. Once Alex Ovechkin gets normal (still only an 8.8 Corsi Rel, normally around 15-20), the Caps will be rolling.
but as a whole if it’s trending up slightly it shows a greater commitment to defense, a greater willingness to sacrifice the body, etc. Combine it with things like zone time and total shots attempted (missed, blocked, shots on goal) to get a better idea of what we’re looking at
Considering the last three seasons in a row the Caps have progressively gotten worse at zone time (according to Corsi), I don’t want the Caps’ blocked shots numbers to go up at 5-on-5 or on the PK. Maybe I’ll try Bks%, but I won’t run those numbers right now without this season’s playershot scripts up and running yet.
We are only 14 games in, as well. 6-1 and my eyes speak to me a bit more than
by red army line on Nov 9, 2010 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I think some of it is that we’re starting to see John Carlson and Karl Alzner have an impact at this level.
Some of it is subtraction. I think we’re starting to realize that Juice and ShaMo are even worse than we thought they were.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Nov 9, 2010 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The big things that the Caps have really improved upon….PK….Blocking shots..are very important to tight defense thus winning those close games. If we become a team that can tighten up when needed or play fast and lose….well we can win a whole ton of those 1 goal games. That seems to be what BB is trying to instill in the team…basically play however the other team is going to play and then beat them at it.
The Caps haven’t played well at 4 vs 4 ever under BB and I’ve never been able to figure out why….they would just get too cute and screw up giving up odd man rushes time after time. Every time the Caps would get on a PP and then take a penalty themselves I knew something bad would happen last year…but this year I’ve been very impressed and I hope the trend continues. Because being able to play 4 vs 4 is the final phase for a good offense something we haven’t had till this year. I don’t think our OT record is a fluke…..we can ice 2 4’s either of which is as a good as another teams’s top 4….
Hmmm yeah that was three years ago…right before the PP and the 5 vs. 5 clicked really clicked….I know the last 2 years it certainly wasn’t as good as that. My point is that they haven’t seemed comfortable in it for awhile but this year seem to be very comfortable with it.
by funkyalligator on Nov 9, 2010 12:49 PM EST up reply actions
If you look at the last two years of 4 vs 4 GF and 4 vs. 4 GA..you can see how bad we were..
by funkyalligator on Nov 9, 2010 12:51 PM EST up reply actions
+9 and +0 isn’t necessarily bad. Anyways, the sample size is so small it’s essentially useless to look at 4-on-4 play in any single season and draw conclusions, and if you do multiple seasons there’s the whole deal with personnel and strategy changes and whatnot..
by red army line on Nov 9, 2010 1:07 PM EST up reply actions
Oh I know I just think it’s more a mental change than anything else.
by funkyalligator on Nov 9, 2010 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
For example last year….the Chicago Blackhawks scored 16 goals while 4 vs 4 and gave up 6….where as the Caps scored 5 goals while 4 vs 4 while giving up 13.
by funkyalligator on Nov 9, 2010 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
Chances the Caps lose a one-goal game tonight? Roughly 80%.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
100% chance tonight that Sean Avery impersonates a likable hockey player….
Everything sounds smarter in Tikkanesse....
Heading reminds me of one of my favorite comedy albums…You think BB put on the bunny ears and did balloon animals for the boys?
Just trying to capture the spirit of the thing...
Some people have a way with words….others…not have way, I guess…
We're Hüsker Dü and we're on MTV. Who are you, and what are you on?
by bilspacecadet on Nov 9, 2010 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
when the games were tied and/or the Caps were down, they did what they had to do, what all good teams do.
Well, thats true, if it doesnt become a habit. We have seen last spring, what happens if a team is too confident. How many times did they won a game after they woke up in 2nd or 3d period? Answer is- way too often! Maybe it is enough to show up only in one or two periods in the regular season, in playoffs its NOT! Even if the team has won those close games, it shouldnt let them be so close.
Even if the team has won those close games, it shouldnt let them be so close.
I’m not saying you are saying this but it makes me think that there seems to be this growing thought that the Caps really aren’t getting their jobs done if they are in a close game or have to battle back.
I just can’t buy in on that line of thought. This league is filled with parity and every team (hopefully) is playing to win. Sometimes they are going to get scored on first and sometimes leads are going to be “blown.”
The Pens coasted through parts of the regular season for basically two Finals appearances. In the year they won the Cup I think they coasted for the majority of the season. So in comparison, I’ve liked a lot of things I’ve seen from the Caps so far this year. The best part is by April I think this team is going to be a lot better. There is a lot of development going on.
Think twice before you speak, and then you may be able to say something more insulting than if you spoke right out at once.
:: cheap plug for Power Rankings post tomorrow ::
Several of teh Power Rankers this week are super excited about the Caps. One even said the team is finally “in high gear.”
And I think rather the team is presently testing its low gears – the ones you use when you’re towing something heavy or driving thru a snowstorm.
You perhaps knew me better as "Your Nation's Capital." Same great commentary, now with 100% more transparency!
Yeah I’m totally with you on this one. The Caps are testing the different areas of their offense and defense. They haven’t hit high gear yet by a long shot….the 2C spot hasn’t been figured out and I doubt it will for another 20-30 games….but I think by the time that is settled we should be in good shape especially since I think the PK will be good all season.
by funkyalligator on Nov 9, 2010 7:34 PM EST up reply actions
the ones you use when you’re towing something heavy
Sloan’s a lot heavier than he looks
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Nov 10, 2010 2:21 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Japers' Rink
Related FanShots on Japers' Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
