More Hockey Stats

Yep, a good summary. If Ottawa won, I'd probably have a much better shot at catching you...

Who would've thought that Anderson is more or less last picked goalie standing. And I doubted this pick

Original post. Frequently, the importance of carrying momentum over an intermission can be heard being talked about. I thought it were possible to measure this harmony with algebra, so I tried to do that. I choose to analyze a very specific question: If the regulation of a game ends in a tie, other than 0-0, how frequently would the team that tied the game with the last regulation goal win in overtime. We would define the team that tied the game as the one having the momentum. We would define the other team as the one trying to show resilience. For answering the question, we analyzed the outcome of games of seasons 2007/08-2016/17 (including the ongoing playoffs). We discard the games that end in a shootout, because their outcome depend truly more on the skill of the shooting players/goaltenders rather than the whatever momentum might've been accrued.The results of the analysis are displayed in the table below, per season, per the time frame during which the last tying goal was scored: in the last two, five, or ten minutes, in the last period, or in one of the first two. The numbers show the percentage of wins by the team having the momentum and the number of games falling into that specific segment. Also we display a separate column and a separate row for playoffs game, although a finer granularity is not really possible because of the sample size (as of 5/1/17). Season 2 5 10 20 1st/2nd total totalPO 2007 54.2/24 57.9/19 52.9/34 53.8/13 52.6/38 53.9/128 31.2/16 2008 43.5/23 48.1/27 45.2/31 53.8/13 40.0/40 44.8/134 25.0/16 2009 42.9/28 56.5/23 72.7/22 64.7/17 53.7/41 56.5/131 58.8/17 2010 48.6/37 54.2/24 47.1/34 40.7/27 56.8/44 50.0/166 59.1/22 2011 50.0/24 45.8/24 43.5/23 72.0/25 47.7/44 51.4/140 37.5/24 2012 62.5/16 33.3/15 50.0/22 50.0/14 57.9/19 51.2/86 53.8/26 2013 58.1/43 43.5/23 34.6/26 45.5/22 44.1/34 46.6/148 70.8/24 2014 51.7/29 65.2/23 55.3/38 46.7/15 60.5/43 56.8/148 57.9/19 2015 60.0/40 46.7/30 44.4/36 45.8/24 39.6/48 47.2/178 52.6/19 2016 43.6/39 50.0/28 60.5/38 48.1/27 61.8/68 54.5/200 63.2/19 totalPO 61.4/44 46.7/30 55.8/43 68.4/19 40.9/66 52.0/202 52.0/202 total 51.5/303 50.4/236 50.7/304 51.8/197 51.8/419 51.3/1459 52.0/202 We see that there is no specific "momentum" nor "resilience" capability overall, there is practically no indication on how the OT would end based on which team scored the last GTG. The only two moderate exceptions with decent sample sizes are the second and the sixth columns of the penultimate row. The GTG-scoring team is 27-17 (61.4%) in case it scored the tying goal in the last two minutes, however if the GTG was scored before the last period, as it happened in 66 games, the momentum would obviously not carry over two or more intermissions, and the tying team is 27-39 (40.9%) in these games. Here is how it looks on a graph: We can see all lines wobbling slightly above the 50 mark. Insufficiently above. Even if we observe the extra 1.3% chance overall (2.0% in playoffs) - wouldn't it be more related to the home/away advantage? I haven't looked at this aspect yet. Maybe another time.

It looks like I've forgotten to translate a couple of entries. Correcting that. Original post. Part IPart IIOnce again, driven by idea that if you want to encourage goal scoring, you need to reward the goal scoring in standings directly, not indirectly through winning. Then, based on the idea of a fellow hockey fan and blogger, a new suggestion was born in my mind.Not so long ago I was involved in another discussion on the subject on Twitter, where an interesting alternative, 2-1-0-0 was described. The idea is that you still get two points for a win in regulation, just one point for a win in OT, but nothing if you lose, and, the key, both teams get nothing if the game is tied at the end of regulation (shootouts are abolished). This is a very sharp idea, but for me something felt very wrong, and then it crystallized:It's not fair to reward a hard fought 5-5 tie with zero points, just like a lazy-skated 1-1. We still want to encourage goal scoring, and the simple 2-1-0-0 just unbalances the game. And so it dawned on me. We should reward goals with extra standings points!The formula that first came to mind, and which seemed fair: give each goal a 0.1 point in the standings, while the win-scoring system shall be 2-1-0-0. If you or your database have an aversion against decimals, assign 20 points for a win, 10 points for OT loss, and 1 extra point for each goal scored. This will encourage goal scoring in any situation, and for both sides, including the games that go into garbage time pretty quickly. So, a 7-2 win will give the winner 2.7 points, and the loser 0.2 points. A 2-0 win will give the winner 2.2 points, the loser 0. A 4-3 OT win will give the winner 1.4 points, the loser 0.3 points. A 5-5 OT tie will give each side 0.5 points.Wait, there's a caveat.Imagine a situation where a team needs just 0.1 point to pass another one in the standings for the playoff spot. They are playing an opponent whose number of points in the standings does not have any effect on them. In such a situation, the team would play without a goaltender at all, because they don't care how much they lose, they just need that goal. Now, this is not really hockey, so to prevent this kind of play a restriction needs to be introduced:Any goal scored without a goaltender on the ice, when not on a delayed penalty, and when trailing by more than two goals shall not yield any standings points.Here is an example what the final reg. season standings would look like under the suggested system:Team W OW T L GF GA P -------------------------------------------------------- Boston Bruins 38 04 05 35 232 209 103.2 Montreal Canadiens 33 11 05 33 223 198 99.3 Toronto Maple Leafs 33 06 09 34 250 234 97.0 -------------------------------------------------------- Washington Capitals 45 08 07 22 261 177 124.1 Pittsburgh Penguins 40 06 09 27 278 229 113.8 Columbus Blue Jackets 39 09 04 30 247 193 111.7 -------------------------------------------------------- New York Rangers 40 05 07 30 253 216 110.3 Ottawa Senators 34 04 10 34 206 210 92.6 -------------------------------------------------------- Minnesota Wild 42 04 05 31 263 206 114.3 Chicago Blackhawks 37 09 05 31 240 212 107.0 St. Louis Blues 38 06 04 34 233 216 105.3 -------------------------------------------------------- Anaheim Ducks 40 03 06 33 220 197 105.0 Edmonton Oilers 37 06 09 30 243 207 104.3 San Jose Sharks 38 06 03 35 219 200 103.9 -------------------------------------------------------- Nashville Predators 35 04 06 37 238 220 97.8 Calgary Flames 32 09 06 35 222 219 95.2 -------------------------------------------------------- New York Islanders 33 06 06 37 239 238 95.9 Winnipeg Jets 33 04 04 41 246 255 94.6 Tampa Bay Lightning 32 06 07 37 230 224 93.0 Dallas Stars 28 05 03 46 222 260 83.2 Carolina Hurricanes 28 05 09 40 212 230 82.2 Los Angeles Kings 25 12 06 39 199 201 81.9 Philadelphia Flyers 25 07 12 38 212 231 78.2 Buffalo Sabres 25 06 08 43 199 231 75.9 Florida Panthers 23 07 11 41 205 231 73.5 Arizona Coyotes 20 04 08 50 191 258 63.1 Vancouver Canucks 19 07 06 50 178 241 62.8 New Jersey Devils 18 07 06 51 180 241 61.0 Detroit Red Wings 17 07 09 49 198 244 60.8 Colorado Avalanche 14 07 03 58 165 276 51.5 Naturally, they would not be the same standings if the system were indeed implemented, but why not to take a look. And once again, try it in the AHL first, it won't hurt anyone.

Yeah... For me the only way through is Anderson standing on his head, and I don't think it's likely. @hf101 can confirm that I was choosing between Markov and Ellis and got that one terribly wrong...

Woohoo... Please correct the sheet: * Malkin has 2g9a, not 2g10a as listed in the table. * You can strike my Duncan Keith out. Thanks.

Here are the charts for the end of the regular season: And here are the final crosstables: More about the teams season schedule strength and performance here: http://morehockeystats.com/teams/buchberg Buchholz and Sonneborn-Berger explained: http://morehockeystats.blogspot.com/2017/03/on-buchholz-and-sonneborn-berger.html

Couldn't make myself to pick a Quack... I was picking G in the 2nd round. Decided to go for Crosby early.

Yeah. I made a mistake picking Anderson so soon: with Lundqvist, Gibson, Rask and Anderson available I could really wait until the last round. Not used to this kind of drafting though.

Will there be a separate topic to discuss the tournament?

@Hockey Junkie, the caps lock key is in the middle of the left edge of your keyboard.

I wonder if the draft ends before 7pm, can we change our picks with the remaining players until the first game kicks off?..

Rotoworld: Torey Krug (lower body) will probably miss the entire first round, according to Bruins GM Don Sweeney. Krug had eight goals and 51 points in 81 games this season. Naturally missing out on Krug is a significant blow, but the Bruins still have a good shot at defeating the Ottawa Senators. If they do then Krug might be able to join them for the rest of the playoffs. Apr 10 - 12:03 PM

isn't Krug injured for at least the whole 1st round?

Brad Marchand. I hope no more suspensions... @radoran, over to you.