This is a great example of using data to not overreact to an anecdote. Sean saw an icing play come back to bite a team that he was watching with his own two eyes. Then, digging into the data, it's one of only three times that's happened all year in the entire 32-team league? Yea, that's the challenge of anecdotal fallacy.
The “more than half the time it’s icing” argument isn’t really an accurate reflection of the data and needs to be played out. You need to factor “neutral” outcomes - which is to say - defending team possession on a post icing draw isn’t an adverse outcome. Basically what the data tells me is - 1 in 3 you end the game. About half the time it’s an icing. And less than 1 % of those wind up as a goal by the trailing team. It’s more than Mac and those guys saying we got better shooters - although there’s probably some truth to that. It’s numbers.
To accurately compare outcomes, you also need to know the likelihood that the teams score if you don’t ice the puck and try to keep possession.. the difference in likelihood of scoring trying to shoot vs holding on to puck is the change in risk of allowing a goal. That’s much harder to measure though as I am sure the NHL doesn’t keep stats on “could have shot from over 100 feet but didn’t”
Fair point, kind of why this is base level stuff and what I’m able to do with public facing data. Would love to be able to ask this question with what teams actually have access to.
By the way, should have started this comment with love the post and the question and the data you were able to get.. hopefully it didn’t come across as critical - just thinking through the analysis
This begs another empty net question, which players get the biggest stat boost from empty net and overtime goals and assists? ANd are these not partially a factor of ballooning point totals in recent years?
I just don’t think there are enough empty net goals for it to be a reason for overall ballooning offense. But I haven’t dove into that question further.
Shooting on empty nets is one of the clearest ways stats have improved decision-making/strategy. The only thing I don't buy is skill being the reason for the uptick. You'd have to be as bad as me to make shooting for the empty net not worth it.
This information has a statistics major somewhere giving himself the spins in his dormitory with 3 energy drinks down the hatch. IMO I don't have anything bad to say about it. These guys are NHL players for a reason. I think it boils down to how much time they have. Decision making, do you have the time to actually get off a shot? Go for it. Is it rushed and a bit of a shot in the dark? Take some off of it and hope it's short of icing. Long winded way of saying, I think it's situational lol
This is a great example of using data to not overreact to an anecdote. Sean saw an icing play come back to bite a team that he was watching with his own two eyes. Then, digging into the data, it's one of only three times that's happened all year in the entire 32-team league? Yea, that's the challenge of anecdotal fallacy.
The “more than half the time it’s icing” argument isn’t really an accurate reflection of the data and needs to be played out. You need to factor “neutral” outcomes - which is to say - defending team possession on a post icing draw isn’t an adverse outcome. Basically what the data tells me is - 1 in 3 you end the game. About half the time it’s an icing. And less than 1 % of those wind up as a goal by the trailing team. It’s more than Mac and those guys saying we got better shooters - although there’s probably some truth to that. It’s numbers.
Brilliant stuff, I subscribed off the back of this!
Thank you!
To accurately compare outcomes, you also need to know the likelihood that the teams score if you don’t ice the puck and try to keep possession.. the difference in likelihood of scoring trying to shoot vs holding on to puck is the change in risk of allowing a goal. That’s much harder to measure though as I am sure the NHL doesn’t keep stats on “could have shot from over 100 feet but didn’t”
Fair point, kind of why this is base level stuff and what I’m able to do with public facing data. Would love to be able to ask this question with what teams actually have access to.
By the way, should have started this comment with love the post and the question and the data you were able to get.. hopefully it didn’t come across as critical - just thinking through the analysis
This begs another empty net question, which players get the biggest stat boost from empty net and overtime goals and assists? ANd are these not partially a factor of ballooning point totals in recent years?
I just don’t think there are enough empty net goals for it to be a reason for overall ballooning offense. But I haven’t dove into that question further.
Shooting on empty nets is one of the clearest ways stats have improved decision-making/strategy. The only thing I don't buy is skill being the reason for the uptick. You'd have to be as bad as me to make shooting for the empty net not worth it.
Based on the numbers, shooting is 28 times more likely to result in a goal for than a goal against? Why wouldn't you green light that?
Do literally anything that gives you a 35.5% chance at a goal.
This information has a statistics major somewhere giving himself the spins in his dormitory with 3 energy drinks down the hatch. IMO I don't have anything bad to say about it. These guys are NHL players for a reason. I think it boils down to how much time they have. Decision making, do you have the time to actually get off a shot? Go for it. Is it rushed and a bit of a shot in the dark? Take some off of it and hope it's short of icing. Long winded way of saying, I think it's situational lol
Let 'er rip!
Great analysis