LGR4GM Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 (edited) Basically just because you are scoring doesn't mean you are helping your team win. Seriously, I am not joking. The short version is using WAR and Scoring together to see where a player falls. Players that are high calorie scorers? Evan Rodrigues and Casey Mittelstadt make the top 30. We also have a couple bottom 30. Quote Stats can be used in lots of fun ways. Trying to put structure around existing tropes to figure out where traditional analysis gets it right and where it gets it wrong is one of the most fun uses. For empty calorie scoring, we’re going to use two metrics: WAR and points. Both are pulled from Evolving Hockey. https://www.rawcharge.com/2019/1/16/18184624/empty-calorie-scorers-a-real-thing-or-an-nhl-myth-analytics-war-drouin-kane-stamkos-kuznetsov-kessel Edited January 16, 2019 by LGR4GM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 Without looking at this list I'd guess Laine is one of the biggest "empty calorie scorers" there is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 (edited) Interesting. So Mitts, Erod and Nelson are quite good at contributing to winning even though they aren't putting up a lot of points. Meanwhile, Scandy, Risto, and Okposo are the some of the worst at scoring but not helping the team win. This matches a lot of eye-test observations around here. Edited January 16, 2019 by darksabre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 Sounds an awful lot like they are trying to quantify clutch scoring, a concept wildly debated here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rakish Posted January 17, 2019 Report Share Posted January 17, 2019 Let's say the TB Lightning have 50 points. Imagine a formula that decides how many points they would have if each player was replaced by a 'Replacement Level Player', who we will call CJ Smith. So our formula uses stats like goals Kutcherov are on the ice for (cue your raised eyebrow) and who you play against, and how you do on the PP and how you do on the PK, and our formula decides the Lightning would have 45.4 points with CJ Smith instead of Kurcherov. The difference between Wins (50) and Wins Above Replacement (45.4) give Kutcherov a 4.6 (Wins Above Replacement) WAR, which is 95 percentile in the NHL, so his line is yellow, since his scoring is 100%, he leads the league. This formula likes Erik Cernak, Cernak plays against tough competition, he plays PK, the Lightning win because (according to the formula) his play, Cernak's WAR is 90%, even though he doesn't score. Now consider Patrick Kane. Let's say the Blackhawks have 35 points (I'm a bit too lazy to look up actual numbers). Replacing Kane with CJ Smith, our formula decides that the Blackhawks would only have 32.8 points, so Kane only helps 2.2 points. So even though Kane scores a lot, the Blackhawks don't win enough, and 2.2 WAR might be 50%. I don't believe that it's totally meaningless, but it's pretty close. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted January 17, 2019 Report Share Posted January 17, 2019 I thought I locked the Drew Stafford thread years ago. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.