Fenwick - the easy chart explanation

[spndnchz]

Thought this might help...

 

http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2013/4/4/4178716/why-possession-matters-a-visual-guide-to-fenwick

[LaLaLaFontaine]

Fantastic, Thank you.

 

This report is very intersting.

[nobody]

Are we talking about Nell or the inspector?

[TrueBlueGED]

Thought this might help...

 

http://www.habseyeso...uide-to-fenwick

 

You should probably get outta dodge before anti-stats contingent of the forum arrives :P

[Trettioåtta]

This graph is sure to send TrueBlue into heat :P

 

Thanks for the link - it was amusing to see the Sabres be one of the 25% of teams who have good Fenwick and fail to make the playoffs

[TrueBlueGED]

This graph is sure to send TrueBlue into heat :P

 

Thanks for the link - it was amusing to see the Sabres be one of the 25% of teams who have good Fenwick and fail to make the playoffs

 

Actually, seeing "Fenwick" in the thread title sent me into heat....seeing the graph itself was the end of it :w00t:

[IKnowPhysics]

Seems like every advanced stats thread goes through the Scopes trials.

 

Due to the broad results on the plots, it'd be hard to use Fenwick close as a predictive stat, but there are interesting trends- teams that post a Fenwick close greater than 0.525 have always gone to the playoffs and 18/28 of those teams got past the first round. Detroit, who's made the playoffs every year has posted a 0.522 or higher.

 

This year is interesting; teams with Fenwock close greater than 0.525: LA, BOS, CHI, STL, NYR, NJ, MON, VAN. Only one of those teams is outside the playoffs, STL, and they're 9th and 1 point out.

 

Toronto is 6th in the standings but has a 0.449 (4th worst), a position from which no team has made the playoffs. Shortened season stats or house of cards waiting for a breeze?

[LastPommerFan]

attached is a fenwick-close chart of just the eastern conference for the past 5 years. (data is from a chart Matt Collier tweeted today)

 

It looks like Fenwick is a decent predictor of Making the playoffs, but it's completely useless after that.

 

2008: 1,2,4,8,9,12,13,14 make the playoffs, 2,12,13,14 advance, 12 loses to 14 in the ECF

2009: 1,2,3,4,5,6,10,12 make it, 1,2,5,6 advance, 5 loses to 6 in the ECF

2010: 1,2,3,5,6,7,9,15 make it, 1,2,6,15 advance, 15 loses to 6 in the ECF

2011: 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9 make it, 1,5,7,8 advance, 1 loses to 7 in the ECF

2012: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 make it 3,4,8,9 advance, 8 loses to 4 in the ECF

 

4 of the 10 teams in the ECF over the last 5 years finished the year in the bottom half of the conference in Fenwick-close.

 

Best fenwick for the eastern conference champ: 51.39 (2010 Flyers)

Best fenwick finishing position for the eastern conference champ: 4th (2012 Devils)

 

Top 3 Eastern conference Fenwick teams have made the ECF just twice in 5 years (2009 Canes, 2011 Lighning) they have no won the conference.

Bottom 2 Eastern conference Fenwick teams have made the ECF twice in the same time (2008 Penguins, 2010 Habs) they won the conference once (2008 Pens)

 

You are actually far more likely to play in the Stanley Cup Finals finishing in 5th-8th place in Fenwick (3 times) than finishing in the top 4 (1 time)

 

So this is a good predictor of regular season performance, but completely useless as soon as the playoffs start. This makes sense as the game changes drastically in the playoffs.

fenwickeast.pdf

[carpandean]

It looks like Fenwick is a decent predictor of Making the playoffs, but it's completely useless after that.

 

...

 

So this is a good predictor of regular season performance, but completely useless as soon as the playoffs start. This makes sense as the game changes drastically in the playoffs.

 

I know that you'd run into issues of small sample sizes, but it would be interesting to look at Fenwick pre trade deadline vs. post trade deadline and/or regular season vs. post season. With the types of players brought in and the change in playing style, do we see a discernible difference? Does Fenwick suddenly lose its predictive power or is regular season Fenwick simply a poor predictor of post season (or "down the stretch) Fenwick? Just wondering aloud ...

 

While relatively good, there's still a lot of noise when using Fenwick as the lone predictor during the regular season. So, perhaps, it's simply a matter of once you trim off the truly bad teams, then other factors (some of which may be more strongly correlated with Fenwich when looking at all 15 teams, than when looking at just the 8 that make the playoffs) play a more significant role in determining the winners in the post season.

[bunomatic]

Actually, seeing "Fenwick" in the thread title sent me into heat....seeing the graph itself was the end of it :w00t:

 

The happy ending ? :wub:

[TrueBlueGED]

The happy ending ? :wub:

 

Everybody loves happy endings!

 

 

I know that you'd run into issues of small sample sizes, but it would be interesting to look at Fenwick pre trade deadline vs. post trade deadline and/or regular season vs. post season. With the types of players brought in and the change in playing style, do we see a discernible difference? Does Fenwick suddenly lose its predictive power or is regular season Fenwick simply a poor predictor of post season (or "down the stretch) Fenwick? Just wondering aloud ...

 

While relatively good, there's still a lot of noise when using Fenwick as the lone predictor during the regular season. So, perhaps, it's simply a matter of once you trim off the truly bad teams, then other factors (some of which may be more strongly correlated with Fenwich when looking at all 15 teams, than when looking at just the 8 that make the playoffs) play a more significant role in determining the winners in the post season.

 

The split I'd most like to see would be season/playoffs, alas, I don't think that exists. It could simply be that it's sort of like great goaltending: you need great goaltending to win, but you don't necessarily need a great goaltender. So you need great possession numbers to win, but getting those numbers could easily be a short-term effect in the playoffs which the team couldn't sustain over the course of a full season; in cliche terms, they got hot at the right time.

 

 

You are actually far more likely to play in the Stanley Cup Finals finishing in 5th-8th place in Fenwick (3 times) than finishing in the top 4 (1 time)

 

So this is a good predictor of regular season performance, but completely useless as soon as the playoffs start. This makes sense as the game changes drastically in the playoffs.

 

I think your analysis is flawed because it's only looking at the Eastern Conference. Consider the following even strength Fenwick and Fenwick-close percentages (league ranking in parentheses) of Cup winners since they started tracking this data:

 

Year Team Fenwick Fenwick-close

2008 Detroit: 59 (1) | 59.7 (1)

2009 Pittsburgh: 49 (19) | 50.1 (13)

2010 Chicago: 57.8 (1) | 58.1 (1)

2011 Boston: 50.1 (16) | 50.8 (14)

2012 LA: 53.7 (4) | 53.7 (4)

 

Obviously hockey is complex and no single statistic is going to be a perfect predictor (if you have the firepower the Pens have, you can probably afford to have the puck a little less)...but Fenwick looks pretty good to me when you don't exclude the conference which has won three of the last five Cups ;)

 

Edit: The one constant is that you don't see bottom-feeding possession teams winning a damn thing--you have to be at least middle of the pack to have a shot. This is precisely why I think Anaheim and Toronto are houses of cards.

[LastPommerFan]

I think your analysis is flawed because it's only looking at the Eastern Conference. Consider the following even strength Fenwick and Fenwick-close percentages (league ranking in parentheses) of Cup winners since they started tracking this data:

 

Year Team Fenwick Fenwick-close

2008 Detroit: 59 (1) | 59.7 (1)

2009 Pittsburgh: 49 (19) | 50.1 (13)

2010 Chicago: 57.8 (1) | 58.1 (1)

2011 Boston: 50.1 (16) | 50.8 (14)

2012 LA: 53.7 (4) | 53.7 (4)

 

Obviously hockey is complex and no single statistic is going to be a perfect predictor (if you have the firepower the Pens have, you can probably afford to have the puck a little less)...but Fenwick looks pretty good to me when you don't exclude the conference which has won three of the last five Cups ;)

 

Edit: The one constant is that you don't see bottom-feeding possession teams winning a damn thing--you have to be at least middle of the pack to have a shot. This is precisely why I think Anaheim and Toronto are houses of cards.

 

Look at your data. The Eastern Conference issue is glaring. This might have to do with differences between the east and west style games, but when a EC team wins they come from the middle of the pack, when a WC team wins they come from the top. That is not trivial. Fenwick does not appear to be an indicator of Playoff performance in the Eastern Conference.

 

Fully agreed on the bottom feeder thing. It's like face-offs, there is some minimum threshold beyond which there are diminishing returns.

[TrueBlueGED]

Look at your data. The Eastern Conference issue is glaring. This might have to do with differences between the east and west style games, but when a EC team wins they come from the middle of the pack, when a WC team wins they come from the top. That is not trivial. Fenwick does not appear to be an indicator of Playoff performance in the Eastern Conference.

 

Fully agreed on the bottom feeder thing. It's like face-offs, there is some minimum threshold beyond which there are diminishing returns.

 

Let's face it, dealing with a sample size of 5 sucks. Really a shame these stats don't go back farther than the 07-08 season.

[LastPommerFan]

Let's face it, dealing with a sample size of 5 sucks. Really a shame these stats don't go back farther than the 07-08 season.

 

I agree. But the small sample even furthers my position that it can't be accepted as an effective indicator of playoff performance. at least yet.

[TrueBlueGED]

I agree. But the small sample even furthers my position that it can't be accepted as an effective indicator of playoff performance. at least yet.

 

Fair enough. For me it absolutely passes the face validity test: if a team is spending significantly more time in the offensive zone than the defensive zone and firing more rubber at the opposing net, they're probably going to win more often than they lose. Now all I need to do is start cheering for the upper-echelon possession teams so the data backs up the inherent logic.....except that the top possession teams in the East are the Habs, Bruins and Rags :censored:

[LastPommerFan]

Fair enough. For me it absolutely passes the face validity test: if a team is spending significantly more time in the offensive zone than the defensive zone and firing more rubber at the opposing net, they're probably going to win more often than they lose. Now all I need to do is start cheering for the upper-echelon possession teams so the data backs up the inherent logic.....except that the top possession teams in the East are the Habs, Bruins and Rags :censored:

 

Fortunately, we CAN use it as an aid in the Sabres progress. If they are improving from an 8th to 11th place team to a playoff team, we most certainly will see the corresponding increase in their Fenwick-Close. So I will keep an eye on it each year... until April.