Jack’s shooting % - Is it a problem?

[SwampD]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Well Skinner will eventually regress, so will Eichel. He's shooting at half his career sh% and part of that is because his shot selection has been bad. Hopefully his OT goal gives him some confidence and he's been working on hit shot. 

I'm just not sure this is true. They are both playing like they always have and they've never played together. Maybe this is the new normal. 

I just wonder if his shooting % isn't really off, but rather he's actually playing for the rebound knowing he has a guy there who finishes.

[LGR4GM]

Skinner is shooting at 20.3% and his average is 10.7%

Eichel is shooting at 5.8% and his average is 9.5%

That isn't normal on any NHL team. Skinner will get lower and Eichel will get higher. How much is open for debate but Jack Eichel isn't going to shoot at 5.8% the rest of his career unless he's downright awful. 

[SwampD]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Skinner is shooting at 20.3% and his average is 10.7%

Eichel is shooting at 5.8% and his average is 9.5%

That isn't normal on any NHL team. Skinner will get lower and Eichel will get higher. How much is open for debate but Jack Eichel isn't going to shoot at 5.8% the rest of his career unless he's downright awful. 

10.7% was his average before Eichel. We don't know what his % will be with Eichel. Right now it's 20.3

I don't care what is normal on any NHL team (even though there are plenty of others with similar shots total and %), when you are a good team, you are above normal.

 

Something something,... wet blanket.

[LGR4GM]

20% is not normal on any team. There are a few players each year that shoot at or over 20% but it is not sustainable. 

[SwampD]

11 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

20% is not normal on any team. There are a few players each year that shoot at or over 20% but it is not sustainable. 

It was for Karlsson last year.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

It was for Karlsson last year.

I love this take by just about anyone because it basically ignores what I am trying to say. What's Karlsson's sh% this season? 10% lower than last season.

The point isn't he will regress tonight or tomorrow or even next month but at some point Jeff Skinner will regress back towards his average. 

[SwampD]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I love this take by just about anyone because it basically ignores what I am trying to say. What's Karlsson's sh% this season? 10% lower than last season.

The point isn't he will regress tonight or tomorrow or even next month but at some point Jeff Skinner will regress back towards his average. 

And you're missing my point, who gives a f? It has no bearing on this season and serves no purpose other than to be a wet blanket. Do you really think that Vegas fans gave a crap about what his shooting% would be this year as they were watching a run to the SCFs?

Here's some more. Eventually Skinner will get old and die, at which point he will be shooting well below his average. It's going to happen, you can't tell me it won't.?

Edited November 21, 2018 by SwampD

[BullBuchanan]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I love this take by just about anyone because it basically ignores what I am trying to say. What's Karlsson's sh% this season? 10% lower than last season.

The point isn't he will regress tonight or tomorrow or even next month but at some point Jeff Skinner will regress back towards his average. 

Exactly. Hell, it could last the whole season, but if Skinner buries 45 goals this season, that doesn't mean that's who he is. he's a 30G scorer, and any plan should be based around that fact. He's been in the league 8 years, and he's hitting peak production right now. That typically means the end of a the prime and a slow descent downward. until around 30. Nobody is trying to take the steam out of this amazing season or Skinner's great year. I think we just need a longer term plan. It doesn't seem to me like we have a top six scorer in the pipeline right now, so I'd like to see the Sabres do a little shopping sometime between now and next season, so that they can carry the momentum forward.

Also, it would help immensely if jack could elevate his game to be worthy of his contract.

Edited November 21, 2018 by BullBuchanan

[LGR4GM]

18 minutes ago, SwampD said:

And you're missing my point, who gives a f? It has no bearing on this season and serves no purpose other than to be a wet blanket. Do you really think that Vegas fans gave a crap about what his shooting% would be this year as they were watching a run to the SCFs?

Here's some more. Eventually Skinner will get old and die, at which point he will be shooting well below his average. It's going to happen, you can't tell me it won't.?

Put me on ignore then. Skinner will regress towards the mean. Your second paragraph is absolute trash. Total garbage. 

Here's some more wet blanket aka conversation to enlighten you. I also said jack will get better. He's not a 5% shooter so he's gonna improve. Unless of course he gets hit by a meteorite or something. 

Edited November 21, 2018 by LGR4GM

[SwampD]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

Put me on ignore then. Skinner will regress towards the mean. Your second paragraph is absolute trash. Total garbage. 

He absolutely will. Unless you can tell me it will be next week or two years from now, it's irrelevant.

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, SwampD said:

He absolutely will. Unless you can tell me it will be next week or two years from now, it's irrelevant.

No it's irrelevant to you. Maybe some of us are curious about it considering he isn't under contract. You don't like it, don't f##king read this thread. 

I guarentee you that next season skinner will not have a 20% sh% after say 25 games. 

Edited November 21, 2018 by LGR4GM

[dudacek]

25 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Also, it would help immensely if jack could elevate his game to be worthy of his contract.

90-plus point pace, leading a resilient top-5 team isn’t good enough?

[Randall Flagg]

Weird things:

Buffalo Sabres centers: Jack Eichel, Casey Mittelstadt, Sobotka, Berglund, Larsson, Girgensons have all played some center. I would guess that Eich, Mitts, Vlad, Berglund, and Larsson are the guys who have actually played the most time at the position, so I'll use those guys. 
They've combined for 13 goals, 28 assists. If you include ERod, you add 6 assists and no goals. Zemgus: 1 goal, 4 assists. So 7 players are averaging 2 goals and 5.5 assists, which would project to 8 goals and 21 assists for an average Buffalo Sabre center.

Buffalo Sabres wingers: Of the names not mentioned so far, 37 goals and 42 assists. That's roughly 6 goals and 7 assists so far per winger. Considering that two assists are often awarded for every goal, that is a decidedly slanted stat line in favor of goals. It would project to 23 goals and 27 assists for the average Sabre winger. (Our depth wingers are much better offensively than our depth centers, hence the point total discrepancy). 

I think this is systemic, and contributes to things like Jack's shooting percentage. I still don't have a good handle on this, but Phil's centers are expected to be tremendously responsible defensively. They are always the first ones back when possession changes in the offensive zone, and play the defensive side of the NZ like a third defenseman. Jack, Casey etc. are often behind the net in the defensive zone, and appear to have fairly complicated coverage instructions. I guess this is all pretty normal. They're also most often the furthest-back safety valve for when our D recover the puck. It's a lot of ground to cover, and as a result they tend to stay pretty high in the offensive zone, which is the thing I've noticed the most as being different from a team like Toronto, who has three goal scoring centers and a bunch of silky playmakers on the wing. Almost any Jack and Casey play I can picture this season comes from the high slot, and rather high on the boards. Occasionally they get behind the net, but that seems to happen most when they're the second or first forechecker in, which is common in line-change scenarios. An example of this is when Jack forced the Hornqvist turnover that skinner got back to Bogo for goal 2 on Monday. When things are fully established, though, unless it's a gritty 4th line cycle, our centers make plays from up high. Naturally, the shots taken from those regions create rebounds more than goals, and our wingers are dutifully positioned near the net with a frequency we haven't seen in years this season. And I think this helps explain the goal scoring discrepancy. 

It goes further for Jack specifically. Remember his rookie year, when almost all of his goals were highlight reel variety rushes and snipes? We made a point last year to talk at great length about how Jack's goals were a result of getting to the dirty areas, which represented a change from the days of Yeichel. His linemate Kane was a rush-specialist, and generally took long shots and worked the boards when the play was established in the offensive zone, and so Jack was free to hit the crease frequently. For examples, check out his goals early in the season - on long island in game 2, in LA, at Toronto later on. Dirty, gritty goals. We remarked that he's scoring the way Matthews does, and it worked because of his most common winger's tendencies. Pominville could go to the net too, but it's fine to have two players go to the net.

This year, though, Pommers and Skinner have staked their claim of that area. And they're scoring like fiends doing it. Jack sees this and as a result isn't burying his head and driving the goal - that wouldn't be smart. He's using his skills to get the puck to those guys there. Like, all of Jason and Jeff's goals are a direct result of this sequence of events. It works, Jack sees it, Jack will keep doing it. As a result, he's further away than normal, and fewer shots are going in (though less than eventually will, he's also a bit snakebitten). If he were to start jamming the crease with those three, then our offense would die, because there would be acres of open ice and no Sabre to get pucks that go there. Furthermore, so many teams are quick in transition, that when three forwards get caught down low and the puck doesn't bounce right, it goes the other way and Pittsburgh gets about three of their goals that way. My dad shouted at the TV the second all three Sabres on (I think) the Casey line were below circles, because the puck skipped to a Pens defender and we got scored on 5 seconds later. You could see it coming, and that's why in general the plan is to keep the guy Phil wants being the most defensively responsible up high near the defensemen. And since he likes offensive zone play to incorporate the D, the center up there is a useful distribution center.  

So I think that Phil's schemes value playmaking, thinking, and watching from Center, and prefer to lean on the wings for the heavy goal scoring. That is reasonable given our roster structure. And I think that will contribute to suppressed goal totals and inflated assist totals for our centers going forward, which is fine by me. I also think that Jack's current line, which is excelling, will continue to keep Jack away from the dirty areas which will lower his goal total but help improve their two way play in letting him get back quickly (he had a brilliant crease clear late in Pittsburgh that was attributed to Skinner), helping mitigate the line's potential for defensive woes, and will utilize his playmaking heavily as it has been. 

[BullBuchanan]

8 minutes ago, SwampD said:

He absolutely will. Unless you can tell me it will be next week or two years from now, it's irrelevant.

I can tell you it definitely won't extend past the season, which also happens to be when his contract is up. 

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

90-plus point pace, leading a resilient top-5 team isn’t good enough?

No.

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

I can tell you it definitely won't extend past the season, which also happens to be when his contract is up. 

No.

What is?

[SwampD]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

What is?

Apparently nothing.?

[SwampD]

39 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

No it's irrelevant to you. Maybe some of us are curious about it considering he isn't under contract. You don't like it, don't f##king read this thread. 

I guarentee you that next season skinner will not have a 20% sh% after say 25 games. 

If he's still on Jack's wing, I'll take that bet.

Edited November 21, 2018 by SwampD

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

Exactly. Hell, it could last the whole season, but if Skinner buries 45 goals this season, that doesn't mean that's who he is. he's a 30G scorer, and any plan should be based around that fact. He's been in the league 8 years, and he's hitting peak production right now. That typically means the end of a the prime and a slow descent downward. until around 30. Nobody is trying to take the steam out of this amazing season or Skinner's great year. I think we just need a longer term plan. It doesn't seem to me like we have a top six scorer in the pipeline right now, so I'd like to see the Sabres do a little shopping sometime between now and next season, so that they can carry the momentum forward.

Also, it would help immensely if jack could elevate his game to be worthy of his contract.

Skinner is a 30 goal scorer with middling centers.  He has an elite/ near elite center now.  Probably doesn't end up consistently a 40 goal scorer, but with him on Eichel 's wing, there has been no reason yet for us to believe he isn't a 35 goal winger.

Playing with a better linemate should reasonably be worth a bump in production.  5-8 goals seems about right.

[LTS]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I love this take by just about anyone because it basically ignores what I am trying to say. What's Karlsson's sh% this season? 10% lower than last season.

The point isn't he will regress tonight or tomorrow or even next month but at some point Jeff Skinner will regress back towards his average. 

If analytics were as big back in the day... when do you think people would have predicted that Gretzky or Lemieux were never going to regress back to the mean?  Some players set new norms. I know those are extremes, but the underlying point is that sometimes some factors come together that cause an outlier condition to occur.

So, while you say it absolutely WILL happen, that's not necessarily true.  It is more that it's probable it will happen. However, there needs to be an allowance for what happens when certain factors combine and potentially break away from the statistical norm.

This is why arguing metrics is pointless.  It's good for comparisons and projections but it does not predict the future.  The shrinking of goaltender equipment could account for an increase in SH%.  If it does, arguing the metrics from 3 years ago is pointless because the game has changed.  Next year a change in the glove could increase SH%.  Any of these factors will play into it.

Even the same player in the same situation will trend one way or another in relation to changes on the ice.  So you can say it WILL happen and I think that's where people take umbrage.  You say it as an absolute.  It's not. 

 

[BullBuchanan]

15 minutes ago, LTS said:

If analytics were as big back in the day... when do you think people would have predicted that Gretzky or Lemieux were never going to regress back to the mean?  Some players set new norms. I know those are extremes, but the underlying point is that sometimes some factors come together that cause an outlier condition to occur.

So, while you say it absolutely WILL happen, that's not necessarily true.  It is more that it's probable it will happen. However, there needs to be an allowance for what happens when certain factors combine and potentially break away from the statistical norm.

This is why arguing metrics is pointless.  It's good for comparisons and projections but it does not predict the future.  The shrinking of goaltender equipment could account for an increase in SH%.  If it does, arguing the metrics from 3 years ago is pointless because the game has changed.  Next year a change in the glove could increase SH%.  Any of these factors will play into it.

Even the same player in the same situation will trend one way or another in relation to changes on the ice.  So you can say it WILL happen and I think that's where people take umbrage.  You say it as an absolute.  It's not. 

 

When calculated appropriately, that's precisely what they do. What we're currently experiencing is variance, or deviation from the norm. This is also baked into advanced analytics in fields that aren't new to using them. Sports are still in the infant stages of using data to make predictions, so this isn't necessarily true in the hockey context, but it is globally. 

You can argue the specific merits of a given metric and be completely valid, but to say data cannot predict the future is completely false. You usually can't predict what will happen next Tuesday, but you can accurately predict long-term results provided enough insights.

Edited November 21, 2018 by BullBuchanan

[SwampD]

8 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

When calculated appropriately, that's precisely what they do. What we're currently experiencing is variance, or deviation from the norm. This is also baked into advanced analytics in fields that aren't new to using them. Sports are still in the infant stages of using data to make predictions, so this isn't necessarily true in the hockey context, but it is globally. 

You can argue the specific merits of a given metric and be completely valid, but to say data cannot predict the future is completely false. You usually can't predict what will happen next Tuesday, but you can accurately predict long-term results provided enough insights.

Did this post actually say anything?

[LTS]

9 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

When calculated appropriately, that's precisely what they do. What we're currently experiencing is variance, or deviation from the norm. This is also baked into advanced analytics in fields that aren't new to using them. Sports are still in the infant stages of using data to make predictions, so this isn't necessarily true in the hockey context, but it is globally. 

You can argue the specific merits of a given metric and be completely valid, but to say data cannot predict the future is completely false. You usually can't predict what will happen next Tuesday, but you can accurately predict long-term results provided enough insights.

First of all, "when calculated appropriately" is just a ridiculous political phrase to use. Is that also saying that when they don't accurately predict what happened the model was not calculated appropriately?  Yes, of course it is.  Of course in saying that we must also allow that when a model that usually predicts outcomes fails to predict an outcome that it should be altered.  As such, no model is infallible.  As such, it cannot be relied upon 100%. Data models predict probable outcomes.  That's not predicting the future. 

And for what it's worth.. if data could predict the future then why does it not?  Don't you think we should be using that data to stop mass shootings and other atrocities? 

All of that aside, what you did not address was my point that there are influences to the data points that are collected that can dramatically alter any historical context such that you must start over with defining what the new norm is.  Such as, changes to goaltending equipment size.

Put another way, and to be completely stupid about it.  Any model that predicts SH% would be useless if the NHL changed the net size to 7x5 tomorrow.  You'd have to start over recalculating what the expected SH% would be and that would require data points so that you could run an analysis and get your norm plus your standard deviations and all that.

 

[BullBuchanan]

3 hours ago, SwampD said:

Did this post actually say anything?

Apparently it's beyond your comprehension. Just ignore it, it'll be easier.

[BullBuchanan]

3 hours ago, LTS said:

First of all, "when calculated appropriately" is just a ridiculous political phrase to use. Is that also saying that when they don't accurately predict what happened the model was not calculated appropriately?  Yes, of course it is.  Of course in saying that we must also allow that when a model that usually predicts outcomes fails to predict an outcome that it should be altered.  As such, no model is infallible.  As such, it cannot be relied upon 100%. Data models predict probable outcomes.  That's not predicting the future. 

And for what it's worth.. if data could predict the future then why does it not?  Don't you think we should be using that data to stop mass shootings and other atrocities? 

All of that aside, what you did not address was my point that there are influences to the data points that are collected that can dramatically alter any historical context such that you must start over with defining what the new norm is.  Such as, changes to goaltending equipment size.

Put another way, and to be completely stupid about it.  Any model that predicts SH% would be useless if the NHL changed the net size to 7x5 tomorrow.  You'd have to start over recalculating what the expected SH% would be and that would require data points so that you could run an analysis and get your norm plus your standard deviations and all that.

 

Sorry if being accurate is too "political" for you. In science, constraints and controls matter, so yes, when you calculate predictive outcomes you have to make sure you're taking all appropriate data into account so that you're just not seeing a correlation = causation scenario.

Re: predicting the future. Do you understand how math and probability works? I'm guessing not.  Predictions are never 100% for a given scenario at a given time. That's not how math works. Probability states that over an extended or even infinite amount of time the algorithm will be true.Predicting the future happens all the time. How do you think doctors know what cancer treatments to provide, or how scientists will predict what path a hurricane will take, how a poker player determines the likelihood of a given play being successful? They use hard data and probability. 

When you have a 0.0001% chance to win a lottery and you win it twice, does that make the math false? No, of course not, the math never changes. What you just experienced is called variance, commonly called luck. Could you experience positive variance or negative variance over the course of a career or even a life? Sure. The math doesn't care how old you are, it just cares what is true. Your positive variance is likely paid for by someone else's negative variance. You can beat a 95% percent terminal illness, lose an election you were favored by 80%, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme. If you bet against the odds, you are invariably going to lose if you live long enough.


Will goalie equipment affect the model? Of course. Will it change the game to a degree that a significant portion of the population will experience a disproportionate rise in their efficiency vs other equally or superior skilled opponents? Unlikely. They're all playing int he same scenario. It's effectively a control. Sure, some may benefit more than others, but it would be reasonable to assume that the majority of the population would be affected more or less equally with potential modifiers based on skill gap. Maybe Crosby benefits slightly more than Skinner, by virtue of already being better.

Don't try to preach about things you clearly don't even have the most rudimentary understanding of.

Edited November 22, 2018 by BullBuchanan

[SwampD]

4 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

Sorry if being accurate is too "political" for you. In science, constraints and controls matter, so yes, when you calculate predictive outcomes you have to make sure you're taking all appropriate data into account so that you're just not seeing a correlation = causation scenario.

Re: predicting the future. Do you understand how math and probability works? I'm guessing not.  Predictions are never 100% for a given scenario at a given time. That's not how math works. Probability states that over an extended or even infinite amount of time the algorithm will be true.Predicting the future happens all the time. How do you think doctors know what cancer treatments to provide, or how scientists will predict what path a hurricane will take, how a poker player determines the likelihood of a given play being successful? They use hard data and probability. 

When you have a 0.0001% chance to win a lottery and you win it twice, does that make the math false? No, of course not, the math never changes. What you just experienced is called variance, commonly called luck. Could you experience positive variance or negative variance over the course of a career or even a life? Sure. The math doesn't care how old you are, it just cares what is true. Your positive variance is likely paid for by someone else's negative variance. You can beat a 95% percent terminal illness, lose an election you were favored by 80%, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme. If you bet against the odds, you are invariably going to lose if you live long enough.


Will goalie equipment affect the model? Of course. Will it change the game to a degree that a significant portion of the population will experience a disproportionate rise in their efficiency vs other equally or superior skilled opponents? Unlikely. They're all playing int he same scenario. It's effectively a control. Sure, some may benefit more than others, but it would be reasonable to assume that the majority of the population would be affected more or less equally with potential modifiers based on skill gap. Maybe Crosby benefits slightly more than Skinner, by virtue of already being better.

Don't try to preach about things you clearly don't even have the most rudimentary understanding of.

Actually, that’s exactly how math works. What we’re talking about is statistics, which is applied mathematics, and its wrong all the time. 

(Well, not all the time. Actually, it tells us how often it is wrong?)

Edited November 22, 2018 by SwampD