Empty Calorie Scoring

[LGR4GM]

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

[Thorner]

Without looking at this list I'd guess Laine is one of the biggest "empty calorie scorers" there is. 

[darksabre]

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

[Weave]

Sounds an awful lot like they are trying to quantify clutch scoring, a concept wildly debated here.

[rakish]

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.

[Eleven]

I thought I locked the Drew Stafford thread years ago.