The Common Sense Scoring Index
Last season, then-contributor to Motown Wings Chris Hollis came up with a brilliant idea. Hollis' plan was to track the Red Wings' players game-by-game through the use of a scoring index that corrected for the random, unfair stats that can show in a player's line, in order to create a more perfect system where a player's value to the team could be more accurately judged. Hollis has since moved on to a writing gig at The Production Line and has stated that, even though he watched all the games, tracking the CSSI was vey difficult.
Well, not being the type of guy to listen to reason and, with Chris' blessing, I've decided to resurrect the concept of the Common Sense Scoring Index [CSSI] and will be tracking these numbers all season. My method differs slightly from Chris', but the logic remains the same. I might be a hopeless Red Wings homer who's incapable of sound, rational, and objective judgment when it comes to my team but, since I'm only comparing members of my team between one another, the CSSI should come out fairly free from the subjectivity poison that plagues stat-mongers everywhere.
Follow through the jump for a breakdown/explanation of how the CSSI ratings will differ from the official NHL stats.
For skaters, I'll keep track of goals, assists, points, and plus/minus, both as an official NHL.com tracking stat and for my adjusted CSSI-stat categories. I expect that by season's end, my adjusted point totals and plus/minus ratings will differ very severely from NHL.com's. The main main change between the official league stats and the CSSI-adjusted stats is that both points and plus/minus ratings can be halved and they will be awarded or taken away based on context. Here are some examples:
- The CSSI scoring system will not arbitrarily limit the number of assists on a goal to two. There will be times when a third assist is warranted and possibly in rare instances a fourth or even a fifth assist will be awarded.
- A player will not have to have touched the puck to earn an assist. Screening a goalie or lifting a stick so your teammate can take the puck from an opposing player do just as much to earn an assist as a shot on net that turns into a rebound.
- In the same vein, just because a player touched the puck doesn't automatically grant him an assist. I may take helpers away from people who get lucky while making a stupid play.
- If a player deflects a puck that did not need to be deflected or pushes a puck over the goal line that otherwise would have crossed on its own, the player who would be credited with the goal by NHL standards may end up with a goal, a half-goal, half-assist, an assist, or no points on the play. I predict that Holmstrom will see a slight drop in his goal totals, but a large increase in his assist totals as a result of these rules. To assuage the worry, I will absolutely differentiate between a puck that didn't need to be tipped and one of Holmstrom's masterful redirections. I'm not looking to take credit away from the best net-front presence in the league
- A player who takes a bad penalty will be given a minus-one if the opposition scores on the powerplay resulting from his being in the box. This will ONLY count for bad penalties, as I'm not interested in penalizing guys for being in the box following a referee's mistake. I also will not punish whomever Mike Babcock chooses to send to the box on a too-many-men call or the guy who has to serve Jimmy Howard's penalties for roughing up Sidney Crosby this year.
- Alternately, earning a power play where the Wings score will get a guy a plus-one. Grinders who work hard to get the Circus line on the ice for a power play goal should be rewarded on the stat sheet. [Update as of 11/03: October's numbers for this system showed a flaw in this methodology that randomly rewarded or punished players. Instead of tracking it this way, pluses and minuses will be awarded for every good penalty earned or bad penalty taken. I will take care to discern between what Mickey Redmond might call "chintzy" calls and the ones that really showcase either a particularly good or bad decision.]
- The rule of thumb will be to keep a plus or a minus for each player as the official stat-keeper will award them, but they will be taken away individual review. Going off on a bad line change will tend to punish the guy who initiated the line change that aided the subsequent goal, rather than punishing the hapless oncoming defender.
- The most subjective change to plus/minus will be awarding what could be called "Phantom Ratings" (but what I am going to call Bonus Ratings, because it sounds better). A player who works incredibly hard over the course of the game, but is not rewarded on the official scoresheet can and will be rewarded with additional plus ratings for his outstanding play. Likewise a player who makes many mistakes but is bailed out time and again by his teammates will find extra minuses hampering his rating.
Finally, the CSSI will keep track of a few goalie-related items. First off, I will track shootout losses. If a player doesn't deserve a game-winning goal for winning a skills competition, a goalie does't deserve a full loss hanging over his head for failing to stop a guy. Also, the CSSI will track what I'm referring to as a goalie plus/minus rating. I will keep track of big saves made (trying very hard to differentiate between a truly great save and a goalie recovering from a bad misake) and will keep track of soft goals. The goalie's plus/minus will be calculated as the difference between big saves made and bad goals allowed.
Keep an eye out for the first CSSI post this Friday night after the Ducks/Wings game. I'll be tracking them in a post here all season long.
21 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Love love love the idea
Hollis is a smart kid. This is brilliant idea. I loved it last season when he kept meticulous track of such things, and it’s a huge undertaking — so best of luck to you, sir.
As a lifer, I’ve never figured out why a guy like Holmstrom (screening) or Rafalski (ridiculous breakout pass) don’t get an assist for — for all intents and purposes — the things that ARE the reasons for a goal, or at least begun the play that directly led to one.
I’m glad to see that it will live on here. And I hope for an NHL that — in my lifetime — rewards all of the players that deserve it without penalizing another.
by Michael Petrella on Oct 6, 2010 2:10 PM CDT reply actions
Of course...
I mean “This is A brilliant idea.” LeKrubbed that one…
by Michael Petrella on Oct 6, 2010 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions
What Petrella Said
This is going to be a huge task, and as one of your co-authors, I respect you for taking this on.
I’m not sure how you could incorporate this, but do you believe there would be a way to award someone for taking a “good” penalty where the opposition did not score on the subsequent power play? For example, holding a player’s stick when that guy is about to put the puck into an open net is a “good” penalty, in that he prevented a sure goal, even if that means the Wings take their chances killing the penalty. Perhaps this could be used as a “plus”.
Like to keep your communication short and to the point? Follow me on Twitter
That's a good point
I probably would consider giving a guy a plus for fantastic defensive play in that situation. He might get at least half a plus, even if the opposition scores on the ensuing power play, just because they DEFINITELY would have if he hadn’t stepped in.
by J.J. from Kansas on Oct 6, 2010 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Much Better
This is a much better idea than all those god-awful, boring, weighted Corsi-rating posts we see over at KK.
“Top 20 Leftt-Handed,Offensive,Defensemen on Bottom-10 Teams who average between 11 and 12 minutes on ice per game”
by Red, White and a Mile high on Oct 6, 2010 2:32 PM CDT reply actions
I swear to God
That shit made me stop going to KK altogether. I’ve subscribed to A2Y only and rely on Twitter for the rest of my hockey news. I can’t stomach that goddamn Corsi nonsense and all of the other bullshit stats that dude makes up to suit his ridiculous itch that morning.
I applaud the ambition, but enough’s enough. It’s all nonsense and a grand total of zero people enjoy it, based on the comments.
by Michael Petrella on Oct 6, 2010 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Hey
Give the guy a break, he’s smarter than Steve Yzerman; he said so himself!
by J.J. from Kansas on Oct 6, 2010 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions
wow...
Really? I mean, as much as I don’t enjoy his blog, I at least had a shred of respect for him for being passionate about numbers and stats (I’m married to a statistician, and I’m an Engineer…so, yeah, numbers are sometimes cool). But that….it’s like finding a turd in the punch bowl….you cant even go near it afterwards.
by Red, White and a Mile high on Oct 6, 2010 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions
Assists?
Will a player be awarded an assist on his own goal, like in a two-on-one where the attacking players pass it back & forth?
Not likely
Unless I see something jaw-dropping (which could happen from Datsyuk), I don’t anticipate that I’ll ever give a player more than one point on a play (from a strictly points stanpoint, mind you… I do see players getting more than one plus or minus on some plays). I might give a half-goal and a half-assist to each on a play like you described, but for the most part, that would score like normal.
by J.J. from Kansas on Oct 6, 2010 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions
It’s a great idea and sounds very interesting, the only thing is there seems to be alot of subjectivity (I think that’s a word) in awarding some of the stats. You’ll be starting and pausing that DVR a lot. If nothing else it will keep you glued to the play and cause some good discussions.
BTW, with all this statistical analysis you’ll be doing, it make me have to ask :Have you been hanging around with TPSH?
You're right about subjectivity
I will fully admit up front that even among the Red Wings, there are players I like more than others and that will likely bias my opinions when adjusting the team’s score. Hopefully the commenters will keep me in check. However, there’s already a certain amount of subjectivity in the official stat lines. I’ll be adding to that, but only to compare Red Wings to other Red Wings.
I have not been hanging around that guy though, nor do I think I would. Part of what I like about hockey is that there isn’t a unified statistical theory that says option A is always better than option B and I think the stat guys who are chasing that, while noble in effort, are doing little more than tilting at windmills considering the nature of the statistics at their disposal. To tell the truth, I’m not entirely sure what a season of CSSI-adjusted stats will tell us. I know that it should create a true ranking system of Red Wings players by value, but at least half of this experiment is to find out exactly what we’re really going to find out by doing this.
by J.J. from Kansas on Oct 6, 2010 5:50 PM CDT up reply actions
have not been hanging around that guy though, nor do I think I would
Sorry, that was my poor attempt at humor, should’ve used an emoticon I guess. Anyway, I think it’s a great idea and will be following all season.
I got it.
emoticons still help though ;)
by J.J. from Kansas on Oct 6, 2010 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions
Datsyuk flipping the puck over the net and slapping it in.
Only way I can think of, unless there’s ridiculous creativity with the boards.
I tip my metaphorical cap to you, J.J.
Having collected reams of data and tried to make sense of it at times before, I know what a large task you have ahead of you. The single biggest help will be well-designed data sheets to record pluses and minuses easily. Without that, you’ll be screwed.
"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time." --Sir Winston Churchill (1874 – 1965)
TMMOI
A player who takes a bad penalty will be given a minus-one if the opposition scores on the powerplay resulting from his being in the box. This will ONLY count for bad penalties, as I’m not interested in penalizing guys for being in the box following a referee’s mistake. I also will not punish whomever Mike Babcock chooses to send to the box on a too-many-men call
What about the extra man on the ice in a case where it’s obvious that he wasn’t paying attention / was being an idiot?
If I catch him doing it, I'll minus him.
by J.J. from Kansas on Oct 6, 2010 6:21 PM CDT up reply actions
A caveat though
TMMOI is a bench mistake. I know guys know better, but what I don’t know is when it’s a coaches’ mistake and when it’s a player’s mistake. I’d rather err on the side of blaming the coach instead of minusing a player.
by J.J. from Kansas on Oct 6, 2010 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Jesus
This is gonna be hard as crap. I salute you, sir, for attempting to do this the whole season.

by 














