Season CSSI Wrap-Up: Plus/Minus Adjustments
When we last left you on on the subject, we took a look back at the season-long CSSI numbers for points adjustments. Those numbers gave us a very good indication of how each of the Red Wings' players did in driving Detroit's offense this season. I intended the points adjustments to help us factor in the things that players do to help the team score goals that they don't necessarily get credit for on the official scoresheet. Today, we'll look at the other side of the coin in the CSSI adjustments, the plus/minus adjustments.
For context, nobody can quite agree upon what exactly a person's official plus/minus tells you. As a statistic, it is only meaningful to give an indication of what happened at even-strength, but does a horrible job of telling us why. There are so many factors that a player cannot control which impact his official plus/minus score that the statistic as-is does nothing more for us than fit neatly together with other (and sometimes contrary) statistics to tell us what we want to hear. A puzzle piece which fits together with dozens of other pieces tells us nothing about the overall picture.
What I tried to accomplish with plus/minus adjustments was a ratings system that made sense, one that people can look at and from which they can discern a meaningful comparison without myriad arguments about how situational ice time, relative goalie strength, and overall ability of linemates and competitors would skew the numbers. I wanted to try to get as close as possible to achieving the goal of creating a statistic that could best be used as a measure of a player's defensive ability. I think that with the help of the readers this season, we accomplished this feat. Join us below the jump for a look at the numbers.
Where there were only eight categories to fit the offensive contributions, there are thirteen plus/minus adjustments to tell the story. These categories are as follows:
Goal-Scored Plus: These are plus ratings awarded to a player when it was deemed that a defensive contribution he made on the ice (whether by starting or preventing transition) helped lead directly to a Red Wings goal.
Coverage Minus: Given to a player who made a mistake in defensive coverage that was determined to have led directly to an opponent scoring.
Turnover Minus: Given to a player who was judged to be directly or indirectly at fault for a turnover that the opposition used to score a goal against Detroit.
Overall Plus/Minus: Given to a player whose overall play during the game was ascertained to either have positively or negatively impacted puck possession for the Red Wings in a way that he was not properly credited for in the official stats.
Penalty Plus: Awarded whenever a player was deemed to have made a play to sufficiently force an opposing player to take a penalty to prevent a goal or a high-percentage scoring chance. As a note, there was a rather strict application of this rule. Pluses were not given out to players who were simply determined to be the victim of an opponent being stupid.
Penalty Minus: Given whenever a Red Wings player took a penalty that was not considered a "good" penalty to take or when a player made a grievous mistake that forced one of his teammates to take a penalty.
Shift Change Plus/Shift Change Minus: This category was created to award and take away pluses when a player who did more to help create a Detroit goal came off the ice for a line change before the goal was scored.
Power Play Plus Lost: This is a minus category created to take away official pluses given to players who were on the ice for a goal that was scored for Detroit in the short time between the end of a Detroit power play and when the penalized player was able to get back into the play.
Power Play Minus Cleared: Again, the opposite of the category above, this category is to to clear a minus for a Detroit player who was on the ice for a goal against in the intervening time between the end of a successful Red Wings penalty kill and the player being considered "back in the play."
Goal Against Minus Cleared: This category is for players who were on the ice for a goal against, but were not judged to have been at fault for the goal being scored. This is to prevent a player who is playing his position as expected from getting a minus when other people on the ice make mistakes.
Goal Saved Plus: Given to a player who does anything that prevents what should be considered a surefire goal. Lifting the stick of a player preparing to receive a pass on a wide-open backdoor and outright making a save on a shot are both examples of this.
(Games Played column added for comparison's sake)
| Player | GP | GS+ | Cov- | Trn- | Ov+ | Ov- | Plt+ | Plt- | SC+ | SC- | PP- | PK+ | GA+ | SV+ |
| Datsyuk, Pavel | 56 | 15 | -4.5 | -5.5 | 27.5 | -4.5 | 8.5 | -4.5 | 1.5 | -1 | -2 | 0 | 10.5 | 1 |
| Zetterberg, Henrik | 80 | 10 | -7.5 | -8.5 | 27.5 | -3 | 9.5 | -10 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 19 | 1 |
| Holmstrom, Tomas | 73 | 7.5 | -4.5 | -2.5 | 4.5 | -4.5 | 12.5 | -16 | 0 | -1 | -2 | 0 | 19 | 0 |
| Franzen, Johan | 76 | 6.5 | -3.5 | -3.5 | 4.5 | -9.5 | 2 | -11 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 22 | 1 |
| Filppula, Valtteri | 71 | 9 | -5.5 | -7.5 | 14 | -2.5 | 8 | -6.5 | 0 | -1.5 | -1 | 0.5 | 17 | 0 |
| Bertuzzi, Todd | 81 | 13.5 | -7 | -4 | 8.5 | -1 | 9 | -14.5 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 31.5 | 0 |
| Hudler, Jiri | 73 | 7 | -4.5 | -1.5 | 9.5 | -7 | 2.5 | -9.5 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 17 | 1 |
| Modano, Mike | 40 | 2 | -3.5 | -1 | 5 | 0 | 1 | -2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 |
| Cleary, Danny | 68 | 9 | -2.5 | -3 | 13 | -3 | 4.5 | -5 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 17.5 | 0 |
| Helm, Darren | 82 | 15 | -15 | -3.5 | 29 | -1.5 | 21 | -2 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 7.5 | 1 |
| Abdelkader, Justin | 74 | 7.5 | -1.5 | -0.5 | 12 | -0.5 | 5 | -11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 9.5 | 1 |
| Miller, Drew | 67 | 3.5 | -1.5 | 0 | 8 | -2 | 4.5 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 13.5 | 0.5 |
| Draper, Kris | 47 | 7 | -2 | -5.5 | 1.5 | 0 | 2 | -6 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 |
| Eaves, Patrick | 63 | 3.5 | -3.5 | 0 | 10.5 | 0 | 10.5 | -4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 |
| Mursak, Jan | 19 | 1 | -0.5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | -2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.5 | 0 |
| Tatar, Tomas | 9 | 0.5 | -1.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Emmerton, Cory | 7 | 0 | -0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lidstrom, Nicklas | 82 | 13.5 | -12.5 | -3.5 | 31 | -1.5 | 0.5 | -5 | 2 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 21 | 3.5 |
| Kronwall, Niklas | 77 | 6 | -7 | -11.5 | 12 | -8.5 | 4 | -7.5 | 2 | 0 | -2 | 1 | 17 | 2 |
| Rafalski, Brian | 63 | 6.5 | -11 | -7 | 2.5 | -4.5 | 1 | -8 | 0 | -2 | -1 | 1 | 13 | 2 |
| Stuart, Brad | 67 | 2.5 | -9 | -7.5 | 14.5 | -4.5 | 0.5 | -9 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 2 | 10.5 | 5 |
| Salei, Ruslan | 75 | 2 | -7.5 | -6 | 8.5 | -7.5 | 1 | -12 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 10.5 | 2 |
| Ericsson, Jonathan | 74 | 5 | -16.5 | -7 | 12.5 | -11.5 | 1.5 | -21 | 0 | -3 | -1 | 1 | 8.5 | 1 |
| Kindl, Jakub | 48 | 4 | -8.5 | -2.5 | 7.5 | -3 | 1 | -8 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 6 | 0 |
| Janik, Doug | 7 | 0 | 0 | -1.5 | 0 | -2 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.5 | 0 |
If anybody wants to know why Datsyuk is a strong Selke candidate in a year where he only played 56 games, then the first column should be a good hint. His +15 on goals scored means that he was better than everybody else on the team at turning defense into offense. The fact that an 82-game pace would have made him a +22 in that regard says wonders. I was also interested to see how high Bertuzzi's number in that regard is. The going consensus around Red Wings nation was that Bertuzzi played very well defensively and I think this number helps to put a number to that. Of course, that category isn't purely defensive, as the number is dependent upon the Wings scoring a goal, but it does help us explain pretty well which Wings were driving the transition game that has been so crucial to Detroit's past success.
The coverage minus column is very interesting, as nobody found himself failing to cover his man or zone in the defensive end more than Darren Helm. Part of this can be attributed to the CSSI's habit of occaisionally giving minuses to penalty killers and part of it can be explained by the system's inherent bias against centers (more defensive responsibility equals more opportunity to mess up). This, by no stretch means that Helm played badly defensively though, his team-leading overall plus/minus rating shows that. It's just that a defensive center playing in defensive situations is going to get exposed occasionally. Also of interest is that the Wings' best defenseman earned the second-most coverage minuses. While it's not a stretch to imagine that Ericsson would find himself out of position about that often, I was a bit surprised to see Lidstrom punished so much, even when taking his quality of competition scores into it.
For turnovers, nobody knew how to create an odd-man rush against Detroit quite like Nik Kronwall. This is the risk you take with an offensive-minded D-man. The good news is that the rewards he brought more than outweighed that, as Kronwall was among the three out of Detroit's seven defensemen who's adjusted plus/minus was higher than his official one.
The difference in overall pluses and minuses does a good job of showing which guys were more consistent and which were more streaky. Lidstrom is the model of consistency here with +31 overall to only 1.5 minuses. You can see that Hudler actually earned more overall pluses than Bertuzzi, but he pissed most of those away in also earning seven minuses to Bert's 1. Ericssons pluses and minuses were very neatly broken into streaks, as he earned seven overall pluses or half-pluses in a stretch between November 5th through December 10th before falling into a streak of seven overall minus ratings from the beginning of January up to February 7th.
Penalty differential showed very clearly the strict differentiation between earning a penalty plus and deserving a penalty minus. Only four players were an overall plus in that regard (Datsyuk, Filppula, Helm, and Miller), while only the most offensive of defensemen in Kronwall was able to pull more than 2 earned calls in Detroit's favor. I'm happy with the way that turned out though. Nobody expects defensemen to draw penalties. Holmstrom's gamble is a fun case to look at because would he draw so many penalties if he weren't doing the things that caused him to also take as many? All I know is that watching him end Red WIngs power plays got very frustrating at times. Franzen being such a big body is perhaps not going to draw as many calls as a smaller person, but two is unacceptably low. Speaking of unacceptable, Ericsson led the team in minor penalties taken (30) and got credit for 21 of them being bad. That is a huge number.
The GA+ category above, for minuses cleared when a player wasn't at fault for a goal against is the ultimate reason why position should be taken in consideration when looking at the numbers. Pretty well across the board, wingers got a lot more breaks than anybody while centers got a few more breaks than defenseman. As noted elsewhere, the more defensive responsibility a player has, the more chances he has to make a mistake. Todd Bertuzzi ended up tied for the lowest official plus/minus rating of anybody on the team, but was the 7th-best among Red Wings players in adjusted plus/minus. Can anybody who watched this season honestly tell me that Bertuzzi was as bad defensively as Jiri Hudler?
There is plenty more to be gleaned from these numbers and, next season, I will be tracking these game-by-game, so we can recognize trends better as they happen. Thanks again to everybody who helped develop this system as the season went. I am extremely satisfied with how rewarding this season-long project turned out.
32 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Can't say enough.
Great, great work. I’m going to be foaming over all these numbers until we can watch hockey again. If you need any help with anything let me know*.
*Help regarding statistical information or analysis. I’m not going to roof your house, school your children, or give you a colonoscopy.
I hate Jonathon Ericsson.
by Brion on Jul 3, 2011 10:30 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Well damn
I wanted two of those three to happen!
by J.J. from Kansas on Jul 3, 2011 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions
Also
I’ll probably be looking a bit more into how player matchups/pairings went along with their plus/minuses.
For instance, I did a little bit of a look at Ericsson in only the games where he earned an overall plus and a minus and found that, in games where he earned an overall plus, he averaged about two minutes less ice time than in games where he earned overall minuses. A lot of that comes from a pretty low ice time totals he had early on in the season. By the end of the year, he was probably averaging closer to 22 minutes and he finished the season on overall pluses in four out of the Wings’ last five games. But, I’m pretty interested to see how a lot of the players’ numbers suffered when Stuart and Datsyuk were out of the lineup.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jul 3, 2011 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions
for those who think ericsson had a bad year for the wings he did not he had good year you seam to forget the wings had alot injuery on defense last year .the wings played with out 2of thier top 2deffesivemen for long periods of time and played kindel alot more then they want to in frist real time with the wings and ericsson move up or dowen in the defsive pair ing as the wings need and was the one wings deffesivemen who would drop his gloves for his teamates .also he played in omost all the games last year so if you add in games that other deffesive men did not play in that our on wings roster his plus // minsus was not as bad as some post say he is the weack link in last year playoff run he was not the proleam in fact salie was he didnot play as soild as he did during the seaion for the wings and seam to have ahuge drop off during the playoff and our forweard did bad job of helping out the deffisive clear the front of the net in the playoffs
Please use some punctuation. I don't always pick on grammar, but this is painful.
and really, if you’re going to pull stuff like how Rafalski and Stuart were injured and how that made Ericsson look worse, I want to see more of that argument backed up.
I have yet to see a well-reasoned argument comes to any conclusion other than Jonathan Ericsson was the worst Red Wings player to get as much ice time as he did last season.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jul 3, 2011 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions
Provide some evidence
I can say Brett Lebda is the best defenseman in the league, but stats tell the difference.
I hate Jonathon Ericsson.
This made the "Word Nerd" part of my brain cry.
Like, full on gasping tears. I am going to go read some Thomas Wolff and hope my brain stops screaming.
If you are from another country know that I am joking. I guarantee I couldn’t get by in your native tongue half as good as you speak English. If you are from the U.S. though, let me just apologize on behalf of our public schools.
alright
i liked when he was on the team, glad to see him back 6 games a year!
Deeper look...
JJ,
Thanks for applying your statistical aptitude to creating more player performance revelatory matrices. So many of the stats most often used distort what we see. I too will wade deeper into these numbers during this off season and I know we all look forward to your refinements for this upcoming 2011-2012 season. #9 (I live in Kansas City)
Thanks!
We’re probably going to have a few WIIM get-togethers among the Kansas City crowd for some Wings-watching parties next season if you’re interested. Keep an eye out on the fanposts as the season rolls on.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jul 3, 2011 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions
WiiM
Winging It In Motown. The name of this blog community. :)
Random Ramblings from a Somewhat Scattered Mind
"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)
I new to this neighborhood
Thanks Baroque! Good to find another bastion of Wingdom.
by Number9Loyalist on Jul 3, 2011 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions
welcome :)
If you get the chance to meet some of the folks in person, I recommend it. They’re good people.
Random Ramblings from a Somewhat Scattered Mind
"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)
Just awesome!
Thanks for all the hard work. I give you a +50.
Thank you,
The time and hard work you put into this is very apparent. I enjoyed reading them after every game, and I look forward to reading them next season.
On Ericsson, the most painful part of his play has not been the turnovers, has not been the blown coverage, it has been the dumb penalties he has taken. I can forgive bad play if i see growth in the player, but he takes too many dumb penalties. I would like to see his CSSI broken up by his paring, and time on ice I’ll bet we will see some trends.
I read that caption and totally lost it. Fantastic.
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
Also, am I missing something, or do you just not have total CSSI +/- listed? You’re quoting overall stats in the article, particularly as it relates to the traditional +/-, but without that information provided in your chart, we can’t really look at it and gain anything from it, outside of what you’ve already said. If you could total out the adjustments, and show that total against the NHL plus/minus, that would make this a really useful tool for other people to take a look at and analyze, especially if you intend to take this forward into future seasons when we might be looking for trends at players over time.
In particular, I’m interested in Brian Rafalski. I ended up in a debate over on Jewels From The Crown with Rudy Kelly about how losing Rafalski is not actually that big of a blow, because honestly, the guy was so badly hurt so often that he was near useless in his own zone – he lacked strength, footspeed, and agility, and as a result could not win board battles, could not beat his man to a puck, could not help out his defensive partner effectively, and basically became a liability.
I see an awful lot of minuses up there in his row, with the glaring exception being minuses restored for goals against not being his fault (in position, and someone else blew their man). While this may be true, anecdotally from my own viewing experience (and being a defenseman myself), I feel like a lot of times Rafi was putting his partners in bad situations, particularly when a puck was dumped into his corner. He would never beat his man to that puck, and often just tried to start a board battle that he couldn’t win. This generally leads to a Winger or a D-Partner coming over to help, leaving the rest of the team to adjust in their end, particularly the C or the other D (if he didn’t join the battle on the boards) being left in precarious situations. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how it felt to me.
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
The charts total
Can be found here in the end-of-season adjustment total
I did not total them here because I was most interested in looking solely at the adjustments made to build off of the what had happened all season. Rest assured that when this particular chart carries over to next year, it will be accompanied by totals.
To summarize the adjustment differences, Rafalski was defensively the #4 guy on the team. The three defensemen who had a higher adjusted plus/minus than Rafalski were Lidstrom (49), Kronwall (7.5) and Stuart (+4). Comparatively, Rafalski was -7.5 from his official to his adjusted plus/minus while the rest were worse than that: Salei (-10) and Ericsson (-30.5). Kindl was an overall -4.5 adjustment, but is a bit of a different case. If you take their overall adjustment difference as a rate stat, Kindl is still slightly better than Rafalski there, but when you take the entire gamut of stats into consideration, including time on ice, situational usage, and hte fact that they each had an equal number of penalty minuses while Rafalski played 15 more games, I don’t feel it’s warranted to say that Jakub Kindl defensively outplayed Brian Rafalski as much as I have to go back to one of the themes of the original post in saying that Brian Rafalski was given significantly more defensive opportunity and therefore significantly more opportunity to mess up. I think Kindl’s adjusted plus/minus in Raffi’s situational playing time would have ruined him.
anecdotally from my own viewing experience (and being a defenseman myself), I feel like a lot of times Rafi was putting his partners in bad situations
There could very well be truth to this and it could partially help mitigate the idea that Ericsson had the most minuses among anybody on the team. However, I think the CSSI adjustment system did a good job of properly framing fault when it was due. If a player lost a board battle and it ended up in the back of Detroit’s net, that person got a coverage minus for his mistake. A horrible pass in one’s own zone to his defensive partner that ended up on the opponent’s stick and eventually in the net would be judged as a turnover minus and would properly show up in the categories above.
What’s left over is the great unknown and just about nearly incomprehensible relationship between all the players on the team and their effects on one another (This is probably one of the things I love most about hockey and how it throws a monkey wrench into all of the numbers we create to try to simplify the game). However, bringing it back into the context we do know, the remaining support for your argument comes from an intangible idea that Jonathan Ericsson was more negatively affected by playing with Brian Rafalski than Rafalski was negatively effected by playing with Ericsson.
Anecdotally, that doesn’t seem to pass most people’s smell test, HOWEVER, there could be a horrible amount of merit to that idea based solely on the fact that the Red Wings just gave Ericsson such a big contract. Ask me 100 times and I’ll tell you the same that i certainly have faith that the Wings scouting, coaching, and managerial staff know way more than I do and that there’s a decent chance they were somewhat trying to hide Ericsson’s value by putting two offensive defensemen together.
Ultimately, the question becomes a definition of what “that big of a blow” means to you as far as the loss of Rafalski. I could say that if Raffi felt good enough to give his $6M the last year and wanted to lace his skates back up for Detroit, based solely on the CSSI numbers we got from him this season (both points and plus/minus), I would have him back in a heartbeat. I’d go so far as to say that combining both points and plus/minus adjustments considerations, there’s at least a decent argument to be made that Rafalski was Detroit’s 2nd-most valuable D-man. I’m not sure if I’d really go that far, but the #2-4 spots are all pretty close.
Finally, I wouldn’t call any of the Wings’ defensemen a liability considering how bad a job I think the forwards did in consistently helping the team play the stifling defense we came to know and love during the Wings’ last cup run.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jul 4, 2011 8:49 AM CDT up reply actions
Whew, sorry for the length
I probably should have just made this topic a follow-on post of its own…
by J.J. from Kansas on Jul 4, 2011 8:51 AM CDT up reply actions
Back checking
JJ, you said “Finally, I wouldn’t call any of the Wings’ defensemen a liability considering how bad a job I think the forwards did in consistently helping the team play the stifling defense we came to know and love during the Wings’ last cup run.”
I am always taken by how little we discuss this aspect of the game and there’s no metric for it either. As a defenseman I would adjust my positioning and risk taking based on what line was on the ice during my shift, driven primarily by how disciplined they were in transition.
I think there has been too much blame directed our d’men and not enough emphasis placed on our TEAM defense – and as much as I love our future HoF Coach, this weakness last season has to at least fall partially on Babs. To win the Cup there needs to be a total 22 player buy in to team defense and game in and game out there needs to be accountability, to both behind the bench and on ice leadership.
by Number9Loyalist on Jul 4, 2011 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions
Totally agree
There have been quite a few conversations about the need of the forwards to do better, but just like you said, it’s so hard to put a metric to how much better we need the entire team to play as a solid unit when it comes to transition and anti-transition.
I really hope that the new assistant coaches that Babs bring in help him bring back the entire team concept.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jul 4, 2011 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions
However, bringing it back into the context we do know, the remaining support for your argument comes from an intangible idea that Jonathan Ericsson was more negatively affected by playing with Brian Rafalski than Rafalski was negatively effected by playing with Ericsson.
Whoa, whoa. It’s not that Rafi was the dead weight on that d-pairing, dragging Ericsson down into the gutter. Mostly, that defensive pairing is largely a terrible idea, and I think the two of them make each other worse. With Rafalski’s skating ability being limited by injuries, he needs a faster partner to help cover him, which Ericsson is not. He also needs his partner to take more of the board battles, and while Ericsson can do this, he does it by taking a lot of penalties, which is his own issue to work on. At the same time, Ericsson doesn’t have the experience to always be positioned in the right place or not make mistakes – as a young defenseman, he needs a veteran presence that can bail him out, and then slap him in the back of the head when he gets back to the bench. Rafalski, lacking the foot speed and strength, can’t really fill this role either. Largely, both of them needs the same things out of their partner, because they have some of the same deficiencies, though for different reasons. It’s not a very good pairing, in that way, and I think they both drag each other down.
Of course, Salei suffers from some of the same problem, largely footspeed, so he can’t really pair with either one that well either. So now you’re getting limited in your pairings. And your numbers here show that Kronwall needs someone to cover his back, since he’s frequently in the rush – mostly for good results, but someone has to cover the bad ones too. Now we’re talking about 4 defensemen who need someone to cover them, and only 3 defensive lines on which to split them up. I think Ericsson/Rafalski was the lesser of the evils, but damn, I really wanted a nice, solid, stay at home defender to back these guys up (Jan Hejda was my choice).
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
And you’re not incorrect about the forwards making plenty of their own mistakes backchecking into their own zone. In particular, I noticed this myself mostly with Franzen and Zetterberg, which feels right with your numbers. However, its important to note too that the leaders on Coverage Minuses for the team read as such:
Ericsson -16.5 (D)
Helm – 15.0
Lidstrom -12.5 (D)
Rafalski -11.0 (D)
Stuart -9.0 (D)
Kindl -8.5 (D)
Salei -7.5 (D)
Zetterberg -7.5
Kronwall -7.0 (D)
Bertuzzi -7.0
All of our defenders are pretty high on the blown coverages (which is where a forward not backchecking hard enough or failing to do so entirely would be counted, right?), and our forwards are largely absolved. Now, part of this could be a mistake in your own recording – the guys trailing the play can be hard to follow, and forward responsibilities are a lot less obvious to ascertain (generally speaking) than defensive ones. So part of that could be human error or just not having enough information. Part of it too may have to do with TOI, so there’s that to consider too. However, that large of a lead would seem to undermine your thought that a lot of the defensive shortcomings come from the forwards.
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
All of our defenders are pretty high on the blown coverages (which is where a forward not backchecking hard enough or failing to do so entirely would be counted, right?)
That is correct, failing to properly backcheck was a good cause of plenty of minuses for forwards this season.
our forwards are largely absolved. Now, part of this could be a mistake in your own recording – the guys trailing the play can be hard to follow, and forward responsibilities are a lot less obvious to ascertain (generally speaking) than defensive ones
This would assume the Wings giving up a large percentage of their goals on the rush rather than the cycle. Once the play is established in the zone, the wingers take on much less importance as they are only there to prevent the men on the point from moving the puck to the middle of the ice and getting open shooting lanes from good angles.
The thing is that I’m not trying to lay the majority of the blame on the forwards for the bad defensive performance by the Wings this year, I’m trying to lay their fair share. I still feel comfortable saying that a lot of the defensive shortcomings come from the forward while I’m not saying that it was “most” of them.
I would say that one failure of the CSSI system is among those things which are minutely intangible. One of my complaints about the Wings’ play this season was their transition game (they played more on-the-rush than transition). Too often, as the Wings broke up a cycle or regained possession in their own zone, the forwards would leave the zone early and create a large gap between themselves and the defenders trying to carry up ice. Aggressive forechecking would slow momentum and allow the team to get bogged down in the neutral zone. This would lead to the team having to play more dump-and-chase, which led to more possession for the other team. Unless done egregiously, losing a board battle behind the other team’s net is not going to get a lot of people minuses, but dump-and-chase allows other teams to create a transition game, which turns into a cycle game, which gives the centers and d-men more opportunity to mess up.
The fact that the puck is back in the defensive zone in this situation is basically the forwards’ collective fault, but it’s not really any one forward’s fault and the CSSI does not have a way to fairly punish a line for what is basically losing momentum to the other team. Hell, this doesn’t even have to be caused by a puck being lost in the offensive zone. There were plenty of times when a d-man under pressure would be forced by this large gap to make a low-percentage play or simply dump the puck out of the zone because the other team’s defense has done a good job. Situations like this make it all but impossible to effectively lay extra blame for a goal beyond the official minus the players get.
Besides, at its core, that is essentially a coaching failure.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jul 5, 2011 7:18 AM CDT up reply actions
I pretty much agree with you on most of that. Part of what I was getting at in the part you quoted was one of the limitations that may exist for this project, which largely boils down to being able to see the entirety of the play and who is where and what exactly is happening away from the puck.
I don’t know if you’re familiar with Football Outsiders, but what you’re doing is pretty similar to their Game Charting project – they have a staff of volunteers that watch every single NFL game and record things like who is on the field, who was responsible for covering a pass, how many blocks are blown by an individual, tracking incompletions as throw-aways, receiver fault, good coverage, etc. The list of things they track is huge, and some of the information they’ve drawn out of that project, especially being league-wide, is pretty neat. However, the biggest issue they have run into is that the camera angles for football just aren’t what they need, and they can’t get the All-22 (full-field) tape from the NFL. So sometimes there are players off screen, or action happens away from the ball, and they can’t adequately see, for example, which areas were the responsibilities of which defensive back.
This problem would exist, but differently, in hockey. Obviously there aren’t 22 guys on the playing surface (and from the standpoint of your project, you’d only be interested in 11 of them), however the players are changing during the play, not just between plays, the amount of movement going on during play in hockey is way beyond football, and the backchecking coverage (or lack thereof) or the reasons for why those coverages are/arent made can often happen behind the camera, which is tracking the puck at the front of the rush. On the rush, the defensemen are a lot more visible and more easily culpable for mistakes, and forwards, by virtue of being offscreen, could potentially be sliding by with mistakes unnoticed, because the viewer just can’t see them (unless Ken and Mickey point it out or show the replay).
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
There were a few times when that came up
I remember I had to miss a few things (especially on NBC broadcasts) simply because of lack of either replays or camera angles. That always pissed me off to the point where I’d go online to see if NHL.com had a different angle or where I’d do whatever I could to find some sort of an alternative. I wasn’t always successful, but I’d say that the true inability to be happy with how much replay I got only affected about five or six goals all season.
However, I’d say most of the time, the NHL broadcasts (especially those on Versus and FSN networks) did a fantastic job of showing the full context of a play. After a goal, there were usually plenty of replays and lots of angles to view how everything developed. I noticed especially for goals scored on the rush, that they would very often show a behind-the-net and high angle which would adequately capture everybody on the ice.
Honestly, tracking line change adjustments was the most difficult part, but that wasn’t a problem too often. Watching the Wings as often as most of us do, you get a great feeling for recognizing players exceptionally well. I would hazard a guess that a large portion of us could tell the players apart solely by how they skate, even if they weren’t wearing any numbers. In the cases where even that got confusing, there was always the shift charts at NHL.com to tell me exactly when somebody went on and came off.
The problem with breaking down a hockey play really became figuring out what was a mistake and what was a great play by the guy who forced the “mistake” – most scoring plays happened because the entire team gave a defender more options to cover than he could handle. While I didn’t clear minuses when a player was victimized in this situation, I tried to only punish him for plays like this when it was very clear that he chose to cover the worst option possible (handing off a coverage too late or blocking a passing lane to an acute angle while ignoring a cross-ice pass are memorable examples).
If a guy got open enough to score a goal, the first question always becomes “how did he get that open?” followed very closely by “well who was supposed to be covering him?” – often just knowing where on the ice he came from was enough to know who blew the coverage (unless you could see a position switch… like when a defenseman would make a run deep in the offensive zone and the forward would go back to cover).
Still, it would be absolutely great to get the raw camera feeds without having to rely on the networks to decide what they want to show us. Like I said at the offset, my biggest concern is NBC, because they are consistently the worst at giving us trying to analyze the game the proper replay angles because they’re often busy trying to either shove their on-air “talent” in our faces or because they have a producer going for an Emmy thinking he’s directing a John Woo film with some horrible camera angles that “key” in on particular people while completely losing context of a team sport.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jul 5, 2011 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions
Also, I’m looking at the chart you linked, and it does list the CSSI overall +/- and points and such, as opposed to the official stats, but that table lacks the information from this table. It’s probably not really practical to post all of that into one giant table for the purposes of the specific posts you’re writing – at that point, you’re throwing so much in there that it inhibits readability. I think this whole thing is pretty neat though, and I’d be really curious to page through some of your data. Hell, honestly, reading this (and the long conversation we’re having) makes me wanna start examining some of this stuff and posting my own conclusions from it on my old defunct blog. Of course that’s not a promise to do anything with it (holy shit I’m busy, buying and fixing up a house and getting married in the same summer is a bad idea), but its something that I’d certainly like to sift through.
Would you be cool with uploading a master table or two full of all of this kind of end-of-season data, or sharing it via GoogleDocs? It’s all already out there, its just not in an easily useable format right now for anyone else to play with (can’t be sorted, not all in one place, etc.), but even if I don’t play with it, there may be others out there who would like to, and the Wings corner of the internets is woefully short of informed statistical discussion.
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
Points Adjustments:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai5XeH94lTDbdEtrSlQzTkZxM1R6b3lkOFZhd3c0b0E&hl=en_US
Plus/Minus Adjustments:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai5XeH94lTDbdGVYRXAyZGNKOU1maHZuT3hqMkhQcEE&hl=en_US
The spreadsheets are not pretty nor particularly well-formatted, but they more than served their purpose for me.
I do not have the overall tracking chart on a spreadsheet though.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jul 5, 2011 7:24 AM CDT up reply actions
Amazing Work
I would be surprised if the Wings don’t hire you or use your stats for reference. I understand they have staff that create in depth stats on the game but these are impressive. Like capgeek.com, your site will soon begin to be referenced on news reports. Your analyses are spot on, fair, and insightful.
Great work and I always click on the Ads to help raise revenue for you.
Great Job.

by 















