In which people theorize of the return of the Dead Puck Era, and take pot shots at the Sedins
by Semi_Colon on Feb 16, 2012 8:08 PM PST
Email
Print
Clutch and Grab! Clutch and Grab! (via www.capitalareafootball.nb.ca)
There has been some chit, and chat, around the internet watercoolers the past few days about the decrease in goals since the lockout and why that might be. First, I saw this tweet by Neil Greenberg on how powerplays per game are at a three decade low. Then, Ed Willes penned (typed?) this article on the same subject, theorizing that defensively minded teams are also contributing to the lack of scoring. He tapped the Sedins for some quotes. Finally, SkinnyPhish at Pension Plan Puppets slammed Willes' piece, saying that the only reason for the decrease in scoring was an increase in the skill of goaltenders, taking some uncalled for swipes at the Sedins just for fun in the process.
The trend of goals per game decreasing back to levels right before the lockout intrigued me, so I decided to really look into what is going on.
First up, let's take a look at the common thread here: Are powerplay opportunities down? Well, yes.
(note: in all graphs, PRE refers to pre-lockout)
This one is pretty obvious. Powerplay opportunities are way down since the lockout, down so much that the past few years there have been fewer powerplays per game than even before the lockout. Now, who knows what the reason for this is. Is it because players are learning what not to do? Probably. Or it could also be that refs are letting more things go. Tony Gallagher probably subscribes to the second theory, especially in relation to the Canucks. I don't think there is any way to actually determine the cause (of reduced powerplays, not of the conspiracy).
Next, let's look at goals per game, broken down into power play goals, and even strength goals (minus empty net and penalty shots).
What do we have? Overall goals per game are down, basically back to pre-lockout numbers. This is driven completely by the decrease in powerplay goals per game, as even strength scoring has only increased very slightly. Of course, with much less time being spent on the powerplay, we would expect there to be fewer power play goals. In the same manner, less powerplay time = more even strength time, so we should expect even strength scoring to increase.
Let's look at the goals per 60 minutes for even strength and PP to see why:
(note: there is no data on PP time before 2003)
This is the most interesting graph to me. Even strength scoring per 60 minutes of even strength time has remained basically constant in the past decade - even prior to the lockout. Powerplay goals/ 60 are kind of all over the place, but without that outlier in 2010 the scoring rate on the powerplay has also remained fairly consistent. I don't know what the bottom line here is: Clutch and grab didn't reduce even strength scoring as much as people thought? Because it's stayed at the same rate since all that stuff was supposed to have been removed.
Finally, to the theory that "goalies just got better": Skinny just looked at overall save percentage and saw it going up. It's pretty well known that save percentage while short handed sucks, so fewer powerplay opportunities should lead to fewer powerplay goals and better SV%. First, shots:
Not much to see here really. Total shots per game are fairly constant, the decrease in powerplay shots being offset by the increase in even strength shots. Total shots are up since the lockout, so there is that. Now, onto save percentage:
As expected, save percentage while shorthanded has gone up up up since the lockout, which is directly related to the decrease in powerplay opportunities and goals. Don't know what happened in 2010. Or 2009 for that matter. Although there was a jump in powerplay opportunities from 2009 to 2010, so that could partially explain it.
Even strength save percentage has increased slightly, up .0036 since the lockout while SH sv% is up 0.016.
So, is an increase in skill of goaltenders the reason why scoring is down? Or is it a reduction in powerplay opportunites and goals causing better goalie numbers while shorthanded? And of course, is that all goalie skill, or is it being helped by defensive systems (which Skinny rejects outright)?
I don't have enough data (I don't know if anyone really does) to prove or disprove why the even strength save percentage is slightly increasing, and increased goalie skill is possible - although I will say this: prior to the lockout, EV save percentage increased dramatically, which everyone pretty well attributes to clutch and grab and the trap. So I don't see why that should be completely ruled out here.
Unless you think Brian Elliot all of sudden took in the spirit of Dominik Hasek.
Data from NHL.com
29 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
A nice piece of work, Semi
Let’s see if we can’t get this on the front page, folks…
One of those jerks from Nucks Misconduct
@KentBaskyNM
Who knows, maybe he’s just sick of interviews and figures this is as good an excuse as any to ask for a media blackout. Or maybe he’s just a stupid douche. Either or. - Twitchy on TeaPartyTimmy
It can’t be just one thing. But in my opinion the big 2 are defensive systems and more skilled / BIGGER goalies. Is it a bigger skill for a goalie to be 6’4", load on the giant gear and play the butterfly style to play percentages?
Contributor at Nucks Misconduct
The number of shots “on net” is pretty consistent though. If blocking shots was having a huge effect I think the number of shots getting through would decrease
"Playin hurt, baby that don't faze me. I don't got time for pain. The only pain I've got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!"
yeah. Makes sense.
Contributor at Nucks Misconduct
by Sean Zandberg on Feb 16, 2012 10:13 PM PST up reply actions
If shots are consistent
Then chances are probably consistent. So why does it really matter if goals are down? Great read by the way Semi. Seems like things are less bleak than people made them out to be, even pre-lockout. Maybe the glory days of the 80’s were the anomaly and this is just what hockey is meant to be.
by Canuckelhead on Feb 16, 2012 10:44 PM PST up reply actions
further to that
Interesting that goal scoring was on a steady incline then dropped back down. Not exactly sure what it means but something i think
<img src=""Label",“Regular Seasons”,“Playoffs”
“1917-18”,“9.5”,“8.5”
“1918-19”,“8.222222”,“8.8”
“1919-20”,“9.520833”,""
“1920-21”,“8.375”,“3.5”
“1921-22”,“7.916667”,“4.5”
“1922-23”,“6.520833”,“2.5”
“1923-24”,“5.3125”,“3.5”
“1924-25”,“5”,“3.5”
“1925-26”,“4.611111”,“3.25”
“1926-27”,“3.995455”,“3.166667”
“1927-28”,“3.8”,“2.846154”
“1928-29”,“2.918182”,“2.363636”
“1929-30”,“5.913636”,“3.75”
“1930-31”,“4.790909”,“4.0625”
“1931-32”,“4.973958”,“5.307692”
“1932-33”,“4.550926”,“4.066667”
“1933-34”,“4.814815”,“3.8”
“1934-35”,“5.032407”,“3.384615”
“1935-36”,“4.328125”,“5.071429”
“1936-37”,“4.927083”,“3.705882”
“1937-38”,“5.0625”,“4.4375”
“1938-39”,“5.065476”,“4.05”
“1939-40”,“4.988095”,“4.210526”
“1940-41”,“5.357143”,“4.421053”
“1941-42”,“6.232143”,“5.285714”
“1942-43”,“7.226667”,“6.2”
“1943-44”,“8.166667”,“5.571429”
“1944-45”,“7.353333”,“4.666667”
“1945-46”,“6.693333”,“6.5”
“1946-47”,“6.322222”,“5.25”
“1947-48”,“5.855556”,“5.8”
“1948-49”,“5.433333”,“4.625”
“1949-50”,“5.466667”,“4.315789”
“1950-51”,“5.42381”,“4.117647”
“1951-52”,“5.185714”,“3.933333”
“1952-53”,“4.790476”,“5.5”
“1953-54”,“4.814286”,“4.3125”
“1954-55”,“5.061905”,“5.75”
“1955-56”,“5.066667”,“5.6”
“1956-57”,“5.380952”,“5.6”
“1957-58”,“5.590476”,“6.1875”
“1958-59”,“5.804762”,“6”
“1959-60”,“5.895238”,“5.428571”
“1960-61”,“6.004762”,“5”
“1961-62”,“6.019048”,“5.666667”
“1962-63”,“5.947619”,“5.6875”
“1963-64”,“5.552381”,“5.333333”
“1964-65”,“5.752381”,“5.15”
“1965-66”,“6.080952”,“5.3125”
“1966-67”,“5.961905”,“5.4375”
“1967-68”,“5.576577”,“5.6”
“1968-69”,“5.960526”,“5.636364”
“1969-70”,“5.809211”,“6.088235”
“1970-71”,“6.24359”,“6.116279”
“1971-72”,“6.131868”,“6.027778”
“1972-73”,“6.551282”,“6.342105”
“1973-74”,“6.392628”,“5.763158”
“1974-75”,“6.85”,“6.137255”
“1975-76”,“6.823611”,“5.791667”
“1976-77”,“6.643056”,“6.386364”
“1977-78”,“6.593056”,“5.777778”
“1978-79”,“6.995588”,“6.177778”
“1979-80”,“7.025”,“6.597015”
“1980-81”,“7.688095”,“7.941176”
“1981-82”,“8.025”,“7.211268”
“1982-83”,“7.729762”,“7.530303”
“1983-84”,“7.889286”,“6.314286”
“1984-85”,“7.771429”,“7.485714”
“1985-86”,“7.936905”,“6.5”
“1986-87”,“7.339286”,“6.275862”
“1987-88”,“7.42381”,“7.47619”
“1988-89”,“7.483333”,“6.52439”
“1989-90”,“7.367857”,“6.647059”
“1990-91”,“6.910714”,“6.659341”
“1991-92”,“6.957955”,“6.430233”
“1992-93”,“7.252976”,“6.835294”
“1993-94”,“6.484432”,“5.722222”
“1994-95”,“5.972756”,“6.358025”
“1995-96”,“6.285178”,“5.883721”
“1996-97”,“5.831144”,“5.341463”
“1997-98”,“5.275797”,“5.04878”
“1998-99”,“5.265583”,“5.116279”
“1999-00”,“5.49216”,“4.674699”
“2000-01”,“5.513008”,“4.802326”
“2001-02”,“5.236585”,“4.766667”
“2002-03”,“5.308943”,“4.707865”
“2003-04”,“5.135772”,“4.404494”
“2005-06”,“6.050407”,“5.650602”
“2006-07”,“5.757724”,“4.950617”
“2007-08”,“5.439837”,“5.364706”
“2008-09”,“5.695122”,“5.482759”
“2009-10”,“5.530894”,“5.977528”
“2010-11”,“5.550407”,“5.606742”"/>
by Canuckelhead on Feb 17, 2012 12:05 AM PST up reply actions
woops that was meant to be a graph
the first number is regular season, the second is post. So over the last 88 (the first five are from an era too different to include) years of hockey the average goals per game is 5.88. Even if you include the first five mental years the average is still only 6. Maybe the dead puck era was overstated?
by Canuckelhead on Feb 17, 2012 12:20 AM PST up reply actions
One last thing
You look at that and what also jumps out is that the so called “dead puck era” is 7 years from 97-98 to 03-04 but the goal average was down less than half a goal from the overall average and the jumps up after the lockout. But, as Semi pointed out the only reason it jumped was because of power plays. So, actually it was falsely propped up by a desperate league looking to attract t.v. networks.
by Canuckelhead on Feb 17, 2012 12:37 AM PST up reply actions
thanks for posting those numbers
Contributor at Nucks Misconduct
by Sean Zandberg on Feb 17, 2012 12:19 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks
Im actually surprised more people aren’t talking about these numbers in these kinds of discussions. To me it pokes a giant hole in the “dead puck era” theory. Unless they are referring to the early 50’s. You look at that and it seems obvious that there was a relatively small section of time where the goals were actually inflated. If anything people should be talking about the “live puck era” but my opinion is that hockey is at its best averaging 5.5-6 goals a game.
by Canuckelhead on Feb 17, 2012 1:03 PM PST up reply actions
Fan of shitty team takes unfounded swipes at the Sedins
Same shit, different day.
"I'll play on one leg, I don't care." - Ryan Kesler
@1stLineCenter
Nucks Misconduct's official black guy and first line center
by Chuckles Canuckles on Feb 16, 2012 10:20 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
yeah
Great stuff Semi.
How in the eff can you take shots at the Sedins in an article about save % ?
I won’t go read it , because if its biased to taking shots, what is the point, but if I had to guess at anything, I would say…the game is fine now. Its faster and more exciting since the lockout.
They could increase scoring by going back to the first couple years of calling “everything”, but I am happy with the game ( even though as fans we get confused as shit as to what is and not a call now,,,nake up your mind NHL!) as it is.
Nuck’s Misconduct Bishop, 1st United Church of Luongod. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi. I think he was a Canucks fan...
@Vancitydan Writer at Nucks Misconduct
Oh for sure
I mean I would have never suggested Semi look into this or anything.
The First Certified Grabbo Lover
Hahah should he be giving you credit or sum’in?
"Oh Ann, you beautiful spinster, I will find you love."
— Leslie Knope
by eightyseven on Feb 17, 2012 12:22 PM PST up reply actions
This is the website for Lucic’s church, if anyone is interested. I can’t find an email on there anywhere, unfortunately…I wish I could contact the church.
Does anyone on here know Serbian, and might be able to spot an email address on the page? Google translate doesn’t do a very good job.
They once made a Kevin Bieksa toilet paper, but it wouldn't take shit from anybody.
"To make our way, we must have firm resolve, persistence, tenacity. We must gear ourselves to work hard all the way. We can never let up." -Ralph Bunche
Nevermind, found it! : )
The emails for the priest etc. are here. Yay!
They once made a Kevin Bieksa toilet paper, but it wouldn't take shit from anybody.
"To make our way, we must have firm resolve, persistence, tenacity. We must gear ourselves to work hard all the way. We can never let up." -Ralph Bunche
Um
the part about PK SV% rising makes no sense. If the number of shots are going down that doesn’t automatically increase SV%… it should remain constant.
The point I would make is the variation on PK SV% at the NHL wide level is obviously large – i.e. random year to year.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
could be. But I wonder if there isn’t also an effect where as more PP’s accrue against your team your defenders get more and more tired, and less capable of rotating fast to cover shooters. That could actually produce a modest correlation between PP time and PP shooting percent. Also, if you have more PP’s then you’re going to get more 5 on 3’s, but I assume that’s already been filtered here.
I would hope so
One of the things that drove me nuts in the ongoing “talk” about the past game the Canucks played versus the Bruins, everyone talked about the Canucks going 4 for 11.
But they did not go 4 for 11, they went 4 for 7. They scored 2 goals on the 5 min for Marchand, and 1 on a 5 on 3. The rest is just bookkeeping.
I do get fascinated by the math of hockey, and definitely see its positivity on how the teams manage their teams and how fans view it.
But, to me anyhow, is that there is still not a thing shown math wise that can quantify the timing of certain things. Like, for instance, a PK kill in the last 6-8 minutes being more important in a tied or down one game. The amount of times they come back to score. The little plays that made those things happen.
We can count and quantify everything, I guess, but I guess I just don’t feel like breaking down the game with the math all the time. It was an OK subject in school, you know, but after watching the game, participating in a lot of its functions when younger, you get that intrinsic feel for when a goal is coming unless a defensive player does something.
I like enjoying that without knowing how often the left handed guy scores from the circle with/without the one timer…
Nuck’s Misconduct Bishop, 1st United Church of Luongod. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi. I think he was a Canucks fan...
@Vancitydan Writer at Nucks Misconduct
I like the convo at PPP. Much of it focuses on goalie gear and I agree with that. If you put 80’s Beezer pads on all the goalies today, no matter how skilled they were there would be more scoring.
Contributor at Nucks Misconduct
I find that
a somewhat straw man argument myself.
I would put it a lot more on every team, hell, every kid with any talent, having coaching and systems play at levels that guys like Billy Smith, on down through the Plantes and Vezinas, to say the least.
Different game, but those old guys never had to stop too many 100 plus shots from the point.
Goalie pads were downsized, the little cheaters on the pads that closed up the five hole are gone ( opening that up for those shots that get there a bit ). I guess you could play with a few pads here and there.
But I would think they need most of those pads in an era of carbon fibre sticks that have a whip that is just way more than wood.
Everyone can get it up 90-100 plus…well, almost. Certainly a lot more guys than in the sixties, seventies, and eighties, Al Iafrate and MacInnises of the world included.
Nuck’s Misconduct Bishop, 1st United Church of Luongod. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi. I think he was a Canucks fan...
@Vancitydan Writer at Nucks Misconduct
But I would think they need most of those pads in an era of carbon fibre sticks that have a whip that is just way more than wood.
Yes that is the problem but it shouldn’t be. They could still come up with the same size gear as the 80’s and protect the player even more than they currently do. Modern technology. To me the gear is a no-brainer.
Contributor at Nucks Misconduct
by Sean Zandberg on Feb 17, 2012 12:45 PM PST up reply actions
Those little pads
and smaller other pads were against wood sticks.
Of course its logical. You simply cannot make them wear little chest protectors and stop bombs.
To say nothing of the changes in styles brought on by the coaching. Kirk MacLean was one of the last stand up stars we know, but all of them played that way.
Guys like Brodeur and Roy, especially, influenced a whole generation of butterfly goaltenders. That and a bunch more coaching at a much younger age has more to do with the dearth of offence than a chest protector being probably 10-12 % bigger ( I would guestimate the other pads grew at that or a little less.
If they could come up with the gear like you said, for sure. Absolutely. It would increase scoring.
Nuck’s Misconduct Bishop, 1st United Church of Luongod. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi. I think he was a Canucks fan...
@Vancitydan Writer at Nucks Misconduct
Goalie going from average 5'10" to probably average 6'3" helps too!
Nuck’s Misconduct Bishop, 1st United Church of Luongod. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi. I think he was a Canucks fan...
@Vancitydan Writer at Nucks Misconduct
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Nucks Misconduct Store
Your clothing sucks. Go fix it.
