Comments on: Breaking Down The Capitals Line Combinations

By: BobbyG

BobbyG — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 01:25:00 +0000

As one of the “three” who reads this, I give the new format 2 thumbs up for ease of reading. It’s a lot easier on the eyes, and makes the stats and data easier to digest as well. It’s a keeper.

I agree about Semin. He’s going out of his way to prove me wrong too. But I’m not 100% converted. He’s going to have to part the Red Sea AND walk on water to convince me he’s the real deal.

By: Neil, RMNB

Neil, RMNB — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:46:16 +0000

@Adam rapid hacks at the net are always challenging. Typically I count them as one chance unless 3 secs have gone by. Why 3 secs? No reason other than to have a demarcation.

@Sean do you mean the chances per 15min? If so that’s always on the Google docs spreadsheet, linked above. I figured since I had the data there I would offer new ratios here. Lmk if you still want them in post.

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:41:31 +0000

Bring back a column that shows the scoring chances related to ice time. Otherwise I prefer this formatting.

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:21:50 +0000

Neil,

To echo the above, I do like the new format. I also had a question about how to handle when multiple chances occur in quick succession (i.e. when there are two or three hacks at a rebound in the crease area). Do those count as two or three scoring chances or do you lump them together as one chance?

Thanks.

By: Neil - RMNB

Neil - RMNB — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:10:41 +0000

Thanks.

@VAMedic You are correct, where Erskine/Steckel took the shot would not be considered a “scoring chance” by definition, however, I log all goals scored as chances except for empty netters. It is the only way I can get true conversion rates.

By: Danny R

Danny R — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 04:58:55 +0000

much easier to read and digest. i support staying with this format

By: VaMedic

VaMedic — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 04:52:22 +0000

Great work, Like the new formatting too.
Went back and re-read the definition of scoring chances for this study. Based on that definition, neither the Erskine nor Steckle goals last game were scoring chances…too far out correct?
Not throwing stones in anyway, seeing if I’m following the model correctly.