Comments on: The Hangover: A Final Look at Hunter Hockey

By: Peter Hassett

Peter Hassett — Wed, 16 May 2012 13:33:00 +0000

Fenwick is a proxy for possession, so think of it as a good description of a team’s possession rather than the actual “THING” of possession itself.

When there’s a takeaway or giveaway, the other team has gained possession of the puck and then has an opportunity to put that puck on the net– which is when you’d see the impact reflected on the actual Fenwick stat.

But if you get a takeaway and you have a giveaway right after, there will be no impact on the stat. It’s what you do with the puck that shows up.

Does that make sense?

Your last point is the thing I don’t agree with. The Caps had a better defense (and a MUCH better goalie), sure, but their offense wasn’t nearly where it needed to be for me to say that it looked better overall.

By: bluejeener

bluejeener — Wed, 16 May 2012 13:27:00 +0000

I am getting to this post late, but want to go on record as agreeing – thoroughly, totally, completely. One question re the stats, esp the Fenwick – how do giveaways/takeaways figure in? From my spot standing against the wall in Section 430 I know I was annoying fans around me by constantly yelling “puck posession”, and it was the turnovers and bad passes that killled me. A friend kept telling me that they need more sog, but how can you shoot if you can’t control the puck?
To be fair, they did look better in the playoffs, before becoming the same old out-in-2-rounds Caps.

By: Louis Porter

Louis Porter — Wed, 16 May 2012 01:41:00 +0000

Is it possible to attribute the loss of Backstrom to the decline of wins in Feb and March? Just wondering…other then that nice article.

By: mattR

mattR — Tue, 15 May 2012 22:53:00 +0000

Bruce’s run-and-gun offensive system worked until the playoffs. Some think that’s because the system didn’t work. I say it’s because we never had playoff-caliber defensemen or true #1 goalies.

So each year, we get a more defensive system, without ever adding defensive players. We added a lot of goalies, none of whom was an obvious #1 going into the playoffs.

In short, we need a balanced approach. Spend some money on the blueline, GMGM.

By: John Barduhn

John Barduhn — Tue, 15 May 2012 18:44:00 +0000

Say it aint so! It’ll will be interesting to see how the Caps and GMGM move forward this summer then. Thanks for the great info!

By: Peter Hassett

Peter Hassett — Tue, 15 May 2012 18:41:00 +0000

Yeah, the progress was a mirage. Except for great special teams.

Great goaltending and PK. Most everything else was kinda crummy.

By: John Barduhn

John Barduhn — Tue, 15 May 2012 18:32:00 +0000

I would love to see the numbers on Hendricks – not because I doubt you at all, but more to expand my hockey knowledge in general.

While the stats are good indicators – was the “progress” that the team seemingly made this end of season/postseason really that much of smoke and mirrors you think?

By: Peter Hassett

Peter Hassett — Tue, 15 May 2012 18:25:00 +0000

That’s not what the numbers say.

The numbers say the Caps played poor possession hockey– which forced them to block a lot of shots. They won because they got .940 goaltending, which you can’t rely on. They got lucky to get 14 games deep.

By: Mikhail

Mikhail — Tue, 15 May 2012 18:07:00 +0000

To some extent you’re right when it comes to the regular season. But he got the job done in a more convincing manner in the post-season. Anyways his system wouldn’t work with wingers like Semin or Ovechkin in the regular season. A more balanced approach is necessary.

By: Peter Hassett

Peter Hassett — Tue, 15 May 2012 18:00:00 +0000

Lots of good points. There’s no way to compare the poetry of the game vs the numbers that describe it, and I don’t try to.

But possession numbers are good predictor of future performance, and they were very, very bad.

Dominating in the regular season was a victory of will. Getting rocked in the playoffs (2010, Halak) in 4 games was an artifact of luck. I’d roll those dice again.

P.S. Numbers can account for Hendricks’ rise, and we can talk about that more if you’re interested.