On the Forecheck: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
New Blog: The Nova Blog for Villanova Fans!

To Float or Not To Float, That Is The Question...

"Defense Wins Championships." We've all heard this tired cliche countless times, but is there any way to quantify if, and to what extent, this is really the case?

If we take a look at the Winning Percentage for each NHL team, and compare that with their Goals For/Game numbers, we find a relatively strong correlation, 0.626*, and if we exclude points earned by teams during shootouts (focusing only on regular play, which is when Goals For and Goals Against figures are determined), that correlation grows even stronger, coming in at 0.653. Clearly, teams that score tend to win.

What about defense, however? That's where the difference really appears. Taking each team's Goals Against/Game and running a correlation against their winning percentage, we come up with a very strong -0.825 (meaning that as GA goes down, Win % goes up). Make the same adjustment to remove points from shootout wins, and the value becomes modestly stronger at -0.832. Thus, while goal-scoring brings the fans out of their seats, it does appear that preventing goals has the larger influence on team success.

As a further validation of how well the overall Goals For/Against ratio relates to winning games, the correlation of Goal Ratio (GF/GA) with Winning Percentage came in at 0.929, and if you remove the points from shootout victories, it gets even stronger at 0.956! That's about as strong a correlation as you're going to find in this line of analysis, folks, and I believe it lends even more weight to the power of tools like PythagenPuck to get a picture of how teams will finish the season, based on GF/GA trends.

The lesson? If you can be above average at both offense and defense, obviously your team will be successful. Given the choice between one end of the rink and the other, however, it appears that the more predictable path to victory lies in building a strong defense.


*Recall that correlation values run from -1 to 1, with -1 meaning that two numbers are negatively correlated (when one goes high, the other goes low), +1 means they are positively correlated (when one goes up, so does the other), and 0 means there is no discernable relationship between the two.

0 recs  |  Comment 7 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

More from On the Forecheck

Mopping Up The Central

Jan 2007 by Dirk Hoag - 0 comments

Runnin' Away With The Central

Jan 2007 by Dirk Hoag - 2 comments

Assessing the Southeast

Jan 2007 by Dirk Hoag - 2 comments

Deeper into the Northwest

Jan 2007 by Dirk Hoag - 0 comments

Follow That Trend!

Jan 2007 by Dirk Hoag - 5 comments

Comments

Display:

Have you looked at past seasons at all to determine whether the value of GF vs GA as a predictor of performance is relatively consistent in their comparative value?

by Rand on Apr 4, 2007 1:03 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I would refer you to the link within the article tagged "PythagenPuck". It takes you to a Win Probabilities articles done by Alan Ryder over at Hockey Analytics, which covers a variety of methods to derive winning percentage, and their relative effectiveness over time. I chose PythagenPuck because it's extremely accurate, and I'm able to replicate it's logic within spreadsheets pretty easily.

by The Forechecker on Apr 4, 2007 9:30 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I appreciate and agree with your anyalis for NHL season performance.

However, I have done further research regarding the NHL Playoffs over the last 40 years (post expansion). Predictabily, Goal differential is a strong indicator of stanley cup championships. However Goals for is actually slightly stronger than goals against.
(average season rank of stanley cup championship 3rd Goals for 5th goals against). Also surprising is this stays consistent even durning the so -called dead puck era 1995 to 2004 when the average is 4th goals for 5th goals against.
I expect this will be even more pronounced in the new era with the advent of more scoring. first case in point Carolina which ranked 3rd last year in goals for and 19th in goals against.

It appears that contray to public belkief defence does not win championships Goal scoring and great goalies is even more important.

Dan the Stat Man

by Dan The Stats Man on Apr 4, 2007 9:27 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

An interesting point, Dan - certainly there may be differences between playoff and regular season success. I don't know if I'd go back 40 years to discern such trends, but it's worth looking into.

by The Forechecker on Apr 5, 2007 12:46 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I like to use stats to break apart conventioal myths -
So ,My point is, that of all the major trophies the Stanley Cup is clearly the hardest to win and "won almost always by a top team". Here in Vancouver the fans are having 'drug induced fantasies' about the canucks 'going all the way' thinking mistakenly, that a hot goalie can lead a team to the cup. It simply hasnt happened! IN FACT THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE UNDERDOG TEAM WIN IN 40 YEARS. (You think one hot goalie on an average team would have been victorious ove r the years??)The purpose of going back so far is to just point out that through all the rule changes expansion etc etc etc one thing remains constant the stanley cup eliminates all pretenders. Dreamers like Canuck fans here cling to memories of the 82 canucks the 94 canucks the 95 panthers the00? Capitals the 04 flames 05 oilers etc they make the finals but have not yet hoisted the trophy. We here over and over how 'all you have to do is make the playoffs' and anyone can win?My research shows that the lowest goal differential to win the cup in the last 40 years is approx +.39 per game - and the average is a wopping approx .65 per game(I believe this calculates to 94 and 106 points points approx via pythag though I stand corrected on this). Also I believe that when you list the final season point totals for every year not one team has won the cup from the bottom half of the draw 9 through 16 in current format)I believe most fans dont realize this. My main point is the reg. season DOES mean ALOT. (Even though the media relentlessly says otherwise).More than any other league. This makes sense since it can take close to 27 games to win the cup!It will be interesting to see if these strong trends continue in salary cap era. The conventional view is now that we have the cap it has leveled the playing field the parity has made it so anyone can win. I am predicting otherwise I believe the bonus point shootout format as really deluded fans in Dallas and vancouver and Minessota in particular that they are on par with Ana and SJS 2) That there is a MYSTIC to old Stanley that will hold true again this year.By this research THE CUP is down to ANA, SJ,BUF, OTT, NASH, DET, CGY.(all above .39 Goal dif. )
My guess IS SJS.

dan

by Dan The Stats Man on Apr 5, 2007 2:00 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I'd like to take a look at your numbers, Dan - just on a hunch, I checked out the 1995 New Jersey Devils, who won the Cup coming out of the #5 seed in the Eastern Conference that year (which I believe is the only 9-16 seed to win out of the last 12 years). Their 13th-ranked offense and 5th-ranked defense combined for a goal differential of +0.31 (lower than your 0.39 value), and were certainly considered an underdog compared to teams like Calgary, Quebec and Detroit.

There is quite a bit to study here, perhaps something I'll save for the summer - what aspects of teams dictate postseason vs. regular season success...

by The Forechecker on Apr 5, 2007 12:56 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I will send you my research just as soon as I clean it up...

I forgot to mention that I excluded
95 because it was a shortened season .(teams played only 60% of a reg. schedule ) 48 games.
This seems reasonable since my hypothesis is that the full regular season is a strong indicator of Stanley Cup winners.
48 games is simply not a large enough sample. Case in popin the Canucks who have played at a 75% clip in last 40+ games. Are they a 75% team?. In fact the numbers from 95 actually make my claim
stronger. If the Nhl only played 48 game sduring the regular season, it would be much more likely that a team with a lower GD
or an underdog would win.
I agree the summer will give us more time. i am also currently running full correlations on regular season performance and playoff performance to get a fulle picture.

Dan

by Dan The Stats Man on Apr 5, 2007 1:47 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Nashville Predators.
Start posting about the Predators »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Lebowski-time_small
Pacific Pride
N6245252557_232860_1419_small
cut and pasted from Wings' game thread
Smashville2_small
What people are saying
Small
Olympic Hockey should be played on Olympic Hockey Rinks!
Orr_small
Olympic Rules
Orr_small
Barry Trotz bobblehead...
Saab_logo_small
NHL Point System - Good, Bad, Ugly?
Nashvillepredators_small
Should the Preds look at Cheechoo?
Small
Preds in the Playoffs?! Who are they kidding?
Smashville2_small
Playoffs? We need to go just over .500.

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

About Me

Dirk Hoag is the Forechecker, churner of NHL stats and analysis.

Me_medium_medium

Got a question or a suggestion? Feel free to email the.forechecker@gmail.com, or you can catch him on Twitter (@Forechecker).

Named by Sports Media Challenge as a Top 10 NHL Blog


On The Forecheck Apparel!


Managers

Forechecker_35_small Dirk Hoag

Muckers & Grinders

Smashville2_small Aditya T (smashville)

Predsalternate_small Chris Burton