Do They Hate Us?
by MTBoltFan on Dec 18, 2011 4:04 PM EST
Email
PrintA couple of weeks ago, a co-worker and I were having a fairly intense debate about the fairness (or lack thereof, depending upon the side of debate found most convincing) of the referees in their calling of Tampa Bay Lightning games. I argued that on a game-to-game basis it could be construed the referee give the Bolts the short end of the penalty debate. To do so, however, is to form an opinion based on an extremely small sample size. I promised him a deeper analysis of Lightning games over two seasons and I was sure the larger picture would paint a different picture.
Using the NHL’s wonderful repository of statistics, I did that very thing. The results surprised even me.
For the 2009-2010 season, the Lightning were penalized the second most in the NHL, second only to the Flyers. During that season, the Lightning were penalized a total of 492 times (average of 6 penalties per game over an 82-game season; the Flyers total penalty total was 496). Compared to the league average of just over 402 penalties for the season, the Lightning’s penalty total was certainly high--but considering Rich Tocchet’s rough-nose style he coached into his players, it is hardly surprising.
What is surprising, however, is for that season, the Lightning had 8 more power play opportunities (PPOP) than their opponents through the season. The Bolts had 329 PPOP, their opponents throughout the season had 321 PPOP. Averaged over the 82-game season, the Lightning had an almost-inconsequential .10 PPOP/game advantage over their opponents. When taken a game at a time, it is easy to claim injustice against the Lightning--9 times during the season, the Bolts had 3 or more PPOP fewer than their opponent. The season-long compilation of the statistics, however, paint a different--and equitable--picture.
For the 2010-2011 season under new coach Guy Boucher, the Bolts were not even close to the most penalized team in the league, getting called for penalties only 379 times (17th in the league, over 100 penalties fewer than the league-leading Pittsburgh Penguins), and 6 fewer penalties per game fewer than the league average of 384. It’s important to note that the league called 500 less penalties in 2010-2011 (11,540 penalties) than in 2009-2010 (12,064).
Moving to the PPOP for last season, one would expect the penalties to be considerably different from the 2009 campaign, given the wide difference between the number of penalties called and the lower penalty total from the previous year. The difference is tremendous.
The referees officiating the Lightning games gave the Bolts 334 PPOP, up from the previous year’s 329 PPOP. For the Bolts’ opponents, the referees only gave them 304 PPOP, down significantly from the previous year’s 321. While the difference in coaching and playing styles from last year to the year prior partly explains the difference, in my opinion it doesn’t capture the whole wide difference between the ’09 PPOP and the ’10 PPOP. Averaged out over the course of the entire season, the Lightning got .37 more PPOP per game than their opponents (roughly 1 more PP every 3 games).
One item worth noting is the difference in penalties called vs. PPOP. Note that in the past two seasons the Lightning have had 329 and 334 PPOP, but the Lightning have been called for 492 and 379 penalties in the 2009 and 2010 seasons, respectively. The difference in these numbers is the "penalties called" takes into account not only major and minor penalties, but also misconducts of the 10-minute or game varieties. Additionally, the PPOP doesn’t take into account matching penalties (5 minute major per team for fighting, for instance).
In conclusion, while there are potentially many reasons (and several of them statistically incalcuable) for the perceived game-to-game penalty bias of the NHL referees against the Bolts, it appears through two full seasons of analysis that relationship bias is not a factor against the Bolts--in fact, if there is a bias, it’s in the Bolts favor.
This post was written by a member of the Raw Charge community and doesn't necessarily express the views or opinions of Raw Charge staff.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Have you considered looking at times shorthanded vs power play opportunities? I think this season the Bolts have been shorthanded significantly more than they’ve been on the power play.
To me, the heart of the concern is whether the Bolts are being put at a disadvantage because of penalties. Looking at the situation (PPopp vs SH) might cut to the heart of that issue more, or at least give context. Then there’s the question of whether a difference occurred because the team has been making more mistakes than in the past or because the refs are calling penalties before or against the Bolts differently than previously.
I personally am far more concerned with penalties that aren’t being called than those that are, so my question is two-fold: are Lightning opponents being called for fewer penalties than they were in the past or fewer than they are against other teams? So league ranking would be pertinent.
I feel like this could become a huge project if you wanted to let it. :)
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Rakastan suuria Maalivahdit Skandinaviasta
I did not consider this year specifically because I was interested in season-long statistics, rather than shorter durations.
Additionally, the times the Bolts have been short-handed would be the opposite of the opponent’s PPOP, meaning the Lightning were short-handed for 304 times in 2010-2011.
I did a quick difference calculation for this season thus far, and through 32 games, the Lightning have had 18 fewer PPOP than their opponents (-0.5625 per game), but again, I would be hesitant to read too much into the subset. For instance, from the beginning of the season until about the beginning of the season, the Bolts had a PPOP difference of about -16. But through the month of November, the PPOP swung the other way so by the end of November the PPOP difference was down to about -5. I anticipate other swings to this extent until the end of the season.
Such is the poison of small sample size.
"The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect"
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
I’m getting different numbers from nhl.com for times shorthanded than you’re citing here, which is why I asked. For instance, I’m seeing 336 times shorthanded in 2009-10 rather than 321. http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.htm?fetchKey=20102ALLSAAALL&sort=timesShort&viewName=penaltyKill
They also spent more actual time on the PK than on the PP in that season by some 18 minutes http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.htm?fetchKey=20102ALLSAAALL&sort=teamPenaltyDetail.powerplayMinusPenaltyKillSeconds&viewName=penaltyKillTime
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Rakastan suuria Maalivahdit Skandinaviasta
That is certainly a discrepancy I’ll need to resolve. The stats I used (PP Opportunities) were from the game by game recaps, and should have considered PK situations.
I will take a look at a couple of game summaries and reconcile the game recap with the PPOP I used at the shorthanded stats you cite. There shouldn’t be a difference—but obviously there is a difference.
I’m up for the challenge—I’m invested at this point, anyway.
"The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect"
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
Update
So far, I’ve found no game-by-game statistics that show any difference from my original calculation. I have not, however, gone to the PK page you like to above.
In thinking about this, I’m not necessarily concerned about length of PK. What construes a major penalty vs. a minor? The difference is not really debatable, especially considering fighting. Time on PK or PP really comes down to matching minors, or overlapping minors, and the difference between PP/PK and even strength time I argue is negligible over the course of a full season of hockey.
With the respect to actual TOI on PP or PK, I take the fact we had Konopka on our team for a large measure of that. The dude racked up 265 PIMs and Downie had 208. When you’re penalized as heavily as the Lightning were that season, you’re bound to have more PK time than PP time—even if the PPOP was +8 in favor of the Bolts.
"The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect"
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
Also so far this season the Bolts have spent about 34 minutes more time on the PK than on the PP. I have no idea if that is significant, and it might very well change drastically over the course of the season.
This is why I feel that this is a really, really big project. There’s a lot of data out there, and I don’t really know how to pare that data down into something that’s both manageable and meaningful.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Rakastan suuria Maalivahdit Skandinaviasta
well, that goes pretty nicely with 18 more PKs than PPs
18*2 = 36, so if we’re only spending 34 on the PK, I guess it means that our opponents are a little more effective than we are on the power play (hence average duration is shorter). Which is not shocking at all.
If I cared more about my UNC side, I'd call myself "Tar Volon," and that'd be awesome.
Bolts, Canes, Preds (now in different conferences!). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity
Rocky Top Talk
by Incipient_Senescence on Dec 18, 2011 10:59 PM EST up reply actions
Also have to consider overlapping penalties.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Rakastan suuria Maalivahdit Skandinaviasta
okay, so our opponents are a little more effective or get more 5 on 3s
I’m guessing a little more effective, just based on how bad our power play is. As BoltProspects mentioned last night, it’s getting to “fire somebody if things don’t change right now” levels
If I cared more about my UNC side, I'd call myself "Tar Volon," and that'd be awesome.
Bolts, Canes, Preds (now in different conferences!). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity
Rocky Top Talk
by Incipient_Senescence on Dec 18, 2011 11:47 PM EST up reply actions
a 5 on 4 becoming a 5 on 3 wouldn’t end a time shorthanded. Getting a penalty while on the power play, however, would do it (a 5 on 4 becoming a 4 on 4.)
I’m not prepared to call for anyone’s job without having even looked at the issue. I don’t want that responsibility. I don’t know where the PP is ranked, how many shots they’re generating, or even who’s getting the PP time.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Rakastan suuria Maalivahdit Skandinaviasta
no, you misunderstand
or I misunderstand, one of the two. We’re trying to account for a discrepancy in number of PPs vs PKs and PP time vs PK time. Scoring goals, obviously, affects this. Going to a 5 on 3 affects this. Say you have 30 seconds of 5 on 4 and then move to a 5 on 3 for 90 seconds, then have 30 more seconds of 5 on 4. That’s 2 more PPs than PKs, but only 2:30 in additional power play time. However, a 5 on 4 becoming a 4 on 4 would not affect this. Say you have a 5 on 4 for 30 seconds, then move to a 4 on 4 for 90, then a 4 on 5 for 30. That’s one PP and one PK, so it’s a net of 0 more PPs than PKs. It’s also 30 seconds of power play and 30 seconds of penalty kill, so it’s a net of 0:00 more PK time than PK time.
If I cared more about my UNC side, I'd call myself "Tar Volon," and that'd be awesome.
Bolts, Canes, Preds (now in different conferences!). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity
Rocky Top Talk
by Incipient_Senescence on Dec 19, 2011 10:42 AM EST up reply actions
I think we're saying the same thing, just coming at it from different directions.
And I have to really work at trying to wrap my brain around all of this.
My understanding of the NHL.com stats is this: NHL.com counts strictly the number of times and amount of time spent in each situation. This season the Bolts have:
111 PPopps (172:04) = 96 5-on-4s (159:54) + 9 5-on-3s (6:42) + 5 4-on-3s (5:28). It’s only about the amount of time spent in that situation. (There’s one missing, so there was another opportunity that doesn’t fall into one of those categories.) I think that’s what you’re saying, too. Yes? No? Maybe?
Funnily enough, NHL.com doesn’t break down times shorthanded in the same way, instead splitting it up between home and road and comparing it to PP time. But I’m assuming it’s done the same way.
So if the penalties are even—one two-minute minor cancelled out by another two-minute minor—you get that second scenario you mention. If the penalties aren’t even, you get an opp or TS added to your stats and your PP-PK time doesn’t even out.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Rakastan suuria Maalivahdit Skandinaviasta
yeah, that's what I'm getting at
overlapping power plays won’t even out, but an overlapping power play and penalty kill will even out.
But I imagine the biggest reason our penalty kill time is less than it should be is that we’re allowing too many goals
If I cared more about my UNC side, I'd call myself "Tar Volon," and that'd be awesome.
Bolts, Canes, Preds (now in different conferences!). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity
Rocky Top Talk
by Incipient_Senescence on Dec 19, 2011 12:16 PM EST up reply actions
now as far as the "fire somebody if things don't change" comment
that’s on the eye test, not on the ranking. I don’t know how many shots or goals they’re generating either. But I do know that we had three power plays on Saturday and didn’t really have any zone time at all. More than that, our opponents had more zone time shorthanded than at even strength. And the Devils had a shorthanded goal last Monday. And the Flyers took momentum from us with a goal coming directly from an extended run of shorthanded zone time.
In the last three games I’ve watched, our opponents have been significantly more likely to score on the kill than we have on the power play. It’s well known that the power play has been well below last year’s standards, but this is getting ridiculous. It looks worse than Carolina’s power play, and theirs was 29th in the league before Paul Maurice was fired. Now I’m not saying to fire Guy Boucher, but if things don’t change real, real soon, it’s time to get rid of whoever isn’t Wayne Fleming and hire somebody who is (or is as close as we can get, given the fact that we can’t really get the real deal)
If I cared more about my UNC side, I'd call myself "Tar Volon," and that'd be awesome.
Bolts, Canes, Preds (now in different conferences!). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity
Rocky Top Talk
by Incipient_Senescence on Dec 19, 2011 10:55 AM EST up reply actions
Okay so I looked, because I’m obsessive like that.
Bolts have 5 SHGA (4 way tie for 26th in the league) (I.e., very high)
15.3% on the PP (22nd in the league) (bottom third, but close to middle third)
143 PP shots (25th in the league) (very low)
But since each team has a different # of opps, I did a quick spreadsheet and got;
3,47 PP opps per game (25th)
1.29 shots per opp (23rd)
So in the bottom 10 in all categories and the bottom 5 in many.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Rakastan suuria Maalivahdit Skandinaviasta
good stuff. or, rather, bad stuff, but good research. and weren't we top ten all of last year?
yeah, we need to figure out what we were doing last year and recapture it. And I’ll wager it had something to do with an assistant coach
If I cared more about my UNC side, I'd call myself "Tar Volon," and that'd be awesome.
Bolts, Canes, Preds (now in different conferences!). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity
Rocky Top Talk
by Incipient_Senescence on Dec 19, 2011 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
But how much of PP shot problem is part of the larger shot problem?
And did they hire someone to sub for Fleming? I had gotten the impression that they had left his spot open, but can’t remember where I read that.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Rakastan suuria Maalivahdit Skandinaviasta
the power play is legit uglier than the 5 on 5
which gives me the impression that it’s its own problem and not symptomatic of problems in 5 on 5
If I cared more about my UNC side, I'd call myself "Tar Volon," and that'd be awesome.
Bolts, Canes, Preds (now in different conferences!). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity
Rocky Top Talk
by Incipient_Senescence on Dec 19, 2011 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
Shots and scoring on the PP or PK is beyond my intended focus of the study. I merely sought to point out the bias (or lack thereof) of the referees for or against the Lightning.
"The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect"
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
Do you happen to know where I can get game summaries (the game sheet) online? Reviewing those is the only way to accurately consider overlapping penalties.
"The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect"
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
One thing I should have mentioned from the get-go
Any such analysis like this does not, and could not (at least without more free time I have available and access to video from all 164 games from the past two seasons) include analysis of non-calls.
Regardless, any such analysis, even if undertaken, would be purely subjective in nature and not suitable for statistical analysis.
"The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect"
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
There’s really no way to measure penalties not called. That’s just not going to show up. But, for example, in the Columbus game, Adam Hall was high-sticked taking a face off and it wasn’t called. There is zero way that the ref didn’t see the stick hit him in the face, so there’s something else going on there.
At this point I’m subject to confirmation bias in looking at that kind of thing. But that was pretty egregious and that’s where I personally am concerned about bias on the part of the refs.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Rakastan suuria Maalivahdit Skandinaviasta
So this article is just for you! You’re welcome! :-)
Seriously though, unless there’s some egregious emission from the data set (yep, I love me some alliteration!), the data I’ve compiled thus far paints a picture pretty much the opposite of what most Bolt fans believe.
More to come—you and Jay have given me some good ideas how to continue this “research”—and I’ll make monthly updates to the “Do They Hate Us” theme throughout this season.
"The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect"
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
Sounds strangely familiar, only with the added statistical goodness thrown in. ;o)
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Dec 22, 2011 1:05 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Pages
Raw Charge on the Web
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
SBNation.com Recent Stories
