Post by Jon-Seattle on Jan 2, 2023 0:35:59 GMT -5
I just wanted to add a few more numbers to hopefully help Glenn diagnose if anything seems off.
According to the stats we have access to Shesterkin saw 923 shots on goal giving up 87 goals.
Shesterkin allowed 36 goals from position 14 which is at least double every other position on the ice.
According to Glenn’s formula, without taking into account goalie v shooter advantages one way or the other that means with Glenn’s calculations (of .893 save%) Shesterkin would have seen more than 1/3 of his shots (336 shots) from this position alone though I don’t have a way to check this against what the shot totally actually has been. League average is 34% of the leagues goals are from this position. For Shesterkin this is 42%.
The next highest scoring position was 11, at which there were only 15 goals. Which again given Glenn’s calculation (.825 save%) would mean only 86 shots against from that position. This accounts for 17% of goals against compared to league average of 21%.
So is the team allowing more shots against Shesterkin down low resulting in an increase of nearly 10% from what is expected from position 14? Well I see three options: either my team is allowing a higher percentage of shots from position 14, Shesterkins save % from pos 14 is significantly below league average, or my team is allowing a significant higher number of shots in general with a slightly abnormal but not insane statistical anomaly .
Just so people know which option I believe is responsible I’ve added this additional stat:
Shesterkins shots against per game - 33.0
Jake Allen’s shot against per game - 34.4
Most of the rest of the numbers below seem to be within normal statistical limits but pos 14 specifically seems to appear outside statistical probability without more information.
In case you want the raw numbers:
Pos on ice / # of goals / % of total / GHL Ave %
1-3 / 0 / 0 / 0
4 / 2 / 2.3% / 3.8%
5 / 2 / 2.3% / 4.7%
6 / 2 / 2.3% / 3.2%
7 / 2 / 2.3% / 4.3%
8 / 7 / 8% / 5.8%
9 / 7 / 8% / 3.7%
10 / 3 / 3.4% / 7.7%
11 / 15 / 17% / 21%
12 / 8 / 9.2% / 8.3%
13 / 2 / 2.3% / 1.7%
14 / 36 / 42% / 34%
15 / 1 / 1% / 1.8%
According to the stats we have access to Shesterkin saw 923 shots on goal giving up 87 goals.
Shesterkin allowed 36 goals from position 14 which is at least double every other position on the ice.
According to Glenn’s formula, without taking into account goalie v shooter advantages one way or the other that means with Glenn’s calculations (of .893 save%) Shesterkin would have seen more than 1/3 of his shots (336 shots) from this position alone though I don’t have a way to check this against what the shot totally actually has been. League average is 34% of the leagues goals are from this position. For Shesterkin this is 42%.
The next highest scoring position was 11, at which there were only 15 goals. Which again given Glenn’s calculation (.825 save%) would mean only 86 shots against from that position. This accounts for 17% of goals against compared to league average of 21%.
So is the team allowing more shots against Shesterkin down low resulting in an increase of nearly 10% from what is expected from position 14? Well I see three options: either my team is allowing a higher percentage of shots from position 14, Shesterkins save % from pos 14 is significantly below league average, or my team is allowing a significant higher number of shots in general with a slightly abnormal but not insane statistical anomaly .
Just so people know which option I believe is responsible I’ve added this additional stat:
Shesterkins shots against per game - 33.0
Jake Allen’s shot against per game - 34.4
Most of the rest of the numbers below seem to be within normal statistical limits but pos 14 specifically seems to appear outside statistical probability without more information.
In case you want the raw numbers:
Pos on ice / # of goals / % of total / GHL Ave %
1-3 / 0 / 0 / 0
4 / 2 / 2.3% / 3.8%
5 / 2 / 2.3% / 4.7%
6 / 2 / 2.3% / 3.2%
7 / 2 / 2.3% / 4.3%
8 / 7 / 8% / 5.8%
9 / 7 / 8% / 3.7%
10 / 3 / 3.4% / 7.7%
11 / 15 / 17% / 21%
12 / 8 / 9.2% / 8.3%
13 / 2 / 2.3% / 1.7%
14 / 36 / 42% / 34%
15 / 1 / 1% / 1.8%