Evaluating Canuck Players using Expected Goals Above Replacement

[JamesB]

It has been a slow month for Canuck news and I was looking for some excitement on a Saturday night so I decided to review Canuck player performance last year using the "expected goals above replacement" (xGAR) metric--which I think is the best metric.  In previous posts I have suggested that expected goals for and expected goals against are the best simple measures of performance, and I still think that is true. But the very best measures, in my view,  are complicated measures, particularly xGAR calculated by Evolving Hockey, which puts together PP, PK, and even strength performance and includes many factors in addition to  goals for and goals against, such as faceoffs, giveaways, penalties taken and drawn, hits, etc.  The weights on the different factors are not just someone's best guess but are based on regression analysis to infer the relative importance of these various factors. 

 

Last year there were 23 Canuck skaters who played more than 200 minutes. Here are the top 5 and bottom 5:

 

		xGAR
1	Elias Pettersson	14.9
2	Conor Garland	14.0
3	Quinn Hughes	14.0
4	J.T. Miller	12.2
5	Bo Horvat	10.1
19	Luke Schenn	-1.1
20	Juho Lammikko	-1.8
21	Kyle Burroughs	-2.8
22	Jason Dickinson	-4.4
23	Tyler Myers	-7.3

 

 

I have highlighted some outcomes that I think are very interesting and that explain part of what we have seen this summer.

 

There is a big drop-off after Horvat at #5. The names are the top are not a surprise, but the ordering is. I don't know how many times I have heard commentators refer to JT Miller at "the Canucks' best forward" or as "the Canucks best skater". But, according to this metric, the skater who has the best season last year was Petey. How is that possible?

 

The most important reason why Petey has a better xGAR than Miller is penalties. Last year Petey took 5 minor penalties and drew 29. Miller was 21 and 21. It turns out this is very important for expected scoring, which should not be a surprise as scoring rates on the PP are much higher that at even strength This is not just someone's opinion. It is based on careful statistical analysis.  This stat is kind of like walks in baseball: it is very important for scoring but does not get a lot of credit. Petey also has a much more favorable giveaway/takeaway ratio than Miller. In addition, this is based on expected goals, not actual goals. Miller had a great year for actual goals scored while he was on the ice but part of that was good luck (and that partially explains why he had a "career year" that he is unlikely to replicate).  Petey was also significantly better than Miller on the PK. In the analysis, these factors are much more important than Miller's edge in hits and in faceoff percentage.  

 

That said, JT Miller is a very good player and his xGAR of 12.2 is excellent, but he is not as good as a superficial look at his scoring numbers from last year would indicate. This might be a partial explanation for why the offers for Miller have not been as good as many people had hoped. (I would have taken the Ranger offer at the deadline.) General perceptions about Horvat and Hughes are probably about right but Garland tends to get underestimated. In terms of value per cap hit dollar (and that is what counts if you are trying to win a Cup) he was arguably the most valuable guy on the team after Miller last year. Calls to trade him to "clear cap space" make no sense. 

 

What about the bottom part of the list. This number is based on net goals expected relative to what would happen if a "replacement level" payer played instead. This is, by definition, a player just on the NHL/AHL margin earning about the league minimum.  So negative numbers are very bad. Any player earning significantly above the league minimum should have a positive number.

 

Dickinson's number is very bad, but Myers' xGAR was outrageously bad. However, his actual on-ice numbers were not that bad,  What is going on. And didn't Schenn have a good year? How can his number be negative.  Part of the answer is that both Myers and Schenn were helped a lot by their regular D partners (OEL and Hughes). But the statistical methods can tease out the relative contributions of OEL v. Myers and Hughes v. Schenn. 

 

I have no problem with Schenn. His intangibles are worth something and he is only earning about the NHL minimum. And considering that he played top 4 last year, he was actually pretty good value. Myers, on the other hand is terrible value. This is probably why the Canucks have had trouble trading him given their determination not to give away assets to facilitate a trade  

 

On the good news front, the additions--Mikheyev, Lazar, and Joshua look like excellent value and Kuzmenko shoiuld also be very good. And, although the D "needs work" to quote JR, there is reason for some optimism with Rathbone, Dermott and maybe even Poolman. And even Myers would probably be okay if he were on in a third pairing role (although you hate to pay 6 million to a guy on your 3rd pairing).  

 

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by JamesB

[D-Money]

I love Connor Garland, so no need to convince me that he has value. But if a metric states he’s more valuable than JT Miller, then that is an obvious flaw in the metric.

 

And I know Myers is not good, and that his counting stats last year were mostly an indication of how OEL covered for him. But THAT bad? Seems a bit extreme. 

[JM_]

Is there a way to look at this metric laid out over the course of the whole season? 

 

 

[204CanucksFan]

6 hours ago, D-Money said:

I love Connor Garland, so no need to convince me that he has value. But if a metric states he’s more valuable than JT Miller, then that is an obvious flaw in the metric.

 

And I know Myers is not good, and that his counting stats last year were mostly an indication of how OEL covered for him. But THAT bad? Seems a bit extreme. 

If you'd like some understanding as to why this metric weighs Garland above Miller, here are a few reasons (remember, as with most advanced stats, it's about the numbers as opposed to the eye test)

 

Firstly, as JamesB mentioned, this metric puts weight on penalties taken Vs. drawn, and Miller was 21 and 21 whereas Garland took 13 penalties and drew 31. Another reason is 5 on 5 production Vs. PP, JT had almost 2 minutes more of even strength ice time per game then CG but JT only put up 59 even strength points to CG's 49. That puts JT at 2.81 points per 60 min of 5 on 5 ice time, whereas CG is 2.60

 

These factors, combined with a few other smaller variables are why this combination metric rates Garland over Miller.

 

Also, it must be linemates or the fact that in Van PP1 gets 1:40 of each PP and PP2 gets the last 0:20, but Garland has been super snakebit on the PP his whole career. 119 career 5-on-5 points Vs. only 29 career PP points in 532 minutes on the PP. Wow.

Edited August 21, 2022 by 204CanucksFan

[Gurn]

Other than goals and plus minus, aren't most of the analytic numbers just eye test?

Is that shot from the slot, or is it just a bit to the left of the slot? In which case is it not a shot from the left side?

If so, who decided it was from the left side?- Somebody using their eyes?

Was it a hit? Well maybe to you, but to me that looked more like a push or did it look more like  he pinned him to the boards but didn't hit him?

Someone had to use their eyes to decide if the "hit" met the criteria.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

Is there a way to look at this metric laid out over the course of the whole season? 

 

 

Do you mean game-by-game?

 

Like a graph plotting how a player’s xGAR changed from game-to-game over the whole season?

 

I don’t know of any free source for this kind of data. It’s certainly possible to generate, but you’d need to pay someone for it, I’d think. 

[D-Money]

1 hour ago, 204CanucksFan said:

Also, it must be linemates or the fact that in Van PP1 gets 1:40 of each PP and PP2 gets the last 0:20, but Garland has been super snakebit on the PP his whole career. 119 career 5-on-5 points Vs. only 29 career PP points in 532 minutes on the PP. Wow.

It doesn't surprise me. Garland's game is based on speed/stamina, grinding, and taking shots when they are not expected. Putting him on a fairly stationary PP setup, when the defending team is focused on defending shots, takes away his strengths. And he doesn't have the size/strength to play a net-front role, which is where most grinders who have success on the PP find it.

 

Garland's value is on more of a checking/match-up line, as someone who can disrupt and transition to offense. Also, I'm not sure of the numbers on this, but I suspect he's an above-average penalty-killer.

Edited August 21, 2022 by D-Money

[Canuck Surfer]

Measurements should simply reinforce & support good coaching. Which is about crafting effective tactics. Teaching & practicing skills till the execution of siad tactics are immaculate. 

 

If you are not sure what good coaching looks like?

 

Practice analytics!  

 

 

[DSVII]

Would you have the full list of metrics that go into xGAR? As much as I'd love to rag on Myers for his contract is the metric being fair to him as a defenseman who was matched against the other team's top lines (quality of comp)? What are the stats on the defensive side of the game included here if any or is this stat generally geared towards offensive side players?

 

I'm wondering as well what the league average xGAR for defensemen was. Whether it was a net positive or negative.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

7 hours ago, D-Money said:

 

I love Connor Garland, so no need to convince me that he has value. But if a metric states he’s more valuable than JT Miller, then that is an obvious flaw in the metric.

 

What pushed Garland higher than Miller on GAR and xGAR is defence and penalties.

 

On offence, Miller has some very strong numbers: 19.7 GAR and 14.9 xGAR. Roughly doubling the offensive on-ice (team) impact of Garland over a season (11 GAR, 6.7 xGAR, for Garland’s offensive contributions).

 

But Miller’s overall GAR and xGAR are negatively impacted by his defence (-3.2 GAR, -2.7 xGAR) and penalties (-0.1 GAR, -0.1 xGAR). Whereas Garland adds significant value in these areas (defence: 3.4 GAR, 3.8 xGAR; penalties: 3.6 GAR, 3.6 xGAR).

 

Added all together, you get a slightly higher GAR (18 vs 16.4) and xGAR (14 vs 12.2) for Garland than Miller.

 

Honestly, this fits rather well with my eye test.

 

Miller is a dominant offensive player. This is obvious just watching him. But he can also be a defensive liability (I think we’ve all seen it) and this shows up in the overall data. Similarly, he takes some bad penalties and doesn’t draw enough calls to balance this out.

 

Garland is a good offensive player, but he was nowhere near Miller’s level last year on offence. But Garland adds almost equal value (to his offence) over a season through his defensive on-ice impacts and his ability to draw significantly more penalties than he takes.

 

This data just confirms the eye test (for me, anyway).

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

10 minutes ago, DSVII said:

Would you have the full list of metrics that go into xGAR? As much as I'd love to rag on Myers for his contract is the metric being fair to him as a defenseman who was matched against the other team's top lines (quality of comp)? What are the stats on the defensive side of the game included here if any or is this stat generally geared towards offensive side players?

 

I'm wondering as well what the league average xGAR for defensemen was. Whether it was a net positive or negative.

https://evolving-hockey.com/glossary/goals-above-replacement/

 

EDIT: and their series on wins above replacement goes even deeper:

 

 https://evolving-hockey.com/blog/wins-above-replacement-history-philosophy-and-objectives-part-1/
 

https://evolving-hockey.com/blog/wins-above-replacement-the-process-part-2/
 

https://evolving-hockey.com/blog/wins-above-replacement-replacement-level-decisions-results-and-final-remarks-part-3/

Edited August 21, 2022 by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

[Timråfan]

That Petey is a beast and Myers bad should be quite clear now.

[JM_]

44 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Do you mean game-by-game?

 

Like a graph plotting how a player’s xGAR changed from game-to-game over the whole season?

 

I don’t know of any free source for this kind of data. It’s certainly possible to generate, but you’d need to pay someone for it, I’d think. 

yup thats what I'd love to see if someone is on a pay site and can generate it. 

[Heretic]

I'd like to see a Salary vs Performance metric, ie, best bang for the buck.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

yup thats what I'd love to see if someone is on a pay site and can generate it. 

Yeah, it would be interesting. 
 

We do know that Miller’s pace under Boudreau was 112 points, compared to a 74 point pace under Green (both projected over 80 games played), so I’d expect to see a significant uptick in his GAR/xGAR after the coaching change, but still mostly driven by his offensive GAR/xGAR.

 

We also know that, unlike some of the other star players, Miller was killing penalties from day one of the season, so he carries shorthanded GAR/xGAR stats from the dark days under Green.
 

Considering that a huge chunk of his negative defensive GAR/xGAR comes from his PK stats, it’s possible the overall season stats somewhat misrepresent how “bad” he is defensively.

 

I wouldn’t expect to see him become a significantly positive defensive player if you separate out the games under Green (as Miller has been negative defensive GAR for the majority of his career and for every season he’s played with the Canucks), but maybe Miller gets closer to “neutral” defensive impact for last season, if he’s playing just under Boudreau.

[Elias Pettersson]

These stats are unreliable, especially for last year, because they don't separate when Green was coaching versus Boudreau.  I'd like to see the numbers simply under Boudreau when we had a real coach.

 

Also, Garland is sheltered playing 3rd line minutes while Miller and Petey play against the other teams best players, so of course they would be getting more penalties chasing around the likes of McDavid and Draisaitl.  Also, Garland's game is not as effective if he is on the PP as he is stationary as others mentioned and doesn't have the same skill and shot to get goals on the PP versus Miller, Petey, Horvat and Boeser.  Garland would actually be an average PP performer which is why he doesn't get the same minutes as the other guys.  With the players we have now I don't see Garland even being a regular on the 2nd PP unit to be honest.  I'd have Podkolzin and Kuzmenko ahead of him.  Garland's game doesn't translate well to the PK either.  I wouldn't have him on the first 3 units as of right now.  

 

Garland's game is built for 5 on 5 hockey, which is where he excels.  Unfortunately for him the special teams are where you win and lose the games and Garland just isn't a very effective special teams player.

 

It also doesn't surprise me that Petey is at the top of this list.  He is our best player and these stats just confirm what we already know.  Miller can put up more points but at the end of the day Petey is a better 200' player and when he is at his best he can also match Miller point for point.

Edited August 21, 2022 by Elias Pettersson

[JM_]

19 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Yeah, it would be interesting. 
 

We do know that Miller’s pace under Boudreau was 112 points, compared to a 74 point pace under Green (both projected over 80 games played), so I’d expect to see a significant uptick in his GAR/xGAR after the coaching change, but still mostly driven by his offensive GAR/xGAR.

 

We also know that, unlike some of the other star players, Miller was killing penalties from day one of the season, so he carries shorthanded GAR/xGAR stats from the dark days under Green.
 

Considering that a huge chunk of his negative defensive GAR/xGAR comes from his PK stats, it’s possible the overall season stats somewhat misrepresent how “bad” he is defensively.

 

I wouldn’t expect to see him become a significantly positive defensive player if you separate out the games under Green (as Miller has been negative defensive GAR for the majority of his career and for every season he’s played with the Canucks), but maybe Miller gets closer to “neutral” defensive impact for last season, if he’s playing just under Boudreau.

I was really wondering more about Myers... did he improve under Bruce?

[kanucks25]

5 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

These stats are unreliable

 

5 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

these stats just confirm what we already know

 

[Elias Pettersson]

9 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

 

 

Why are you clipping my post to get a couple of soundbites?  I said the stats were unreliable mainly because they don't separate the numbers under Green versus Boudreau.  I also said these numbers already confirm what we already know about Petey, which is easy to figure out using the eye test.  I don't need advanced stats to tell me that Petey is a better all around player than Miller.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

5 minutes ago, JM_ said:

I was really wondering more about Myers... did he improve under Bruce?

Don’t have time for a deep dive, but I think Myers was one of the lesser affected players, in terms of his overall stats before and after the coaching change.

 

Possibly some of his underlyings even went down. I seem to remember him holding his head above water for part of the season under Green (at least relative to the team) and some early talk about him and OEL being considered a good shutdown pairing in the league (with the stats to back this up).

 

By season’s end, Myers had only a slightly positive GAR (still an achievement, I suppose, given it was the first time he was “above replacement” in five years) but he also had his absolute career worst xGAR (-7.3).