The KHL needs progressive statistics. We tell everything by the example of “Barys”
During the analysis, we took three statistical data – PDO, the percentage of shots from both sides, and also the points scored. Let’s say right away that PDO correlates with the points scored and equals 0.86, which is very good. While the percentage of shots from both sides as a percentage has a negative correlation for Barys, we will explain why just below.
We reviewed all Barys matches from January to the end of the regular season. Since the New Year, the club from Nur-Sultan has lost only six matches – one in overtime and five in regular time. All other games remained with Skabelka’s wards.
What is PDO? This is an indicator of the so-called luckiness. That is, if the PDO> 100%, it means that the team implements the chances much more than it actually creates. PDO is calculated using a simple formula -% Shots Reflected +% Shots Realized. It is worth noting that if the PDO is <100%, it means that the club is not realizing its chances.
The percentage of shots from both sides has a very simple logic: if you re-roll your opponent, then you have more chances of winning the match. We took it as a percentage, calculating it using the formula – (Shots on goal / (Throws on the opponent + Throws on goal) * 100.
On the X-axis, we have displayed the so-called PDO. What is noteworthy – in most of the games “Barys” exceeded 100%, consequently, realized more than expected. The only game where Barys won, using all their chances, was the match against HC Sochi. The Y-axis shows the percentage of shots from both sides. So it was possible to trace the percentage of the difference in shots, where the Kazakh team threw opponents. In particular, the club from Nur-Sultan dominated in shots against Dynamo Riga and SKA, as well as Siberia, but lost to everyone.
It is also worth clarifying – the blue, red and yellow circles are the points scored after the game. Two points (red) – victory, one point (yellow) – defeat in overtime and zero points (blue) – defeat in regulation time.
In a large proportion of their matches, Barys won when the team was thrown, but at the same time their implementation and reliable play in defense led to success. Of the matches won, where the Nur-Sultan club dominated in shots – only Admiral, CSKA, Jokerit and Sochi.
There were a lot of unrealized moments in the second game of 2020 with “Salavat Yulaev” and “Cupid”, and also lost in the second meeting to “Vanguard”. Why is the ratio of the percentage of shots from both sides negatively correlated with Barys? It’s very simple – the Kazakh club won more matches when it was thrown by the opponent. Although, logically, the team that delivers the most shots should win.
But that’s not all. We decided to trace the dependence of “Barys” on the time of possession of the puck and the number of shots. By calculating the time, the formula for possession of the puck on both sides will help us – (minutes of possession of the puck by Barys / (minutes of possession of the puck by Barys + possession of the puck by the opponent) * 100. Consider me an innovator in this formula, but I think it objectively shows territorial advantage without any “buts”, like the same Corsi. That is, if we calculate the team / player’s possession time, and not its theoretical possession through the difference in shots, then everything will be much better. For example, if we take Corsi ( CF%) of the SKA – Barys match, it turns out that the club from Nur-Sultan had an advantage of 57.8% However, based on the summary on the official website of the KHL, SKA owned the puck for 18 minutes, and Barys – 15 Consequently, CSKA owned the initiative, and not the club from Nur-Sultan, and the percentage of ownership of the St. Petersburg club in that match was equal – 54.4% to 45.6 for Barys. The difference is significant. Let’s return to the schedule.
On the x-axis we have the percentage of possession of the puck on both sides, on the y-axis the percentage of shots on both sides. It turns out that Barys won most of the matches when they did not own the puck, as well as when the opponent threw the team.
It is noteworthy that the club from Nur-Sultan lost four matches out of six when the puck possession reached 50% or more. True, then the opponent threw Barys, or the indicators were approximately the same. From this graph we can conclude that Barys uses vertical hockey, which does not require long-term possession of the puck, and that the Kazakh club prefers to play number two. At the same time, in terms of throws, the Kazakh club is within a radius of 50% or in positive territory. This means that there was an instruction to throw as much as possible without any special rallies.
In North America, progressive statistics are flying around like hot cakes. Last season, we introduced the “Smart Puck” system, which worked, but it was possible to see in the public domain not the graphics that we made by hand, but what the maximum speed of the hockey player is, how much distance the player / team covered in kilometers, and so on. Further. We could get statistics that the NHL would never dream of. Take a step forward. But we continue to call analysts those who simply break down a video, rather than basing their conclusions on logical methods, formulas and correlations.