Speculation: Thoughts on Giveaways

[Android 16]

Only team in hockey to have 3 in the top 10.
How do we fix this?

Click to read more...

 

[Jean Luc Discard]

How do we fix this?

By firing Tallon.

 

[RainingRats]

We play the stretch pass so that’s going to contribute to a higher number. Giveaways require context. Guys who have the puck a lot who make plays will give it away more. You need to look at turnovers to see anything insightful. Surely you’d take any of these guys who give the puck away lot.

The link below explains it well


Redirect Notice

 

[Android 16]

We play the stretch pass so that’s going to contribute to a higher number. Giveaways require context. Guys who have the puck a lot who make plays will give it away more. You need to look at turnovers to see anything insightful. Surely you’d take any of these guys who give the puck away lot.

The link below explains it well


Redirect Notice

A higher number? 3 guys in top 10. Matheson at the top. This is a problem regardless of it being a result of playing the stretch pass. Matheson turned the puck over 3 times tonight against Dallas and one of them cost us the lead. No Panther team in recent history has turned the puck over this much.

 

[RainingRats]

A higher number? 3 guys in top 10. Matheson at the top. This is a problem regardless of it being a result of playing the stretch pass. Matheson turned the puck over 3 times tonight against Dallas and one of them cost us the lead. No Panther team in recent history has turned the puck over this much.

Read the link

 

[Hinterland]

We play the stretch pass so that’s going to contribute to a higher number. Giveaways require context. Guys who have the puck a lot who make plays will give it away more. You need to look at turnovers to see anything insightful. Surely you’d take any of these guys who give the puck away lot.

The link below explains it well


Redirect Notice

I agree with this. What even is a take- or giveaway exactly? Nobody knows...not even the NHL statistics guys. In some buildings, numbers are higher than in others etc. Complete joke.

 

[Mogo]

We played a solid system under Gallant that limited this with great gap control. While that would fix a lot there are also just poor poor decisions by our dmen expecially Matheson

 

[pantherbot]

We play the stretch pass so that’s going to contribute to a higher number. Giveaways require context. Guys who have the puck a lot who make plays will give it away more. You need to look at turnovers to see anything insightful. Surely you’d take any of these guys who give the puck away lot.

The link below explains it well


Redirect Notice

You're right that it requires context, but some imperfect stats are so overwhelming that there is something there.

Look at that list of players and tell me which one of those doesn't belong on that list? Rank them from best to worse and our guys are probably on the bottom half.

To me it's reflecting the same bad strategy we've had all year to push the offense, have the forwards move out fast, giving less support to the d. It works with some teams, but clearly doesn't work for us.

 

[RainingRats]

You're right that it requires context, but some imperfect stats are so overwhelming that there is something there.

Look at that list of players and tell me which one of those doesn't belong on that list? Rank them from best to worse and our guys are probably on the bottom half.

To me it's reflecting the same bad strategy we've had all year to push the offense, have the forwards move out fast, giving less support to the d. It works with some teams, but clearly doesn't work for us.

Matheson sucks.

You need to read the linked article to see how this should be analyzed

 

[Hinterland]

You're right that it requires context, but some imperfect stats are so overwhelming that there is something there.

Look at that list of players and tell me which one of those doesn't belong on that list? Rank them from best to worse and our guys are probably on the bottom half.

To me it's reflecting the same bad strategy we've had all year to push the offense, have the forwards move out fast, giving less support to the d. It works with some teams, but clearly doesn't work for us.

Draisaitl and Doughty I'd say.

 

[Anakinsky]

Matheson sucks.

You need to read the linked article to see how this should be analyzed

For our team yes he does suck. Every goal last night he played a large factor in.... It is what it is

 

[pantherbot]

Matheson sucks.

You need to read the linked article to see how this should be analyzed

Yes I understand that more touches equals more giveaways and turnovers, and that the stats need to be adjusted for that.

We don't have turnover or touch stats available so there's nothing we can do there. Only thing we can do is adjust for toi and offense generated.

Regarding math, it's pretty clear that his giveaways stand out. If you adjust for toi, points generated, scoring chances, whatever, his totals still stand out.

Regarding our team as a whole, if you adjust for toi, points, chances, we have the most players within the worst 30.

So no these stats are not perfect, but they do point to a problem which is that we give away the puck too much. That also matches up with the eye test.

I'm not sure if it's a personnel issue or coaching or both. But I do know it's something we need to fix.

 

[KW]

By firing Tallon.

By firing Boog, too.

 

[StrangeVision]

We play the stretch pass so that’s going to contribute to a higher number. Giveaways require context. Guys who have the puck a lot who make plays will give it away more. You need to look at turnovers to see anything insightful. Surely you’d take any of these guys who give the puck away lot.

The link below explains it well


Redirect Notice

I read the article, now what?

Give us some context so we can evaluate the OP's stats and support your position. Or are we comparing Mike Matheson to Brent Burns and Erik Karlsson?

 

[RainingRats]

I read the article, now what?

Give us some context so we can evaluate the OP's stats and support your position. Or are we comparing Mike Matheson to Brent Burns and Erik Karlsson?

Not sure what your point is. Entire premise of the thread is flawed.

I already said Matheson is terrible. The rest are good players. saying we have three guys in the top for giveaways doesn’t mean much

 

[StrangeVision]

Not sure what your point is. Entire premise of the thread is flawed.

I already said Matheson is terrible. The rest are good players. saying we have three guys in the top for giveaways doesn’t mean much

You keep saying "read the link, read the link," but all the link says is context is important. Just because context may show something different in one case, or even multiple cases, doesn't mean that will remain constant in every case.

Our three players in the top-10 may mean nothing or it may be an indication of something. Provide the stats your link used to give us some more context. Otherwise your link, in this context, means nothing.

I mean, idk, did the author wait for an opportune time when the stats matched his theory to write the article? You provided an article that shows a small sliver of time. I have no idea if it's relevant across seasons or even across periods of a single season without more information. Is this a pattern or an aberration? I have no idea. Do you? If you do, I'm interested in the information you're using to come to your conclusion.

 

[RainingRats]

You keep saying "read the link, read the link," but all the link says is context is important. Just because context may show something different in one case, or even multiple cases, doesn't mean that will remain constant in every case.

Our three players in the top-10 may mean nothing or it may be an indication of something. Provide the stats your link used to give us some more context. Otherwise your link, in this context, means nothing.

I mean, idk, did the author wait for an opportune time when the stats matched his theory to write the article? You provided an article that shows a small sliver of time. I have no idea if it's relevant across seasons or even across periods of a single season without more information. Is this a pattern or an aberration? I have no idea. Do you? If you do, I'm interested in the information you're using to come to your conclusion.

My point is that you can’t tell anything about giveaways without the context. As a stand alone stat it’s useless. Instead of explaining it, I linked an article. We’ve discussed this a couple months ago. My link means that a thread on giveaways to make conclusions is useless.

Yeah, I’m sure the well reasoned article on giveaways was manipulated to support the author’s premise. It’s hockey analytics disinformation that sportsnet is known for.

I don’t have the context. But it requires context to draw any meaningful conclusions. If you want to go into some thorough analysis, why draw the line there? Why not do it team by team instead of 3 players? W

 

[StrangeVision]

Apparently asking for a more thoughtful, in-depth analysis is a bad thing.

 

[RainingRats]

Apparently asking for a more thoughtful, in-depth analysis is a bad thing.

I’m not interested in running the analysis. Feel free to do it

 

[5forfightning]

Panthers don’t have any chance making deep in to playoffs with current roster when ever that happens .
Once the hitting starts Barkov and rest of the team will get man handled and it won’t be pretty.
Hardly any current roster players hits and they are bunch of snowflakes .
Ek falls on his ass every time he gets pressured, Yandle ,MM gives up puck all the time.
No hope folks...

 

[Gentle Man]

I prefer when they do bobblehead nights.

T Shirts are meh and really uninteresting to me. They should do something new to be honest. Marlins used to give baseball bats when they were at Pro Player Park.

They should do hockey stick night!

 

[pantherbot]

My point is that you can’t tell anything about giveaways without the context. As a stand alone stat it’s useless. Instead of explaining it, I linked an article. We’ve discussed this a couple months ago. My link means that a thread on giveaways to make conclusions is useless.

Yeah, I’m sure the well reasoned article on giveaways was manipulated to support the author’s premise. It’s hockey analytics disinformation that sportsnet is known for.

I don’t have the context. But it requires context to draw any meaningful conclusions. If you want to go into some thorough analysis, why draw the line there? Why not do it team by team instead of 3 players? W

Except I did look at giveaways per 60 mins, per points, per scoring chance generated. It's not perfect and not the same as the turnover stat that we don't have access to, but it does still tell us that a disproportionate amount of our players are giving up the puck... I'm not sure what else you want as context with the information we have available.

 

[sinDer]

My point is that you can’t tell anything about giveaways without the context. As a stand alone stat it’s useless. Instead of explaining it, I linked an article. We’ve discussed this a couple months ago. My link means that a thread on giveaways to make conclusions is useless.

Yeah, I’m sure the well reasoned article on giveaways was manipulated to support the author’s premise. It’s hockey analytics disinformation that sportsnet is known for.

I don’t have the context. But it requires context to draw any meaningful conclusions. If you want to go into some thorough analysis, why draw the line there? Why not do it team by team instead of 3 players? W

You want to talk about "context"? Fine

The context is that Matheson is first in GA while not producing offensively

The context is that our top 3 D are in that list and it doesn't look good, no matter how you want to look at it.

By watching games, we can clearly see that our D is bad, GA stats just confirm it.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

My thoughts on giveaways?
We turn over the puck too damn much.
Edit: WAY too damn much.

 

[RainingRats]

You want to talk about "context"? Fine

The context is that Matheson is first in GA while not producing offensively

The context is that our top 3 D are in that list and it doesn't look good, no matter how you want to look at it.

By watching games, we can clearly see that our D is bad, GA stats just confirm it.

Nah, Ekblad has been great this year. Yandle is in same group as any high offensive d-man for giveaways. Matheson sucks