clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Unconventional Wisdom - Hockey Analysis Rating Defense

We are back once again looking at some of the less well known fancystats, this time we have the 5-on-5 Close Hockey Analysis Rating Defense up through December 20th.

Charles LeClaire-USA TODAY Sport

We took a look at the Hockey Analysis Rating from the past 3 seasons earlier this year, and then looked at the 2013-14 Hockey Analysis Rating Offense in mid-November. So this time we are back again to look at the Pittsburgh Penguins Hockey Analysis Rating Defense for the 2013-14 season. David Johnson last updated HockeyAnalysis on the morning of December 21st, so the most recent games against the Calgary Flames, the Ottawa Senators, and now the Carolina Hurricanes are not included in the data.

We are looking at the standard Goals-based HARD as well as the Fenwick-based HARD and the Corsi-based HARD. We are now far enough into the season that there is enough data available to look at the 5-on-5 Close data, although the Goals-based metric is more susceptible to issues of small sample size, so some of the data there may still look a little strange. I cut off the list with the 14 Forwards and 9 Defensemen who had played at least 50 minutes of 5-on-5 Close Zone Start Adjusted TOI.

I created usage charts based on the data, the X-Axis being 5-on-5 Close O-Zone Start %, the Y-Axis being 5-on-5 Close HARO QoC, and the bubble size being HARD. Originally I started with the axes crossing at the 50% mark as they normally do, but I realized there was an unusually large number of players that got sheltered O-Zone starts. That made me curious, so I looked at the team data and found out that the Penguins as a team actually get more O-Zone starts than D-Zone starts, so I shifted the midpoint to the team average 53.5%.

Goals HARD

<a href="" target="HARD"><img src=""></a>

The top two forwards are Kobasew and Megna with a perfect 100.0 because as of December 20th they had not had a single Goal Against in 5-on-5 Close situations. After them is Conner and Adams, followed by Vitale and Sutter, and then Glass. A good bit further down we then have Kunitz and Dupuis. The rest of the forwards have a negative HARD, with Bennett being the least negative, followed by Crosby and Jokinen, then Malkin, and finally Neal.

On D the highest HARD is Despres, followed by Niskanen and Scuderi, then Bortuzzo, with Letang, and finally Maatta rounding out the positive D. The least negative D are Martin and Orpik, and then lastly Engelland.

Fenwick HARD

<a href="" target="FHARD"><img src=""></a>

For Fenwick the highest HARD is Vitale and Megna, followed by Adams and Kobasew, then Glass. Next is Bennett, Jokinen, and Dupuis, followed by Kunitz and Sutter. Bringing up the rear we have Crosby, followed by Conner, and then Malkin, with Neal being the lone negative HARD.

On D the highest HARD is Bortuzzo and Despres, followed by Martin, then Scuderi, Niskanen, and Letang. After them is Maatta and Orpik, with Engelland coming in dead last again.

Corsi HARD

<a href="" target="CHARD"><img src=""></a>

The highest Corsi HARD is Bennett, followed by Kobasew, Adams, and Vitale, and then Megna. Next up is Jokinen, followed by Dupuis, and then Kunitz. Crosby and Glass are next, followed by Sutter, and then Malkin. Neal and then Conner are the negative Corsi HARD.

On D the highest HARD is Despres, followed by Niskanen, then Martin and Bortuzzo. Afterwards comes Scuderi, followed by Letang, then Orpik, and lastly Maatta. The lone negative Corsi HARD D is Engelland.