Team offense

[BlueMonk 102]

As of this post, the Red Wings rank 5th in the NHL in team offense with a GFA at 3.12. That's good enough for 2nd in the Western Conference, behind only San Jose at 3.18.

They rank 15th overall in team defense with a 2.78 team GAA.

It's early and there are lots of injuries around the league, so we shouldn't read too much into these numbers. But still, the notion that this team would have to win 1-0 to make the playoffs hasn't exactly panned out so far, even with all the goal scoring they've lost to injury and free agency.

[Echolalia 2,961]

How many spots did we jump after the 9 goal game?

[The Mule 0]

How many spots did we jump after the 9 goal game?

It doesn't matter. We still managed to score 9 goals in one game, and that's something nobody would have predicted this team would do this season. Goals are goals, no matter how they go in, or when they come.

[Echolalia 2,961]

It doesn't matter. We still managed to score 9 goals in one game, and that's something nobody would have predicted this team would do this season. Goals are goals, no matter how they go in, or when they come.

Sure it matters. 9 goals is a statistical anomaly and skews the data. It wouldn't matter if the Wings were good for 9 goals per game per 17 games because then the data would be consistent, but that isn't the case. Prior to the Columbus game the Wings GFA was 2.81, and I can promise you over the course of the rest of the season the current GFA will regress to that mean, and not 3.12.

edit: by the way, the 2.81 was good for 15th place also.

disclaimer: I'm not saying the Wings are doomed by any means. I'm trying to bring statistical relevance to an otherwise misleading number. That's all.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Echolalia

[Buppy 1,720]

Without the 9 goal game, we'd be 15th. I think it's a bit naive to think we won't struggle offensively.

Doesn't mean they need to win 1-0, but no one ever really thought that. They will need to win a lot of games where we score 3 or less though. We've only scored more than that 4 times in 17 games.

[ltgator333 3]

Here's to them keeping it at least 2.9 or above!

And yes any good statistician would throw the 9 goal game out, but, an scoring outburst (5-7 let's say) at somewhat regular intervals is hard to ignore and not beyond their capabilities, jmo. At least one every couple months.

[blankrap 9]

Through 17 games last year the wings scored 64 goals, through 17 games this year the wings scored 55. Last year 4 of those goals weren't needed for victory (weren't the game winning goals).

2008-2009

W: 12 L: 2 OT/SO 3

2009-2010

W: 9 L: 5 OT/SO: 3

I would say that for everyone that we lost due to FA and LTIR the wings are still doing pretty well. Barring the 9 point game that skews the GF through 17 games but last years wings also had two 6 goal games and a 5 point game in that time frame as well.

Read into it what you want but I don't think it's too shabby.

[Hack & Whack Rule! 160]

Sure it matters. 9 goals is a statistical anomaly and skews the data. It wouldn't matter if the Wings were good for 9 goals per game per 17 games because then the data would be consistent, but that isn't the case. Prior to the Columbus game the Wings GFA was 2.81, and I can promise you over the course of the rest of the season the current GFA will regress to that mean, and not 3.12.

edit: by the way, the 2.81 was good for 15th place also.

disclaimer: I'm not saying the Wings are doomed by any means. I'm trying to bring statistical relevance to an otherwise misleading number. That's all.

I agree. A 9 goal game is just a fluke, and makes the numbers wonky at best. Just like at the beginning of the season where people were panicking because we were 1 win, 2 losses. It didn't mean we were going to lose 55 games this year. Or being 0 and 2 didn't mean we were going to lose 82. Sure it's nice that the 9 goals brought us up, but we can't expect that every game, so it has to be thrown out over the long term. It is nice to see some players stepping up and making a difference.

[Z and D for the C 712]

It doesn't matter. We still managed to score 9 goals in one game, and that's something nobody would have predicted this team would do this season. Goals are goals, no matter how they go in, or when they come.

Every team in the league has at least one huge goal scoring game per season. I wouldn't read much into the fact that we scored 9 goals in one game.

That said, we still have a very good offense, though not as good as last year.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Z and D for the C

[Rivalred 630]

This team is very capable of scoring 4-5 goals a night if the entire team is firing in all cylinders. Yes, the mass of injuries has created a unique situation, yet the team is finding ways to win. Just imagine where the Red Wings would be in the conference standings if they were able to hold onto some of the leads in the games they lost...

[rick zombo 3,739]

It just means that without Franzen and Filpulla, the team has been scoring by committee to replace the loss of these two players. plus Hossa, Sammy and Hudler.

When Mule and Val are back, the same players, plus these two should be able to generate the same amount of offense in the post season as they did last year. Keeping in mind that replacing Hossa's six goals scored in 3 games and zero in the finals shouldn't be hard to do.

Edited November 14, 2009 by rick zombo

[cjm502 165]

Tonight I will decide if I think the Wings have really picked it up or not. The have looked good in the 2 games since Toronto have them their beat down. Well, the Vancouver game seemed pretty even, no clear harder working team there, but Howard stole it for us.

[Hack & Whack Rule! 160]

Tonight I will decide if I think the Wings have really picked it up or not. The have looked good in the 2 games since Toronto have them their beat down. Well, the Vancouver game seemed pretty even, no clear harder working team there, but Howard stole it for us.

Hmm...I thought they got outplayed, for the most part, by Vancouver. Canucks just weren't able to capitalize on it, because as you said, Jimmy rocked the s*** out of that crease (paraphrased). Maybe I saw it that way because I saw a Vancouver feed. They wouldn't be biassed, right?

[cjm502 165]

Hmm...I thought they got outplayed, for the most part, by Vancouver. Canucks just weren't able to capitalize on it, because as you said, Jimmy rocked the s*** out of that crease (paraphrased). Maybe I saw it that way because I saw a Vancouver feed. They wouldn't be biassed, right?

All announcers will be biased to some extent, although you can sometimes hardly tell. I will agree that the Wings were outplayed, but not by much. Anyways, it was back to back, but they seemed to get stronger as the game went on. Strange...

[BlueMonk 102]

Of course any good statistician would NOT throw any game out. Why would you? Do you throw out games where the goalie gets a shutout but the other team hits 5 posts?

Anomalies and outliers deserve to be acknowledged, but you always include them. Think of all the games where the Wings got 49 shots but scored one goal because of bad puck luck. It all evens out in the end, that's why you look at all the data.

[Echolalia 2,961]

Of course any good statistician would NOT throw any game out. Why would you? Do you throw out games where the goalie gets a shutout but the other team hits 5 posts?

Anomalies and outliers deserve to be acknowledged, but you always include them. Think of all the games where the Wings got 49 shots but scored one goal because of bad puck luck. It all evens out in the end, that's why you look at all the data.

Actually good statisticians do throw out anomalies. This is why things such as standard deviation and p values are so important in statistics.

[BlueMonk 102]

Actually good statisticians do throw out anomalies. This is why things such as standard deviation and p values are so important in statistics.

Binomial distribution and the Bernoulli Trial don't fit especially well here, though. If you're going to remove the team's best offensive game, then how are you going to adjust for the rest of the teams in the league? The problem you run into is that you have to do the same thing for every other team and establishing a meaningful criteria for that is a study unto itself. And one of speculative value, at that.

[Echolalia 2,961]

Binomial distribution and the Bernoulli Trial don't fit especially well here, though. If you're going to remove the team's best offensive game, then how are you going to adjust for the rest of the teams in the league? The problem you run into is that you have to do the same thing for every other team and establishing a meaningful criteria for that is a study unto itself. And one of speculative value, at that.

Are you suggesting that a 9 goal game is the norm?

[Jasper84 333]

I suppose tonight's 7 goal game was a fluke too, ya?

Edited November 15, 2009 by Kween78

[Echolalia 2,961]

I suppose tonight's 7 goal game was a fluke too, ya?

Ha I wish, but if they want to prove me wrong I'm all for it.

[BlueMonk 102]

It's always a problem when you have a small sample size, and that's what we have here less than 1/4 of the way through the season. But getting back Franzen, Filppula and Williams should help.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

It's always a problem when you have a small sample size, and that's what we have here less than 1/4 of the way through the season. But getting back Franzen, Filppula and Williams should help.

Franzen's the key there. Filppula and Williams can be replaced by young guys stepping up, as we've seen since they were injured, but Franzen can't. While I don't want to diminish Filppula's contribution by saying his production is replaceable, you have to admit that the bottom 6 have stepped up and done just that. Franzen's a 36+ goal guy. The management expected 40+ goals this season, with Franzen competing with Zetterberg for the team lead in goals, so losing him was massive.

Once Franzen's back this team is all the more fearsome. He'll make the 2nd unit power play much, much deadlier. Add Filppula as the 2nd unit PP set-up man and the difference will even more dramatic. Right now the 2nd unit's looked really good, but a big part of that is how hot Kronwall is right now.

[thedisappearer 291]

Sure it matters. 9 goals is a statistical anomaly and skews the data.

Meh. Over a 82 game season, anomalies show up. That's why there is a word for it. It will be negated by a few games of no scoring. That's why we use averages. But we're 18 in, and we were all talking about how we'd look after 20, so I think it's fair to look at the average. Heck, one could play the 'there's so many new players, it takes time to gel' card and just point to the last few games. But, I'll take the 18 game average, thanks.

[The Mule 0]

Sure it matters. 9 goals is a statistical anomaly and skews the data. It wouldn't matter if the Wings were good for 9 goals per game per 17 games because then the data would be consistent, but that isn't the case. Prior to the Columbus game the Wings GFA was 2.81, and I can promise you over the course of the rest of the season the current GFA will regress to that mean, and not 3.12.

edit: by the way, the 2.81 was good for 15th place also.

disclaimer: I'm not saying the Wings are doomed by any means. I'm trying to bring statistical relevance to an otherwise misleading number. That's all.

How about the 7 goals tonight?

[VM1138 1,921]

The poster talking about it balancing out in the end is right. It may be an anomaly, but in all reality, including the 9 and 7 goal games is correct because it brings the team average to right about where it really is. Some could argue that the low scoring initially was the fluke, because the offense seems to get better and better each game. So the trend could also balance out the anomalies.