Just a little project that I wanted to do to see the difference between each player under the two different coaches this year.
I didn’t filter based on minimum games played or anything so you’ll see a couple of players with really small sample sizes.
I got the data from webscraping moneypuck.com with selenium python.
If y’all notice anything wrong pls let me know I’ll try and figure out where I screwed up thx 🙂
edit: The y axis says values (log) it should just be values because I’m not using a logarithmic scale to display it anymore. That was an earlier version.
viperswhip
It is not about the coach, it’s about disappointing the fan base. Obviously missing the playoffs by a few points is fine and all, but losing the chance at some of the best players available in the last 5 years and the best player since McDavid is AWESOME. That is why they played better, it has nothing to do with the coach, I imagine the same result would have happened had we kept Bruce.
SuperSwaiyen
Great raw data. If I could m, I’d recommend putting Bourdreau’s bar on the left, and RT on the right to be chronologically consistent. It’s easier to visually intuit whether a player increased or decreased in performance for that stat.
jgfeighteen18
Quintin is such a stud, surely Jackson and Lukas join him in Vancouver someday
Sarke1
Thanks.
I think it would be more interesting to compare the players under Bruce last year, to under Tocchet this year.
Honestly surprisingly similar and negligible through the side by side comparison of these chosen stats, even with the GP funky disparity. Really only 4 apparent trends imo: Tochett clearly impaced Faceoff %, Hits, Players changing on the fly. Ironically Miller, Hughes and Petey’s charts are honestly misleading and you think arguably the stars here played worse. Everything Tochett has affected is mostly outiside of simple states: team cohesion, work ethic/speed, aggression, passing, trust, team balance, d structure, PK%, taking lineup risks, demko returning, managing to win with 4 AHL d-men on many nights etc. Still interesting to compare but these stats are too simplistic.
BluesyShoes
Most of these stats should really be changed from season totals to rates on a per game basis. Having significantly more games played under one coach kind of makes the visual representation of the data misleading. If I see a bar graph under one coach higher than the other, I want it to indicate that the player performed better via that metric under that coach; the way it is now basically doesn’t tell me much because most bar graphs that are higher than their counterpart are higher mostly because more games were played under that coach, thus a higher season total. To get useful analysis looking at this, I have to basically deduce what the per game rates would be myself. If it were stats on a per game basis, a bar graph higher than its counterpart would clearly indicate better performance, and it would read way faster visually. The TOI per game, Corsi%, Fenwick% graphs do this successfully and read well.
8 Comments
Just a little project that I wanted to do to see the difference between each player under the two different coaches this year.
I didn’t filter based on minimum games played or anything so you’ll see a couple of players with really small sample sizes.
I got the data from webscraping moneypuck.com with selenium python.
If y’all notice anything wrong pls let me know I’ll try and figure out where I screwed up thx 🙂
edit: The y axis says values (log) it should just be values because I’m not using a logarithmic scale to display it anymore. That was an earlier version.
It is not about the coach, it’s about disappointing the fan base. Obviously missing the playoffs by a few points is fine and all, but losing the chance at some of the best players available in the last 5 years and the best player since McDavid is AWESOME. That is why they played better, it has nothing to do with the coach, I imagine the same result would have happened had we kept Bruce.
Great raw data. If I could m, I’d recommend putting Bourdreau’s bar on the left, and RT on the right to be chronologically consistent. It’s easier to visually intuit whether a player increased or decreased in performance for that stat.
Quintin is such a stud, surely Jackson and Lukas join him in Vancouver someday
Thanks.
I think it would be more interesting to compare the players under Bruce last year, to under Tocchet this year.
[A FEW MORE GRAPHS COMPARING INDIVIDUAL STATS OF ALL THE PLAYERS BETWEEN THE TWO COACHES](https://imgur.com/gallery/v3s11ox)
Honestly surprisingly similar and negligible through the side by side comparison of these chosen stats, even with the GP funky disparity. Really only 4 apparent trends imo: Tochett clearly impaced Faceoff %, Hits, Players changing on the fly. Ironically Miller, Hughes and Petey’s charts are honestly misleading and you think arguably the stars here played worse. Everything Tochett has affected is mostly outiside of simple states: team cohesion, work ethic/speed, aggression, passing, trust, team balance, d structure, PK%, taking lineup risks, demko returning, managing to win with 4 AHL d-men on many nights etc. Still interesting to compare but these stats are too simplistic.
Most of these stats should really be changed from season totals to rates on a per game basis. Having significantly more games played under one coach kind of makes the visual representation of the data misleading. If I see a bar graph under one coach higher than the other, I want it to indicate that the player performed better via that metric under that coach; the way it is now basically doesn’t tell me much because most bar graphs that are higher than their counterpart are higher mostly because more games were played under that coach, thus a higher season total. To get useful analysis looking at this, I have to basically deduce what the per game rates would be myself. If it were stats on a per game basis, a bar graph higher than its counterpart would clearly indicate better performance, and it would read way faster visually. The TOI per game, Corsi%, Fenwick% graphs do this successfully and read well.