Thursday, October 22, 2009

Scoring Chances for Game Number 20115 : Avalanche @ Wild

Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 20115

COL118:59 31225323467916222740415v5
MIN117:23 3891415322226273741 5v4
MIN117:20 3891415322226273741 5v4
MIN116:16Goal389141532541525455 5v4
MIN110:29 81125325567537394152 5v4
MIN110:17 81125325567537394152 5v4
MIN110:05 81125325567537394152 5v4
MIN17:36 3891415322227373941 5v4
MIN13:26 89141532552227373941 5v4
MIN12:59 89141532552241525455 5v4
MIN219:48 5691415321023264152545v5
COL217:48 3112032345158394144555v5
COL215:54 3914153234916222740415v5
COL212:38 914153234551522262739415v5
COL29:32 31221273234916222740415v5
MIN28:49 5614203251916274041445v5
MIN27:43 3914153234810223741555v5
COL26:30 38111425322227374154 5v4
MIN25:30 59141532551026394152 5v4
COL24:31 5620212732916222327415v5
COL21:54 81225325567822232741555v5
COL20:17 320213255 1016222640414v5
COL318:44 56141527321023264152545v5
COL318:30 56141527321023264152545v5
COL317:43 31120323451822273739415v5
MIN313:49 389141532526394152 5v4
MIN313:14 3891415322227373941 5v4
MIN311:50 6891415322227394041545v5
MIN311:42 69141532342227394041545v5
COL310:48 5112021325589222641525v5
MIN35:27 389152032526394152 5v4
MIN34:51Goal389152032526394152 5v4
MIN31:17 5111225325558102641545v5

3M. ZIDLICKY12:20167:40812:0501
5K. JOHNSSON22:12344:20102:1700
6G. ZANON17:33430:11001:0600
8B. BURNS16:51128:031310:4900
9M. KOIVU15:09437:281101:0200
11O. NOLAN11:27135:25310:3800
12C. KOBASEW14:24150:00000:0000
14M. HAVLAT15:41546:41910:2700
15A. BRUNETTE12:12457:101100:0000
20A. MIETTINEN15:38141:29202:0801
21K. BRODZIAK8:25030:11001:3701
24D. BOOGAARD3:21000:00000:0000
25E. BELANGER12:31134:53310:3800
27N. SMITH7:33040:11001:1300
32N. BACKSTROM48:1961312:341414:0001
34S. HNIDY8:24270:11000:0000
51J. SHEPPARD12:55121:04000:1200
55N. SCHULTZ19:38144:43601:4301
67B. POULIOT11:03033:10300:0500

PeriodTotalsEVPP5v3 PPSH5v3 SH

I know that I've yet to score either the Edmonton or Vancouver game, but I wanted to throw up the Colorado game first so as to allow for a comparison between my recording of the chances and that of Scott Reynolds over at Gospel of Hockey, who is recording scoring chances for the Avalanche this season.

Scott has provided an excellent review of the game over at his blog that summarizes the game fairly comprehensively. Put briefly, the Avalanche were the better team at even strength, yet ended up trailing in chances on account of taking too many penalties and doing a terrible job of killing them.

Interestingly, while Scott and I each scored 20 chances for the Wild and 15 for the Avalanche, there was some disagreement in terms of the scoring of individual chances. Out of the 42 chances that occurred in the game (that is, the number of chances recorded by either Scott or I), 28 were agreed upon, with each of us scoring 7 chances that were not regarded as scoring chances by the other recorder.

Fortunately, Vic has designed an application that measures inter-rater agreement in terms of scoring chance recording, which thus allows for a quantitative determination to be made of our recording similarity. Using the data from this game, the inter-rater agreement between Scott and I, expressed as a Cohen's Kappa value, was 0.70, which is reasonably high.


Olivier said...

Interesting; I had a Kappa of .77 with Dennis on the last EDM-MTL game.

Now, it seems Vic has fixed his SC app, so we'll soon have a comparable of the Habs/Avalanche Game!

Olivier said...

Wait, I spoke too quickly; it doesn't work for the Avalanche and Ottawa game, but it does for the other ones.

Help me jeebus!

R O said...

After the 6 inter-division games are up I bet that Kappa value goes up.

Seems like there is sometimes a bit of a disconnect between scoring chances and Corsi at the individual game level. Which is to be expected but it makes it harder to determine who is "playing better" in each game. Might be a fool's errand anyway.

Scott Reynolds said...

I did a review of our chances at GoH looking at all of the chances we scored differently. We actually had 8 different chances each which brought our Kappa down to 0.66 I think. Having never worked with Kappa values in the past, is that any good?