About a year ago, I was like most fans when it came to advanced hockey statistics: On the outside looking in. As a result, over the last year, I have spent a fair amount of time immersing myself in this burgeoning area of analysis. In the process, I have been exposed to advanced stats through various sources and have begun to appreciate that, when analyzed in proper context, they are a tool helpful to the development of a deeper understanding of the game. I believe most fans want to understand hockey at a deeper level, and becoming familiar with these stats is an important step in that direction. What I want to do right now is give a primer of sorts and then break down the first portion of the season (as of November 10th).

We'll start simple. "Shots" on net are undeniably important in hockey. The more shots you get on net, usually the more likely you are to be successful. This is due to two different things: 1) Shot volume over time produces more goals, and 2) if you're shooting more, that means you have the puck more than the other team. When you have the puck, the other team isn't scoring. For the purposes of this breakdown, the number under the shots heading is the percentage of total shots fired while that team is playing at even strength while the score is tied that were fired by the team in question, multiplied by 1000 to avoid decimals. For example, Team A registers 165 shots, while surrendering 122 shots within these parameters. They will have recorded .575 of all the shots, 57.5% or for the purposes of this breakdown, a rating of 575. The reason I'm using these parameters are pretty simple, when a team has a lead, they tend to play more passive and protect it. Within the stats community it is called score effects. It's why you often see a team get massively outshot when they blow out another team. Those situations are relatively meaningless in analyzing how good a team is. If you're up 5-1, you don't care about getting shots on the other team's net anymore. Similarly, special teams don't tell us much here. On a powerplay any team can outshoot the opponent.

Creating a bigger picture of possession we move on to Fenwick. Fenwick is a measure of the same things as shots for/against, only it also includes shots that miss the net. So what you end up getting with Fenwick is a measure of how well a team gets its shots through the other team and towards the net. The extra data gives us a better measure of puck possession because it is a larger sample size. I'll be expressing Fenwick in the same way as shots.

The final measure of puck possession we're using is Corsi, which also includes shots that were blocked. Increasing the sample amount of data once more gives us a larger sample size and therefore a more stable metric. Corsi will be expressed the same was as shots and Fenwick. Personally I like Fenwick as a measure of offensive success more than Corsi because you're putting shots through the opposing team. Corsi is a better measure of puck possession, Fenwick, to me, shows how successful that team is at translating puck possession into opportunities. While these statistics measure puck possession they don't guarantee success over a short period of time. This is where random variation comes in. Teams and players get hot and cold, puck luck comes and goes.

This brings us to PDO (PDO is not an initialism, it is simply the username of the person who created the metric on a message board), which I'll be using PDO to express a team's luck in both scoring and preventing goals against. PDO is a combination of a team's shooting percentage and a team goaltender's save percentage. Expressed the same way I have expressed the other statistics we are using here, PDO is expected to stay close to 1000, for good teams and bad ones. Follow me after the jump to see why this happens and where the Habs stand.

Continue reading this post »

There is no argument that being at the home rink of your Montreal Canadiens IS the true fan experience.

Whether it's you and a friend, or a group or maybe you lucked in on a single ticket last minute, nothing compares to being in the Bell Centre to watch the Habs.

From the pre-game warmup to the end of the game, the energy in Montreal cannot be compared to anywhere else in the NHL.

Now I know that some other fans will disagree, citing favoritism but I've been to Toronto countless times, as well as Nashville, Tampa and Ottawa amongst others, and there is no comparison.

But the game alone is just part of the experience in Montreal, and for first timers you may want to set the whole day aside.

Continue reading this post »

It's going to happen, or has happened at some point in your hockey viewing life, fellow Montreal Canadiens fans. The game is on and you are nowhere near a TV or a computer.

Not very many years ago, unless you were within radio range of your favorite NHL city, you were not going to know the outcome, or what was going on, until you saw the highlights on your local 11 o'clock news at the earliest.

Fortunately for the fans working the night shift, have to leave the TV to pick up the kids or go to your beer league game, you do have some options.

Modern technology's biggest advancements have given the die hard hockey fans some great ways to keep tabs on there favorite teams on the ice, night in and night out.

Continue reading this post »

For Montreal Canadiens fans, there's a handful of ways to enjoy a game; in person at the Bell Centre (or an opponents rink), watching at home on TV, at a bar or friend's home, or going old school and listening on the radio.

Over the next few weeks, I'll be posting some ideas and suggestions as to how fans can add to the enjoyment of the game in the selected environments.

This week focuses on watching the game in the comfort of your own home. For most of you, there may not be anything new here, but you never know.

Continue reading this post »