Toggle sidebar

Post-Game Talk: #10 - 10/29/19 | lightning @ RANGERS

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates

3 Stars of the Game

  • Total voters
    189
Status
Not open for further replies.
Irishguy42 said:
There is only one Corsi measurement.
There are no "other Corsi figures"
You don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Ugh! You know what plural means. Corsi figures as in more than one, you know like there are more than one player on a team... Geez
 
Analytics are what has Toronto unable to get over the hump because analytics dont measure game to game intimidation, opponent size and physicality, or basically anything that has to do with what a player does vs a bigger more physically intimidating player not to mention the style change that occurs in playoffs. It just points you to skilled players who get a lot of points during the regular season or a guy who plays safe hockey. Claude Lemieux would be an analytical nightmare during the regular season. There isnt a team that wouldnt take his playoff abilities. Analytics are a tool but they dont tell much of a story game to game vs different opponents.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Calad, bl02 and Jim Ramsay
Irishguy42 said:
I agree, but Twitter and sometimes HF keep telling me that Smith is bad because he's a defenseman playing as a forward.

Or something like that...
Click to expand...

I thought people were saying something like "man he was terrible as a defensemen, so they moved him to forward as a last resort, and he's doing sort of ok on a sort of ok team".
 
KreiderBomb said:
Analytics are what has Toronto unable to get over the hump because analytics dont measure game to game intimidation, opponent size and physicality, or basically anything that has to do with what a player does vs a bigger more physically intimidating player not to mention the style change that occurs in playoffs. It just points you to skilled players who get a lot of points during the regular season or a guy who plays safe hockey. Claude Lemieux would be an analytical nightmare during the regular season. There isnt a team that wouldnt take his playoff abilities. Analytics are a tool but they dont tell much of a story game to game vs different opponents.
Click to expand...

The real truth about the analytics is it's just more bullshit for fans to waste too much time on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shesterkybomb
Whipping boy to me means disproportionate or undeserved critisisms i.e. Roszival.

Staal gets critiqued because his performance to contract ratio is bottom five in the league
 
  • Like
Reactions: Machinehead
Machinehead said:
xGF is a little bit better. That said, you can still inflate xGF just by doing a lot of useless corsi.

Although I will say that 10% is probably about accurate tbh. That's a .900 save percentage. You're not holding a job in the NHL with a .900 save percentage.

So yeah, if an NHL goalie is stopping it 9/10 times, it's probably a scoring chance.
Click to expand...
I feel like many fans think of scoring chance as like a 30% or higher chance of going in. But that's pretty much a half open net these days with the modern goalie's ability to recover and get across in time (unless it's roofed, more often than not). I'd say a 10% chance of going in is a bit low but not that crazy. A few percentage points make the difference for me, but this is very subjective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Machinehead
The league average shooting percentage at 5v5 this year is 8.3%. The league average shooting percentage at 5v5 for forwards is 10.1% If you have a stat declaring something 10% as a scoring chance your stat is wrong. You're basically saying the average shot is a scoring chance. Absolute nonsense. Not saying the stat doesn't correlate to future goals better than something else but the name of your stat is misleading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: romba
SA16 said:
The league average shooting percentage at 5v5 this year is 8.3%. The league average shooting percentage at 5v5 for forwards is 10.1% If you have a stat declaring something 10% as a scoring chance your stat is wrong. You're basically saying the average shot is a scoring chance. Absolute nonsense. Not saying the stat doesn't correlate to future goals better than something else but the name of your stat is misleading.
Click to expand...
That number factors in a lot of really bad shooters though. Good forwards can and do shoot higher than that and they're shooting higher because they're creating better chances.

You do bring up a valid point. I was just making the point that I don't think 10% for the low bar of what's considered a scoring chance is outrageous, but that is the low bar.

And a lot of analytics people have taken issue with scoring chances because they have a binning issue. For those who don't know (I know you do), a "binning" issue in statistics refers to putting very different results into the same broadly defined bin. That is to say, a 10% scoring chance is in the same bin as a 30-40% scoring chance, so you're absolutely right to say it's misleading.

I just think there's a tendency to overrate or inflate what constitutes a scoring chance. Not every scoring chance is a particularly good one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SA16
Fitzy said:
Whipping boy to me means disproportionate or undeserved critisisms i.e. Roszival.

Staal gets critiqued because his performance to contract ratio is bottom five in the league
Click to expand...
Exactly this.

Being really bad and people thinking you're really bad is not a whipping boy.
 
Machinehead said:
That number factors in a lot of really bad shooters though. Good forwards can and do shoot higher than that and they're shooting higher because they're creating better chances.

You do bring up a valid point. I was just making the point that I don't think 10% for the low bar of what's considered a scoring chance is outrageous, but that is the low bar.

And a lot of analytics people have taken issue with scoring chances because they have a binning issue. For those who don't know (I know you do), a "binning" issue in statistics refers to putting very different results into the same broadly defined bin. That is to say, a 10% scoring chance is in the same bin as a 30-40% scoring chance, so you're absolutely right to say it's misleading.

I just think there's a tendency to overrate or inflate what constitutes a scoring chance. Not every scoring chance is a particularly good one.
Click to expand...

I guess I would say if it's not a "good" scoring chance then I personally would not consider it a scoring chance. To me HDCF is more of actual scoring chances and SCF is basically just shots excluding dmen shooting from far out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aufheben, romba and Machinehead
SA16 said:
I guess I would say if it's not a "good" scoring chance then I personally would not consider it a scoring chance. To me HDCF is more of actual scoring chances and SCF is basically just shots excluding dmen shooting from far out.
Click to expand...
I think that's a fair take. One can't miss chance moves the needle more than 7 or 8 decent ones. That's why it's so hard to quantify hockey.

I think the next wave of analytics is going to be puck-based and player-based stuff.

Soccer has a similar problem where we all kind of know what a scoring chance is but it's very difficult to put in concrete terms and impossible to rank one better than the next. So what they're doing instead, is focusing on the ball and the player. It's hard to quantify chances, but we can quantify things that would reasonably lead to or prevents chances -- passes that beat defenders, dribbles that beat defenders, areal battles, tackles and interceptions as well as tackles and interceptions in prime areas, defenders drawn out of position.

It would be cool to see the same in hockey. It's hard to say how good a "chance" is but if we can say how many board battles a player won or how many times a game his passes beat a defenseman, we can reasonably conclude that he's driving chances.
 
Machinehead said:
I think that's a fair take. One can't miss chance moves the needle more than 7 or 8 decent ones. That's why it's so hard to quantify hockey.

I think the next wave of analytics is going to be puck-based and player-based stuff.

Soccer has a similar problem where we all kind of know what a scoring chance is but it's very difficult to put in concrete terms and impossible to rank one better than the next. So what they're doing instead, is focusing on the ball and the player. It's hard to quantify chances, but we can quantify things that would reasonably lead to or prevents chances -- passes that beat defenders, dribbles that beat defenders, areal battles, tackles and interceptions as well as tackles and interceptions in prime areas, defenders drawn out of position.

It would be cool to see the same in hockey. It's hard to say how good a "chance" is but if we can say how many board battles a player won or how many times a game his passes beat a defenseman, we can reasonably conclude that he's driving chances.
Click to expand...
What you say is definitely true and would be wonderful to track but once the puck and players are tracked via chip we should be able to quantify scoring chances themselves better. Exact release point, nearest defender distance from puck, traffic between the goalie and release point, puck trajectory, and speed of the shot should be quantifiable. Or at least I hope it will be!
 
Raspewtin said:
seeing Strome's career as anything other than a consistent tweener disappointment is rose colored glasses lmao
Click to expand...
There's nothing consistent about Strome until he came here. He's a middle 6 player possibly figuring it out.

Maybe I was never as high on Stepan as others but they're in the same tier for me.
 
ReggieDunlop68 said:
I thought people were saying something like "man he was terrible as a defensemen, so they moved him to forward as a last resort, and he's doing sort of ok on a sort of ok team".
Click to expand...
You don't need to carry as much weight around playing forward than you do defense
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReggieDunlop68
duhmetreE said:
There's nothing consistent about Strome until he came here. He's a middle 6 player possibly figuring it out.

Maybe I was never as high on Stepan as others but they're in the same tier for me.
Click to expand...
He consistently gets a point a game
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom