Toggle sidebar

GDT: 2023-24 season game 9 LA Kings vs Toronto Maple Leafs @5:00pm 10/31/23

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
bland said:
Oh it absolutely affects the players. The trick is to play a slower, heavier, more patient game and not get caught in a race with tired legs.

Toronto couldn't do that. They didn't play a more cautious game, they tried to run and gun and got smothered. A team like Vegas wouldn't be as encumbered by that as a team like Toronto, so using league-wide averages isn't going to tell you much.
Click to expand...
Carolina certainly didn't do that against Seattle last week coming back off their 6 game trip, putting up 45 shots and being all over the ice. They sped up the game to their advantage. Seattle was in a total shell.

The difference between Vegas and Toronto is Vegas is a hell of a lot better.
 
All time leauge leader in drawing inference, misinterpretation and inappropriate quantitative application. The better call saul award
 
It's possible that certain situations (like first game back on the road) affect a team's performance and the Kings playing like a superior team can both be true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chris kontos
Fishhead said:
The Kings tend to have a lower expected goals against because when they utilize a 1-3-1 at certain points in games. Expected goals is heavily weighted towards the middle of the ice. Teams have to beat the 1-3-1 with speed, so most of their better chances are guys streaking down the wing which is exactly what we usually see. I wish xGA weighted these higher because a guy flying down the wing is a lot more dangerous than a guy trying to force a shot in a clogged up middle, even if he is outside of the slot.

It's far from a useless stat, it's just that there is a big system component to it. I find xGF more telling than its counterpart.
Click to expand...
Last night's xGF for Kings 2.82, xGA 2.56. Clearly a pretty close game from the expected stat point of view.
 
Fishhead said:
The Kings tend to have a lower expected goals against because when they utilize a 1-3-1 at certain points in games. Expected goals is heavily weighted towards the middle of the ice. Teams have to beat the 1-3-1 with speed, so most of their better chances are guys streaking down the wing which is exactly what we usually see. I wish xGA weighted these higher because a guy flying down the wing is a lot more dangerous than a guy trying to force a shot in a clogged up middle, even if he is outside of the slot.

It's far from a useless stat, it's just that there is a big system component to it. I find xGF more telling than its counterpart.
Click to expand...

100% disagree.

I'd take 10 out of 10 shots flying down the wall vs shots that I might not see or might be deflected etc
 
lumbergh said:
Last night's xGF for Kings 2.82, xGA 2.56. Clearly a pretty close game from the expected stat point of view.
Click to expand...
Yeah the Leafs put up a better fight than most give them credit for, they had their dangerous moments. The Kings were obviously the better team but the gap wasn't huge as the booing made out.

I generally don't think x stats by themselves are great indicators until 20+ games or so, but looking at the gap in individual games will confirm what you see on the ice in a broad sense. I'm sure some of that isn't necessarily cause and effect, so you have to take care.


It's a good general stat, it just ignores things like event timing which plays a huge outcome on the results of any single game. But if I didn't watch the games, didn't know it was the Kings, and saw those stats in a vacuum, they indicate the following:

The team was only "out-expected" in their first game, otherwise, they played well enough to win, and probably should have won, nearly all other games. There weren't any close games where xGA is much higher than what the other team actually scored, so their goalies aren't stealing games - they are outplaying teams by a decent margin. There are only 3 games (Jets, Knights, and Leafs) where the team got stronger goaltending and fewer were let in than expected. There were 3 games (Carolina, Bruins, Coyotes #2) where there was a large difference in actual goals vs. expected, indicating the goalie shit the bed. The team is gifted offensively as there are only 3 games where they scored less than expected. Overall the team is solid defensively compared to the rest of the league. Their goalkeeping isn't absolutely terrible, but while it's improving and not hurting them like early in the season it still needs to get better consistently. Overall they are a well-coached team that is performing above standard in most areas.

It's hard to completely separate, but I think that's a pretty fair assessment of the team so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raccoon Jesus
GoldenBearHockey said:
100% disagree.

I'd take 10 out of 10 shots flying down the wall vs shots that I might not see or might be deflected etc
Click to expand...
When established In the zone I completely agree with you, so I'm not describing it well.

The Kings system makes it really difficult for guys to enter in the middle, nearly impossible. Everything is forced to the outside and the team has given up a lot of great opportunities when guys are coming down the wing into the zone at full speed. I can't remember a goal against the Kings on an outnumbered attack where a pass was made this year. Guys are just shooting from inside the circles without even going in too far and beating the goalie. They haven't allowed much from the middle at all with speed. Should your goalie be stopping stuff outside the slot? Generally, but with that kind of speed it's still a really dangerous spot. I think the Kings xGA reflects this part of the system and should be a bit higher than it is. I'm talking about shots like the ones Carrier and Maccelli scored on to be clear, which are very dangerous despite their release points. It's the biggest weakness of xGA.
 
Fishhead said:
When established In the zone I completely agree with you, so I'm not describing it well.

The Kings system makes it really difficult for guys to enter in the middle, nearly impossible. Everything is forced to the outside and the team has given up a lot of great opportunities when guys are coming down the wing into the zone at full speed. I can't remember a goal against the Kings on an outnumbered attack where a pass was made this year. Guys are just shooting from inside the circles without even going in too far and beating the goalie. They haven't allowed much from the middle at all with speed. Should your goalie be stopping stuff outside the slot? Generally, but with that kind of speed it's still a really dangerous spot. I think the Kings xGA reflects this part of the system and should be a bit higher than it is. I'm talking about shots like the ones Carrier and Maccelli scored on to be clear, which are very dangerous despite their release points. It's the biggest weakness of xGA.
Click to expand...

Those were on the top of the circle though, about as close to the middle as you can get, without technically being in the middle.

When you say forced to the outside, I'm thinking outside the dots up and down the wall, again, rush or not, I want those shots 100 times over as a goaltender, no shot should beat you from that area if it's 1-1 and no screen/tip, not from the outside, and there's been 3 or 4 that have not only from the outside, but damn near below the circle....

I suck at putting in links/graphics, but isolate Carrier's goal, it's about 3-4 feet inside the dot, on the top of the circle.

Macelli's was right on the side of the dot....I don't think those are being forced to the outside at all
 
  • Like
Reactions: Statto
GoldenBearHockey said:
Those were on the top of the circle though, about as close to the middle as you can get, without technically being in the middle.

When you say forced to the outside, I'm thinking outside the dots up and down the wall, again, rush or not, I want those shots 100 times over as a goaltender, no shot should beat you from that area if it's 1-1 and no screen/tip, not from the outside, and there's been 3 or 4 that have not only from the outside, but damn near below the circle....

I suck at putting in links/graphics, but isolate Carrier's goal, it's about 3-4 feet inside the dot, on the top of the circle.

Macelli's was right on the side of the dot....I don't think those are being forced to the outside at all
Click to expand...
Well, they certainly aren't in the middle and that's how it's defined by xGA. I agree the shots outside the dots should be saved every single time. I also think that Carriers and Macelli's shots were a lot more dangerous than the stat gives them credit for, they are practically in the slot.

Was just illustrating that I think the expected goals stat is lower than it should be for the Kings. While the goaltending is bad, I don't think it's quite as bad as the numbers indicate.

Edit: I inserted the heat map for this season so far, you can see that the Kings don't give up a whole lot in the middle, especially the slot. They give up a ton of goals on the right side of the goal in the circle.

teamShotLoc-2324-L.A-def.png
 
Last edited:
King'sPawn said:
Just out of curiosity, why does that matter?
Click to expand...
I just wanna see him score normal goals. He’s doing everything right I’m just hoping to see the accuracy improve drastically. Empty nets and a couple tips.
 
Sol said:
I just wanna see him score normal goals. He’s doing everything right I’m just hoping to see the accuracy improve drastically. Empty nets and a couple tips.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to be a pain, but I don't understand. He has scored "normal" goals in the past. And before, that wasn't enough (because he "only" scored 3 last year). Now he has two already - one a tip in front of the net, one a desperation throw at the net.

His normal goals weren't enough in the past. Now he has two more under completely different circumstances.

And while "pace" is ultimately meaningless, his scoring rate is still better than what most of us were projecting him to have. So, it just feels like the requirements keep changing before there's satisfaction in his play and/or growth.

Heck, I thought you'd love that tip-in goal. He drove to the net, and he scored in a way most Kings players don't. But you do you. Hopefully he meets your satisfaction eventually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nasti
  • Haha
Reactions: Chazz Reinhold
Fishhead said:
Well, they certainly aren't in the middle and that's how it's defined by xGA. I agree the shots outside the dots should be saved every single time. I also think that Carriers and Macelli's shots were a lot more dangerous than the stat gives them credit for, they are practically in the slot.

Was just illustrating that I think the expected goals stat is lower than it should be for the Kings. While the goaltending is bad, I don't think it's quite as bad as the numbers indicate.

Edit: I inserted the heat map for this season so far, you can see that the Kings don't give up a whole lot in the middle, especially the slot. They give up a ton of goals on the right side of the goal in the circle.

View attachment 761649
Click to expand...

Not sure how you are saying they weren't in the middle lol take a look at the ESPN Game cast, it will show you where each one was, Carrier's was 100% in the middle. Macelli, was on the dot. both high danger chances,
 
GoldenBearHockey said:
Not sure how you are saying they weren't in the middle lol take a look at the ESPN Game cast, it will show you where each one was, Carrier's was 100% in the middle. Macelli, was on the dot. both high danger chances,
Click to expand...
The middle is very clearly defined as the area between the dots in stats like xGA. I personally think it's in what I would call the middle, but the stat doesn't. If that makes sense.
 
Fishhead said:
The middle is very clearly defined as the area between the dots in stats like xGA. I personally think it's in what I would call the middle, but the stat doesn't. If that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Got it, Carrier's shot is definitely in the middle then, and Macelli's is right on the edge, can be argued both, but inherently more dangerous than on the boards
 
Sol said:
I just wanna see him score normal goals. He’s doing everything right I’m just hoping to see the accuracy improve drastically. Empty nets and a couple tips.
Click to expand...
He will be ok. He’s aiming for the corners and as his confidence grows it’ll come… he’ll get dialled in. If every shot was hitting the goalies logo I’d then be worried… I’d much rather he was missing an inch wide than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: King'sPawn
Bandit said:
Curious how they decided Toronto's 1st and second lines "changed" when it's the same guys on both lines. Smells like bullshit to me.
Click to expand...
It's just TOI.

Line with the most ice time gets the "1st" line designation. Line with the second most ice time gets the "2nd" line designation ect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: King'sPawn and Bandit
KopitarGOAT420 said:
Blackwood does not suck he has a .907 save % on like the worst team in the history of sports

But I feel yall. Losing Lizotte would hurt a bit and Blackwood maybe wouldn't be a massive upgrade but he'd DEFINITELY be an upgrade over Copley and he's a young goalie playing really well right now on a terrible team.
Click to expand...
If we're near the TDL, and there's a mid-level goalie like Blackwood who's been hot all season, I wouldn't be opposed to trying that route.

A guy like Jake Allen, who's a career average goalie, is on fire right now (.930%). He's basically the reason Montreal is winning games. James Reimer is a guy who can get hot also (.939%).

But if the Kings look really good, I wouldn't be opposed to selling out for someone like Saros.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chris kontos and KopitarGOAT420
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom