First goal was 100% LaCombes fault. I have no idea why he decided to go defend a player already covered and leave Connor wide open.
Other than that I thought he was good.
Helleson had an ill advised pinch on their second goal that left Minty out to dry.
I’m guessing those plays are why their cards look like they do, but I’ll admit I don’t fully understand how they’re calculated.
The stat cards
site shows the raw data they're based on. (I can't figure out how to link directly to a specific game, but it's pretty easy to navigate.) It's almost all on-ice metrics as opposed to individual play.
They take both expected and actual goals into account. Helleson had a pretty decent xGA (0.46) but was on the ice for two actual GA, so he gets dinged pretty badly on defense. LaCombe was only on for one GA but his xGA was much worse (1.16) so he also gets dinged pretty badly on defense.
As to how it weights real versus expected, or what weighting is causing the actual GF/GA not to be displayed in whole numbers...
I feel like those cards arnt exactly well done…. Don’t generally read to far into them
They are okay, but I don’t think they generally tell full story
Yeah they basically have the same strengths and flaws as any other fancy stats graphic, though maybe with a more opaque methodology.
IMO they're decent for measuring line/pairing performance and almost useless for individual performance. You'll get a bit of variation from partial changes and special teams, but the biggest individual variance is usually goals and assists. That's... probably not a thing that needs a fancy stat chart to help anyone judge it.
