GDT: #38 ⋅ ANA @ EDM ⋅ 6:00 PM PST
- Thread starter anezthes
- Start date
- Status
DuckTech
In vino veritas
Don't you know? Ed/Oilers are scared of a repeat of the last time we played them....
We give them "Shivers"
...
...
...
I'll show myself out
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
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...
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.
LaCombe was on the ice for one GA, but on the ice for two GF as well as had two coast to coast rushes which were not accounted for.
But to give us perspective, let's how how Stat Cards graded both teams.
It appears "expected stats" carry far more value than real stats with WPG than with the Ducks. The weighting might be too "expected bias" b/c looking at both charts, it looks as though the Ducks didn't score a lot of actual goals. Ducks xGF = 1.39 and xGA = 3.21. Jets xGF = 2.54 and xGA = 1.30.
What the "expected stats" does reflect is that G Gibson did a wonderful job holding the Jets offense back and our offense points to a lot of luck.
la patineuse
Registered User
- Aug 21, 2010
- 7,576
- 3,898
I'm 50/50 on being active in the game day thread for the last two games. I had the game on both times and posted during the Devils game, but wasn't near my laptop to post any comments during yesterday's game v. the Jets. Hmmmm. maybe I should go with the results of the last game.
New Year's resolution #121: limit number negative posts in the game day threads (it's just hard give how this team has played for the last six years or so and having all hopeful expectations regularly dashed).
Firequacker
used wall of text! It's not very effective...
- Jun 3, 2022
- 414
- 818
I think you must've hit another button when you were grabbing the xG numbers. It's not weighting being different between teams, you've just got the all strengths numbers listed for the Ducks and the 5v5 numbers listed for the Jets.
I've gotten the impression previously that the cards factor real GA more heavily than real GF, and that may or may not be the case but for this game it looks like it's a 5v5 bias. I was looking at the raw data again...
Terry was on the ice for three goals, literally scored two of them, and only got credited with one GF. But one was 6v5 and one was 3v3. If they're pulling the main fancy stats from 5v5 then other data from PP and PK (like the description would suggest), it would explain why those other two GF simply don't show up. (One of LaCombe's GF fell under this issue too. Amusingly, it also prevents Killorn from getting credit for two GF he had legitimately nothing to do with—he'd just reached the play on the 6v5 goal, and in the OT he'd barely even touched the ice.)
So it's exactly what you said, the charts don't think the Ducks scored many actual goals. Which, since the main bars are being depicted as against the 'average', probably skews everything else. And definitely makes Winnipeg look like it's weighted differently since all their goals counted on the chart.
duckaroosky
So sayeth Duckthulu
I think our "luck" runs out tonight regardless of who is doing what in or out of this thread.
And I use luck in quotations because the team has worked hard to get those wins; it's not all voodoo magic like Kansas City.
And I use luck in quotations because the team has worked hard to get those wins; it's not all voodoo magic like Kansas City.
We had a Czech beer tasting tonight, so, naturally, Gudas and Dostal should be dialed in.
duckaroosky
So sayeth Duckthulu
DucksFanDFW
Registered User
All Mighty
Registered User
TheGoodShepard1
Dongle Digits.
- Nov 26, 2017
- 10,851
- 16,004
Terry Yake
Registered User
- Aug 5, 2013
- 28,868
- 17,597
mintyukov has looked rough lately. sending him down wouldn't be a bad option to salvage some confidence
Ducks DVM
sowcufucakky
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
The problem with sending Minty down is we're brining up an even more raw youth D between LD/RD Hinds, RD Warren, LD Dionicio, and RD Luneau.
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
I like it b/c two youths together last night wasn't a great outing with MInty-Helleson. With Zell back in, we really need a vet with him than Helleson or we could be caved in for much longer. Also, probably balancing out the pairing minutes on a back-to-back. Last night, Minty had 13:50 TOI and Helly had 14:56 TOI.
Helleson and Dumo have usually been together though right? So it will be a really solid pairing at least, could have been interesting to see Zelly next to Helly
Ducks DVM
sowcufucakky
I think those numbers are fine for those guys. I don’t think young guys need major minutes, especially when struggling.
I think as much as anything it’s that those two are pretty damned slow of foot for a McDavid game.
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
Yup, but also keeping one vet with a youth could help mitigate being overwhelmed whenever McDavid is on the ice. I still think McDavid will do McDavid things and Dostal will be the first as well as last defense.
Although, I think it's only Minty struggling hard, not Helleson.
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
Huh... guess it's a 3rd pairing of Zell-Helly.
We didn't have forwards crash the net with the Lundy line when we did have possession at the point. That made us just pass the puck around the perimeter waiting for some chaos to develop that never happened.
We didn't have forwards crash the net with the Lundy line when we did have possession at the point. That made us just pass the puck around the perimeter waiting for some chaos to develop that never happened.
- Status
