Post-Game Talk: #63 | Flyers at Panthers | March 7, 2024 | Flyers win 2-1

[HeadLiceHatty]

Personally I'm tempering any and all excitement for the impending and inevitable let down. It may be next season, but it's coming.

What's to be excited about a 1st round exit, or worse, being on the outside of the f***ing bubble looking in?

"The young guys will get experience!"

That doesn't do it for me. Not one bit.

Honestly, I'm just excited for when Michkov comes over and we watch the team grow into a real contender. This season has been fun and surprising though.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

I checked NaturalStatTrick tonite, because I wanted to see if Ginning and Attard did as well on paper as they did in my mind. Avg play was what I was hoping for.

Attard's stats for shots and xG are pretty positive. But Ginning's are pretty negative? Am I crazy, or didn't they play almost all of their shifts together??

According to the shifts graphic...yes, they were definitely a pair. But they have some time apart, relatively small...hard to see it account for differences like:

xGF: Attard 0.99 Ginning 0.19
SF/SA: Attard 9/7 Ginning 2/9

Does this match up with what any keen observers watched? I remember seeing some discontent with Ginning's play in the chat. Start or end of shifts would have to be pretty crazy for those differences...

I’m only speaking to the stats here, not the hockey.

This is exactly why you generally shouldn’t use Corsi/Fenwick/xG in one game sample sizes to see meaning. They’re curiosities that need to be investigated further. One Shift or even flurry of Shots can swing things wildly. The highest quality Shot can easily be worth 5x or more the xG of a random Shot from the point.

FWIW I like to have 20 games or 200 Minutes or so before I even start to draw conclusions.

 

[BritainStix]

Personally I'm tempering any and all excitement for the impending and inevitable let down. It may be next season, but it's coming.

What's to be excited about a 1st round exit, or worse, being on the outside of the f***ing bubble looking in?

"The young guys will get experience!"

That doesn't do it for me. Not one bit.

Why bother watching or following at all then?

 

[ybnvs]

Why bother watching or following at all then?

Maybe you're right and I shouldn't. The past 15 years of the franchise singing The Sound of Silence should have been enough for everyone to abandon ship.

...Hello darkness, my old friend...

Yet I remain. Unbent. Unbowed. Unbroken. So long as there is life, there is always hope.

 

[Danko]

Scott Hartnall has magical hair.

We sat in Liberty Lofts/Club Box at the St. Louis Game, went to go down the Elevator to get my daughter a cotton candy and while waiting for the elevator heard an "Ah f***" sigh on my right side and Hartsy was standing next to me stirring his drink. Gave him a "Hey How's it going" and he gave me a how are ya...was really nice to the usher next to the elevator and the lady running it.

 

[Curufinwe]

The feed from the Panthers wasn't great to watch. It was a bit dark and also too low of an angle.

 

[BritainStix]

The feed from the Panthers wasn't great to watch. It was a bit dark and also too low of an angle.

It's awful. Almost as bad as Arizonas. I couldn't see shit on that one.

 

[VladDrag]

I’m only speaking to the stats here, not the hockey.

This is exactly why you generally shouldn’t use Corsi/Fenwick/xG in one game sample sizes to see meaning. They’re curiosities that need to be investigated further. One Shift or even flurry of Shots can swing things wildly. The highest quality Shot can easily be worth 5x or more the xG of a random Shot from the point.

FWIW I like to have 20 games or 200 Minutes or so before I even start to draw conclusions.

I agree that 20 games/200 minutes is where I start to really look at a larger sample, but I do think that one game sample sizes can aid in specific game evaluations, as long as you understand what that data means.

(I know you understand this as well - just adding additional context). When you're looking at individual games - it's fair to look at xG/Fenwick/Corsi (better if you convert it to rates and to score/avenue adjusted) to add additional context for that player's performance in that specific game only. For example, a guy who was killed in xGA in one specific game only means one thing. He was on the ice for a lot of chances against. That doesn't mean he was at fault for those chances - it only means he was was on the ice for a lot of chances against (I guess it could also mean a lot of little chances against). You can use that data and compile it with you own eye test to further your evaluation of said player. Same thing with xGF except the opposite way.

 

[hockeynormy]

what are whining about today?