Are you disappointed that they are sticking with the core?

[ACC1224]

So there's a committee that reviews every shot taken and and evaluates whether or not it should have been a goal?

Wonder what the qualifications are to join such a committee?

 

[Racer88]

Years from now when we're discussing this Covid-season, how are people going to remember it?

The year we had a 55% expected goal percentage at 5-on-5 using a WarOnIce calculation ?

Or will it be remembered as the year we blew a 3-1 series lead in the first round?

I'll go with the latter.

We all know how it will be remembered……..choke job expert level

 

[Racer88]

Wonder what the qualifications are to join such a committee?

At least 1 good eye I’m guessing. Lol

 

[Racer88]

"Expected goals" is entirely based on what actually happened on the ice.

Nope. I’m guessing it’s all an based on opinion

 

[Dekes For Days]

So there's a committee that reviews every shot taken and and evaluates whether or not it should have been a goal?

No, as you're well aware from past discussions, that's not what happens.

Nope. I’m guessing it’s all an based on opinion

No, it's not all based on "opinion". It's based on facts, and what happened on the ice.

 

[Racer88]

This is a lineup that would win me back and make me emotionally invested again But it's 100% not happening.

It can’t be any worse then the train wreck they are right now

 

[Racer88]

No, you're well aware that's not what happens.

It's not opinion at all.

It has to be speculation. There are so many variables about what constitutes an expected goal.
Let’s say that a shooters is standing point blank on a goalie and constantly shoots it right at the goalies chest…….is that a high danger shot and is it expected to go in?

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

It has to be speculation. There are so many variables about what constitutes an expected goal.
Let’s say that a shooters is standing point blank on a goalie and constantly shoots it right at the goalies chest…….is that a high danger shot and is it expected to go in?

high danger chance, yes. Expected to go in, no. The funny thing is that nobody has the expectation that the eye test has to be completely uniform and objective among all fans to be worth something, but something like high danger chances or expected goals have to be

 

[egd27]

No, as you're well aware from past discussions, that's not what happens.

Well if the determination of an expected goal is not an algorithm, and it's not a group evaluating each and every shot, who observes and records the specifics of each shot taken? And once that happens, who or what determines the "danger" level of each shot since they didn't actually see it?

 

[Racer88]

There are so many variables on the shooter on any shot that there is no way to accurately and with any real input to the actual result of the game.
What if the shooter is slightly off balance what if he is being pestered or rushed by the opposition, or has a weak shot or his positioning on the shot plays into that particular goalies strength……..and the list goes on

 

[Racer88]

What if it’s Marner shooting and the puck doesn’t even make it to the net.

 

[Bluelines]

The off-season isn't done yet

LOL, have faith that he can screw our future even more. One saving grace is I think it was last year that we picked 12 times in 7 rounds, 6 times rounds 6 through 7.

 

[Bomber0104]

There are so many variables on the shooter on any shot that there is no way to accurately and with any real input to the actual result of the game.
What if the shooter is slightly off balance what if he is being pestered or rushed by the opposition, or has a weak shot or his positioning on the shot plays into that particular goalies strength……..and the list goes on

"Garbage in, garbage out" perfectly describes the expected goals model that's been floating around the internet.

 

[cupcrazyman]

Marner to Calgary for Tkachuk +

 

[ToneDog]

Marner to Calgary for Tkachuk +

Marner to Ottawa for Tkachuk +

 

[notDatsyuk]

Seems more like they're a reflection of the play, and this place is basically built to discuss that.

The Leafs having a higher xGF doesn't mean they won the series, but it means they generated certain opportunities.

I expect we're all here to discuss the team, the successes, problems, assets and directions. These stats assist in doing so. Similar to goals, assists, wins, losses, etc.

I come here to discuss my team.

Unfortunately, it seems that too many people look at a stat like xgf as proof that we could have, or even should have, won; so we're a good team, end of conversation.

Or: we should have won, but didn't, so it must be the fault of the refs, or scheduling, or injuries, or 'the trap' (as if that was an illegal strategy), or a conspiracy.

I look at a stat like xgf, compare it to actual results, and wonder what the difference represents: better or worse coaching, luck, one or more shortcomings in the model, et cetera.

 

[deprw]

I still don't get the thread title. It's yet to be seen, what happens.

 

[mikeyz]

It can’t be any worse then the train wreck they are right now

That lineup actually looks not too bad.

 

[Dekes For Days]

It has to be speculation.

Well if the determination of an expected goal is not an algorithm, and it's not a group evaluating each and every shot, who observes and records the specifics of each shot taken?

As you're both well aware, extensive research has been done on the rates at which goals are scored as a result of various on-ice situations. Expected goals utilizes this data and game data to create a metric that accurately describes both the quantity and quality of opportunities that were generated/prevented on each side within a game. It's valuable information, and there's no valid reason to ignore or dismiss it.

 

[mikeyz]

Is this "DanielZimmy" from the sportsnet fan forums back in the day?

I can't tell because he seems rather mellow in this tweet as opposed to his frequent meltdown threads in that forum. Maybe he's matured in the last decade? LMFAO

@Pookie Do you remember him? And what about anybody else who used to post there.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I look at a stat like xgf, compare it to actual results, and wonder what the difference represents

That's not really any different from the way others are using it. It's about recognizing and understanding what actually happened, instead of baselessly attributing the end result to whatever one wants to be true.

 

[keonsbitterness]

As you're both well aware, extensive research has been done on the rates at which goals are scored as a result of various on-ice situations. Expected goals utilizes this data and game data to create a metric that accurately describes both the quantity and quality of opportunities that were generated/prevented on each side within a game. It's valuable information, and there's no valid reason to ignore or dismiss it.

Where may I find this extensive research?

Also, if a goal is ever scored on a play where xgf is 0%, will the universe implode?

 

[egd27]

As you're both well aware, extensive research has been done on the rates at which goals are scored as a result of various on-ice situations. Expected goals utilizes this data and game data to create a metric that accurately describes both the quantity and quality of opportunities that were generated/prevented on each side within a game. It's valuable information, and there's no valid reason to ignore or dismiss it.

al·go·rithm

noun
a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer

That sounds awful similar to me. But I'm more of a wins and losses guy.

 

[Gallagbi]

I come here to discuss my team.

Unfortunately, it seems that too many people look at a stat like xgf as proof that we could have, or even should have, won; so we're a good team, end of conversation.

Or: we should have won, but didn't, so it must be the fault of the refs, or scheduling, or injuries, or 'the trap' (as if that was an illegal strategy), or a conspiracy.

I look at a stat like xgf, compare it to actual results, and wonder what the difference represents: better or worse coaching, luck, one or more shortcomings in the model, et cetera.

I'd say the majority of people quoting xGF will say the team outplayed Montreal, but still lost. Few potential reasons - luck (meh), goaltending (a factor IMO), conversion (a big factor IMO), it's a heavily flawed stat and Montreal actually dominated us (not how I saw it)

Some don't buy the stats, and I'd agree it's not perfect, but those disagreeing are rarely able to identify the reasons against it without simply resorting to "well we lost" or "the team is chicken shit". Personally I think it's worth a deeper look and those general assumptions don't gold much value on a deeper dive.

Also worth noting I try to consider hdcf, xgf and my own personal viewings to interpret what I'm seeing on a basic level. I'll often rewatch to see how thr data supports or disagrees with my viewings.

So basically I'm looking for answers on why we may have lost, not whether we did lose because that's known and I haven't seen many claim it was scheduling or the refs.

 

[Racer88]

That lineup actually looks not too bad.

Agreed