Toggle sidebar

Around the NHL 10 - 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
SLAYER

SLAYER

Cilantro Connoisseur
Oct 26, 2012
5,447
6,376
Winnipeg
bustamente said:
Binnington gets 2 games for whatever he was trying to do last night, he should stop being a goofball and try better to stop shots from opposition players better
Click to expand...

Guy is a clown who had a hot streak to win the cup. From the '18-'19 season to today, he's 50th in SV% for goalies who played min 50 (regular season) games, sporting a sultry .906 in 213 games.

His attitude is even worse than his SV%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabe Kupari, kanadalainen, Duke749 and 11 others
AlphaLackey

AlphaLackey

Registered User
Mar 21, 2013
17,202
25,699
Winnipeg, MB
Mortimer Snerd said:
So it really wasn't close. The coach didn't think it was that close or he wouldn't risk the penalty. The ref either thought it was close or thought it wasn't close but on the opposite side of the issue.

Do away with coaches challenges. Have the war room monitoring every play. If it is so close that they need to study it for several minutes, from umpteen angles, then it is too close to overrule the ref on the ice. If it is a grossly missed call by the officials, blow the horn.

The whole purpose of bringing in these challenges was to correct those gross miscalls that are bound to happen occasionally.
Click to expand...
I'm saying a coach can think that it's close, like literally 50/50, and still be scared away from doing it. But challenging a 50/50 goal has an xG of +0.4 goals, which is better than a penalty shot! Hell, even a mild underdog (40%) is still +0.28xG

And I don't think for one second that coaches are concerned about 'violating the spirit of the rule' here, it really just is a case of how there ain't no math guy gonna tell no sports guy what to do.

If you told me our next coach was the genetic combination of Roger Nielson and Patrick Roy, I'd probably need to pay Dr. Jay another visit.

Eyeseeing said:
Yes hitmen are professionals:sarcasm:
Click to expand...

I'd settle for some amateurs.

And again, yet another much lighter suspension for a much worse act than what Scheifele did against Montreal, from a multi-time offender and certifiable sociopath to boot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jets 31, John Agar and Eyeseeing
Eyeseeing

Eyeseeing

Fagheddaboudit
Sponsor
Feb 24, 2015
22,913
38,499
AlphaLackey said:
I'm saying a coach can think that it's close, like literally 50/50, and still be scared away from doing it. But challenging a 50/50 goal has an xG of +0.4 goals, which is better than a penalty shot! Hell, even a mild underdog (40%) is still +0.28xG

And I don't think for one second that coaches are concerned about 'violating the spirit of the rule' here, it really just is a case of how there ain't no math guy gonna tell no sports guy what to do.

If you told me our next coach was the genetic combination of Roger Nielson and Patrick Roy, I'd probably need to pay Dr. Jay another visit.



I'd settle for some amateurs.

And again, yet another much lighter suspension for a much worse act than what Scheifele did against Montreal, from a multi-time offender and certifiable sociopath to boot.
Click to expand...
Everyone in the league nose it
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jets 31
AlphaLackey

AlphaLackey

Registered User
Mar 21, 2013
17,202
25,699
Winnipeg, MB
Apparently Montreal had pulled their starter and now put them back? Has anyone seen that before?

9-4 and it's only halfway through the game. Jesus. Goodbye, 9-8 Jets/Flyers game.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SLAYER
WolfHouse

WolfHouse

Registered User
Oct 4, 2020
10,618
16,418
SLAYER said:
Guy is a clown who had a hot streak to win the cup. From the '18-'19 season to today, he's 50th in SV% for goalies who played min 50 (regular season) games, sporting a sultry .906 in 213 games.

His attitude is even worse than his SV%.
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting on this forum because each time I read one - I yell SLAYER, thrash my hair and give the devil horns
 
  • Love
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: SLAYER, Been around, kanadalainen and 1 other person
Inanna

Inanna

Cat Lady
Sponsor
Aug 29, 2022
1,464
6,264
North of Toronto
AlphaLackey said:
Apparently Montreal had pulled their starter and now put them back? Has anyone seen that before?

9-4 and it's only halfway through the game. Jesus. Goodbye, 9-8 Jets/Flyers game.
Click to expand...
Yes, we did it about a decade ago.

I don't remember all the details, but Luongo let in 3 of the first 4 shots, or something like that. He got yanked and his replacement was even worse. Luongo came back to start the second and I'm pretty sure he wasn't scored on for the last two periods. If I recall correctly, we lost the game. I think Luongo was gone at the end of the season, or definitely the one after that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jets 31, Stumbledore and Jetfaninflorida
Mortimer Snerd

Mortimer Snerd

You kids get off my lawn!
Sponsor
Jun 10, 2014
58,723
30,927
AlphaLackey said:
I'm saying a coach can think that it's close, like literally 50/50, and still be scared away from doing it. But challenging a 50/50 goal has an xG of +0.4 goals, which is better than a penalty shot! Hell, even a mild underdog (40%) is still +0.28xG

And I don't think for one second that coaches are concerned about 'violating the spirit of the rule' here, it really just is a case of how there ain't no math guy gonna tell no sports guy what to do.

If you told me our next coach was the genetic combination of Roger Nielson and Patrick Roy, I'd probably need to pay Dr. Jay another visit.



I'd settle for some amateurs.

And again, yet another much lighter suspension for a much worse act than what Scheifele did against Montreal, from a multi-time offender and certifiable sociopath to boot.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that if the coach thought it WAS that close, he would have risked the penalty. The problem is that he decided it wasn't as close as 50/50. Well, maybe that is it. Maybe it is the bolded. :laugh:

What suspension incident are you referring to?

Edit: Just saw that Binnington got 2.
 
Last edited:
tbcwpg

tbcwpg

Moderator
Jan 25, 2011
16,661
20,108
AlphaLackey said:
So I finally found some stats that would give me some substance on a certain bugbear I have with modern coaches: the 'coaches challenge' for a goal.

Side note: one of the most significant lessons I remember from one of my first poker coaches: he told me that for two weeks, I should make notes of every time I had a "close decision" in my head. Like a ton of plays in poker are obvious, some are close but still clear, and relatively few are literally so close that you'd resort to a random event generator (yes, this is why top level poker pros still wear wrist-watches; so they can generate random events by looking at the second readouts).

So he says, "every close call, make a note. If you win, note what you won; if you lose, note what you lost making that 'close call'"

I come back two weeks later and I say "okay here's how I did" and before I showed him, he said "if your results are anything other than close to zero, you're doing something VERY wrong".

And it sunk in, right? If you think it's a "close call" but you have a massive edge when you do it, it really isn't a close call, huh?

Anyways: here are this year's current stats on the "close call" of challenging a goal.


151 success, 50 failures.

75% chance of taking a goal off the board, 25% chance of a 20% chance of being scored on.

Suffice it to say, this is NOT a close call. Coaches are being INSANELY too conservative.

Of course, our own coach Jurassic Bones is +5 -2 this year; if he was +2 -5 he'd be almost close to optimal.

And yes, a hundred times yes, I understand that there is a lot of hockey that can't be boiled down to percentages.

This is one, and the most obvious one. Completely inexcusable for the league as a whole to be this far off the mark.
Click to expand...

It wasn't clear to me what the acronyms meant on the challenges there, but are you aware if this includes offside challenges or not?

Edit: So I'm guessing OW/L means offside and IW/L means interference.

Should we include offside in this analysis? I feel it's fairly black and white most of the time and the stats are pretty clear on that - only 15 failures to 98 successes. Interference is 36 failures to 53 successes, much closer. It's not as close as just saying "151 to 50 coaches should challenge more". It might be a positive overall with the challenges, sure, but it's not as obvious as you're claiming here.
 
Last edited:
Stumbledore

Stumbledore

Registered User
Jan 1, 2018
2,506
4,867
Canada
Inanna said:
Yes, we did it about a decade ago.

I don't remember all the details, but Luongo let in 3 of the first 4 shots, or something like that. He got yanked and his replacement was even worse. Luongo came back to start the second and I'm pretty sure he wasn't scored on for the last two periods. If I recall correctly, we lost the game. I think Luongo was gone at the end of the season, or definitely the one after that.
Click to expand...
So the "we" in this refers to your childhood as a Canucks fan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jets 31 and Inanna
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
X