Post-Game Talk: dog

[Machinehead]

I'm not making an argument for the sake of argument. They were brutal last night, especially before that shorthanded goal but your reasoning for why the xG was bad was flawed. xG is not strictly a shots on goal metric, but you used shots on goal and not only shots on goal, shots on goal the first half of the game to explain why our xG sucked. I'm down on the team right now because I'm really tired of them not showing up and just getting dominating for long stretches I was just criticizing that one bit of logic you were using.

Well don't.

Let me stick to illustrating concepts, I did it for a living.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Well don't.

Let me stick to illustrating concepts, I did it for a living.

But illustrating concepts that aren't logical is not really illustrating concepts. If you said something like "chances were 10-0 in the first half", that would both cover how xG is measured and would in theory mean that the Rangers never caught up in terms of chances in the second half. But they DID catch up in shots, that's an objective fact.

 

[Machinehead]

But illustrating concepts that aren't logical is not really illustrating concepts. If you said something like "chances were 10-0 in the first half", that would both cover how xG is measured and would in theory mean that the Rangers never caught up in terms of chances in the second half. But they DID catch up in shots, that's an objective fact.

Most people don't understand xG because it's only recently gained traction. Every hockey on Earth knows what shots are.

It's called scaffolding.

 

[Ola]

We seem to consistently being outperforming the model and it hasn't adjusted for that.

(a) The model should IMO be taken serious everything considered. (b) The extent the model suggest that we are struggling 5 on 5 doesn’t tell the full picture.

We want to be a top contender. We aren’t that for the reason the model suggest. Taken. But to go much further than that is risky. There are many factors that skew these things.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Most people don't understand xG because it's only recently gained traction. Every hockey on Earth knows what shots are.

It's called scaffolding.

Isn't xG glorified chances? Just with a probability of scoring attached? It's not rocket science and it's similar to stat that's been tracked since I started watching in 2000.

 

[Machinehead]

Isn't xG glorified chances? Just with a probability of scoring attached? It's not rocket science and it's similar to stat that's been tracked since I started watching in 2000.

You're saying that because you know what it is and you're correct. Your understanding of the concept is above the example I used.

For people who think analytics are space dolphin voodoo, I can say to them "well, you'll concede we got outshot by a lot, right?"

It puts us on some common ground.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

You're saying that because you know what it is and you're correct. Your understanding of the concept is above the example I used.

For people who think analytics are space dolphin voodoo, I can say to them "well, you'll concede we got outshot by a lot, right?"

It puts us on some common ground.

This will be my last attempt at this. If the Rangers won the xG battle, wouldn't you have said that the reason for it was because they outshot the Coyotes significantly in the second half?

 

[Machinehead]

This will be my last attempt at this. If the Rangers won the xG battle, wouldn't you have said that the reason for it was because they outshot the Coyotes significantly in the second half?

Logically, that checks out, but every game is different.

All I'm saying is a lot anti-stats folks are sitting here flabbergasted that this was a bad game on the charts, and considering how lopsided the shots were at one point and how bad we looked, I just wanna know where the surprise comes from.

The post I initially responded to literally said "analitiks r dum" so I'm not getting anywhere talking about binning scoring chances or regression to the mean. I'm using his language (traditional stats) to get an explanation.

It's not any deeper than that.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Logically, that checks out, but every game is different.

All I'm saying is a lot anti-stats folks are sitting here flabbergasted that this was a bad game on the charts, and considering how lopsided the shots were at one point and how bad we looked, I just wanna know where the surprise comes from.

The post I initially responded to literally said "analitiks r dum" so I'm not getting anywhere talking about binning scoring chances or regression to the mean. I'm using his language (traditional stats) to get an explanation.

It's not any deeper than that.

Ok, I will concede that if your point was "they were so bad at one point it's not out of the realm of possibility that they finished the game with poor overall stats" I guess I can see that. Like they weren't able too dig themselves out of that hole even with a strong second half push.

 

[rangersfansince08]

Logically, that checks out, but every game is different.

All I'm saying is a lot anti-stats folks are sitting here flabbergasted that this was a bad game on the charts, and considering how lopsided the shots were at one point and how bad we looked, I just wanna know where the surprise comes from.

The post I initially responded to literally said "analitiks r dum" so I'm not getting anywhere talking about binning scoring chances or regression to the mean. I'm using his language (traditional stats) to get an explanation.

It's not any deeper than that.

Maybe I should have phrased it a better way. Analytics are dumb to use because there probably is a problem not only with the underlying data but there isn't any actual model. Its just a tally of what someone views of this type of chance. And if there is a model I bet isn't explaining enough of the variation to be useful in actually predicting anything (bet the R^2 is below .5)

 

[ohbaby]

Anyone hear the news we made an offer for Jakob Chychrun? They want a prospect, a young player and a first round pick in return. I hear Kravtsov was in that offer.

Sounds like a lot in return, but this 23 year old lead the league with 18 goals by a D-man, in last year's shortened season. 18 goals in 56 games. Wow! Carlson, Hamilton, Makar and Hedman had no more than 10.

 

[smoneil]

Anyone hear the news we made an offer for Jakob Chychrun? They want a prospect, a young player and a first round pick in return. I hear Kravtsov was in that offer.

Sounds like a lot in return, but this 23 year old lead the league with 18 goals by a D-man, in last year's shortened season. 18 goals in 56 games. Wow! Carlson, Hamilton, Makar and Hedman had no more than 10.

And this year, he's got 2 goals and 8 points in 29 games. He's also a -31 (twice as bad as the next worst Coyote). To be fair, I don't watch the Coyotes enough to base this on anything other than the stat line, but there seems to be a rather important question to pose--is this just a down year for Chychrun, or was last year a fluke? I just have some concerns, considering the reported price tag and the godawful stat line this year.

Edited to add that I'm even concerned by the fact that he's available. He's got three more years at a great cap hit. Why try and trade him now in the midst of a career worst season? I just don't get it.

 

[Fitzy]

Im starting my own rumor for my own fun and games.

Kravtsov for Zadina

 

[ohbaby]

And this year, he's got 2 goals and 8 points in 29 games. He's also a -31 (twice as bad as the next worst Coyote). To be fair, I don't watch the Coyotes enough to base this on anything other than the stat line, but there seems to be a rather important question to pose--is this just a down year for Chychrun, or was last year a fluke? I just have some concerns, considering the reported price tag and the godawful stat line this year.

He had 12 goals the year before, then 18 last year. I don't think it was a fluke. I think you could chalk up this year as a fluke. They are the second worst team in the league. And if he was as bad as his plus/minus suggests,.. he wouldn't be playing 24 minutes a game. He's getting more ice time than Shayne Gostisbehere.

 

[smoneil]

He had 12 goals the year before, then 18 last year. I don't think it was a fluke. I think you could chalk up this year as a fluke. They are the second worst team in the league. And if he was as bad as his plus/minus suggest,.. he wouldn't be playing 24 minutes a game.

Like I said--all I have to go on is a couple of games and the stat line, so it's entirely possible that my concerns are unfounded. But the Coyotes weren't great last season either, and it didn't prevent him from putting up points. And the rest of the Coyotes play the same games he does, but their +/- numbers aren't underground. And I still can't figure out why a re-building team would consider moving a 23 year old top pair d-man under a sweetheart contract for another 3+ years. Something about the whole collection of data/circumstances makes me nervous.

 

[Kovalev27]

Chychruns stat line this year is terrifying

a minus 31? Christ

 

[ohbaby]

Like I said--all I have to go on is a couple of games and the stat line, so it's entirely possible that my concerns are unfounded. But the Coyotes weren't great last season either, and it didn't prevent him from putting up points. And the rest of the Coyotes play the same games he does, but their +/- numbers aren't underground. And I still can't figure out why a re-building team would consider moving a 23 year old top pair d-man under a sweetheart contract for another 3+ years. Something about the whole collection of data/circumstances makes me nervous.

Not to mention do we really need another D-man who can chew up big minutes? Who would he replace in the top 4? Unless Lindgren or Miller were part of the deal, I don't see how this works for us.

And the Yotes weren't all that bad last year. And the year before they were invited to the bubble.

 

[DanielBrassard]

Not to mention do we really need another D-man who can chew up big minutes? Who would he replace in the top 4? Unless Lindgren or Miller were part of the deal, I don't see how this works for us.

He'd replace Miller who doesn't even play late in the game, replaced by Nemeth.

 

[Embryo]

LOL Holy shit I just saw that Panarin goal, what a shot!!! That was a goddamn laser, that is the Bread Man!!!!

 

[ohbaby]

Chychruns stat line this year is terrifying

a minus 31? Christ

He was a +4 and -6 the last two years when the Yotes were playing fairly well. They had a winning record 2 of the last 3 years. Forget this year with only 10 wins and a league leading -63 goal differential.

 

[Embryo]

Could be the Godfather.

Was going on Trouba's age but the Godfather is a classic.

I love the movies and have seen them a dozen times but I like to listen to the audiobook on youtube at work or trying to go to sleep, its fantastic if you need to kill a few hours, no pun intended.

 

[Kovalev27]

I just don’t get it really

you have Lindgren and Miller do we really need an upgrade there? Miller getting pushed down to play with Schneider seems like a very green pairing

just seems like fixing a hole that really isn’t much of a hole.

Miller will need a raise soon too

 

[DanielBrassard]

I just don’t get it really

you have Lindgren and Miller do we really need an upgrade there? Miller getting pushed down to play with Schneider seems like a very green pairing

just seems like fixing a hole that really isn’t much of a hole.

Miller will need a raise soon too

Just another reason to trade him for an upgrade like Chychrun.

 

[duhmetreE]

I just don’t get it really

you have Lindgren and Miller do we really need an upgrade there? Miller getting pushed down to play with Schneider seems like a very green pairing

just seems like fixing a hole that really isn’t much of a hole.

Miller will need a raise soon too

The simple route would be to add Jones and subtract Nemeth.... but loyalty and vet things.

 

[Kovalev27]

Yah I just don’t think it worth it honestly. Not really a hole. The hole is 3 LD. Not a top 4 guy. Miller will only get better.

rather spend assets on Miller or Hertl