Post-Game Talk: Holl wins it in OT. Leafs defeat the Sens 3-2

[Martin Skoula]

the team going into a game with the higher xGF% should win right, that is your go too stat?

How do you have xGF for a game before anyone's taken a shot?

 

[Dreakmur]

the team going into a game with the higher xGF% should win right, that is your go too stat?

I’d be more concerned with their respective xGF%s were for the game played. If the team with the higher rate doesn’t win a vast majority of games, I’m not sure the stat means anything.

 

[zeke]

It doesn’t necessarily make it u reliable, no. We should just be careful to ensure our stats are actually measuring what we think they are.

Gingivitis is strongly correlated to tanned skin. What does that tell us?

These stats aren't actually very complex.

Measuring which teams create more than other teams is not some great unknowable impossible to measure mystery.

We've always done this, even decades and decades ago. Now we just do it more rigorously and objectively.

 

[zeke]

the team going into a game with the higher xGF% should win right, that is your go too stat?

What does it mean if I say "team x has a 60% chance of winning this game"?

 

[Gallagbi]

the team going into a game with the higher xGF% should win right, that is your go too stat?

Why don't you think this?

MoneyPuck.com

 

[Dreakmur]

I lost track of your argument.

Someone used data to show how the top GF% teams are also the best teams in the standings. Now you are saying yes of course, because the best teams have players that do the things that raise xGF%.

Are you not just agreeing, then, that xGF% is a decent predictor of success?

70% isn’t a great prediction.

It’s not a measurement for winning. It’s a measurement for scoring.

 

[Gallagbi]

These stats aren't actually very complex.

Measuring which teams create more than other teams is not some great unknowable impossible to measure mystery.

We've always done this, even decades and decades ago. Now we just do it more rigorously and objectively.

Backup goalies just always sucked at it

 

[Dreakmur]

These stats aren't actually very complex.

Measuring which teams create more than other teams is not some great unknowable impossible to measure mystery.

We've always done this, even decades and decades ago. Now we just do it more rigorously and objectively.

That’s essentially my entire point. Just because it’s a new way to measure doesn’t mean it’s a better way to measure.

 

[Martin Skoula]

70% isn’t a great prediction.

It’s not a measurement for winning. It’s a measurement for scoring.

And as we all know, outscoring your opposition has nothing to do with winning.

 

[Dreakmur]

And as we all know, outscoring your opposition has nothing to do with winning.

It doesn’t measure outscoring. It just measures scoring.

 

[zeke]

I’d be more concerned with their respective xGF%s were for the game played. If the team with the higher rate doesn’t win a vast majority of games, I’m not sure the stat means anything.

By definition, a stat like 5v5 xGF% is only measuring a specific limited part of a hockey game. By definition it completely ignores all of goaltending, special teams, shooting talent, and luck. All of which play a significant part in determining the results of a hockey game.

 

[Zybalto]

Good teams generally have the puck more than bad teams. Teams that have the puck more will generally get more scoring chances. Teams that get more scoring chances will generally have more high quality scoring chances.

What stat are we really tracking?

We track them all and then use them to help make our conclusions ALONG with the eye test.

Right now Toronto is 8th overall and Tampa is 1st overall for pts %. They are actually eerily similar stats wise (probably a slight edge to Toronto) though outside of one thing.

Toronto's starting goalie has an .897 save% and Tampa's has a .948.

Thats the big difference between us and Tampa and a chance at the cup right now and why Campbell is grabbing the starter job from Freddie.

 

[Martin Skoula]

It doesn’t measure outscoring. It just measures scoring.

Maybe I'm missing something but the poster quoted was talking about xGF%, not raw expected goals for. As in, the share of expected goals between both teams. How is this not a measurement of outscoring?

 

[BlackTipReefer]

70% isn’t a great prediction.

It’s not a measurement for winning. It’s a measurement for scoring.

I think you misunderstand. xGF% is a measurement of how many xGF you have vs xGA. It takes into account defence as well.

It says that the team in question generates above or below 50% xGF. Over 50% means you are carrying play, under means you are giving up more than you create.

If Toronto has a 60% xGF%, it means out of 100 xG in a game, they are creating 60 of them, and giving up 40 of them. This doesn't mean they will win. Shooting % and goalies play a role too (see WPG).

 

[Stephen]

*Disclaimer, These of course are only my opinions, no animals were injured in the typing of this post!

The Good: The Leafs dominate practically everywhere except for the scoreboard, which is where it counts. Nice seeing "Bobby Holl Goal Scorer!" bury the winner, the march now starts to claim Alex Ovechkins' league record, only 21 to go Hollsie, we know you can do it!

The Bad: This is sounding like a broken friggin record, but considering the money they pay, the NHL has to be able to find better, or certainly more observant people to act as on ice officials. Oh btw is there actually a diving penalty? I was pretty sure there was, but over the last few games I'm really not sure if there is anymore.

The Ugly: I never thought I'd say this but the Leafs PP is red monkeyass ugly

I find the power play lacks focus. They don’t seem to be in a hurry to get into the offensive zone, they don’t bring the puck up cleanly and efficiently.

For all the talent they have they seem to funnel too many bodies into the slot area which descends into a garbage goal hunt with our scoring options bunched together, losing body positioning as they get boxed out. The way their formation has set up seems to be predicated on having 3 JVR’s. But since JVR left that spot seems to be a bit a dead zone to waste a forward on. First Kadri. Then Tavares. And now Matthews.

Once Matthews is healthy you want that trigger man at the hash marks but we also could use a guy behind the net, and even the point could be reinvented a little bit. Maybe more of an umbrella formation that can get the puck to each side wall with more efficiency.

Overall just very sluggish.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

I think that most of us wanted our stars to play more, but Keefe is going overboard. Matthews and Marner both averaging 22 minutes of ice time a night. I am concerned if that will continue for the remainder of the season as there are no more breaks from now till the end of the season (unless we'll run into a covid situation somewhere) that will run them straight into the ground by playoff time.

You can probably afford to give Tavares and Nylander a few of their minutes, although Marner also plays on PK which somewhat inflates that... Which in that case you can probably give Kerfoot, Mikheyev, and Engvall more minutes.

 

[Dreakmur]

I think you misunderstand. xGF% is a measurement of how many xGF you have vs xGA. It takes into account defence as well.

It says that the team in question generates above or below 50% xGF. Over 50% means you are carrying play, under means you are giving up more than you create.

If Toronto has a 60% xGF%, it means out of 100 xG in a game, they are creating 60 of them, and giving up 40 of them. This doesn't mean they will win. Shooting % and goalies play a role too (see WPG).

Thanks for clearing that up. I’m on my phone and didn’t even realize I was missing the % in there !

 

[Dreakmur]

You can probably afford to give Tavares and Nylander a few of their minutes, although Marner also plays on PK which somewhat inflates that... Which in that case you can probably give Kerfoot, Mikheyev, and Engvall more minutes.

Anything more than 20 minutes in the regular season is too much for a forward. Unless they’re getting like 7 minutes on the PP, it’s too hard on the body.

 

[Mr Hockey]

By definition, a stat like 5v5 xGF% is only measuring a specific limited part of a hockey game. By definition it completely ignores all of goal tending, special teams, shooting talent, and luck. All of which play a significant part in determining the results of a hockey game.

ahh... you're getting it now

 

[Guided by Veseys]

Xgoals are probably good for a critical evaluation.
In a certain case, you might look at them and think we were just unlucky to not match but if the team continues to not meet the expectations you can try evaluate why that is happening. You might see that while the leafs are getting great looks they might be getting boxed out way too much or they are shooting more for tips or something. I’m sure they could be very insightful indicators for the coaching staff.
It’s just sort of lame the way they are trotted out here and on Twitter after a loss as a way to try and look big, it kind of comes across as pathetic at times. They should be used as mild evaluation rather than some trumpeted chest thump.

 

[Clark4Ever]

How many more backups, waiver pick ups, AHL goalies have to shutdown our potent offence before we start attributing some of blame on our offence ?? 23 goals in the last 9 games including 2 OT winners since we beat the Oilers 6-1.

Yeah, our bottom six has been carrying us for a while. Our top 2 lines have created more than enough chances during that stretch, they just have to start converting them at a reasonable rate.

 

[Gary Nylund]

[QUOTE="Gary Nylund, post: 176833416, member: 208611]
Not sure where the double standard is? Nobody's posts should be taken as a full complete analysis, not sure such a thing is even possible as there are always more things to consider. I think I just wanted to make the point that when someone posts Xgoals over a one game sample of proof of something, I'm not buying it. If other people do, more power to them but I just feel like I know better.

Let's think of it this way, what posters are you thinking of that only use xGF without any other context? How often do you follow-up with them.
So I think this is a good example of the above point. We want to use all factors, but you're willing to discredit based on some games you don't agree with the outcome/measure. What are the factors you're balancing against?[/QUOTE



Depends on what you mean by discredit I guess. I'm saying that in some instances, I'm convinced that Xgoals has been misleading so I wouldn't be comfortable relying on that stat alone. That said, the bigger the sample size was, the more reliable it is but yeah over the course of one game (or even one series), Xgoals just isn't enough for me.

Doesn't really matter much anyway, I don't make decisions for the Leafs so doesn't matter what I think. But reliable or not, I don't really care much about winning the Xgoals battle for a game or a series, I'd rather just win the games.

 

[Martin Skoula]

Xgoals are probably good for a critical evaluation.
In a certain case, you might look at them and think we were just unlucky to not match but if the team continues to not meet the expectations you can try evaluate why that is happening. You might see that while the leafs are getting great looks they might be getting boxed out way too much or they are shooting more for tips or something. I’m sure they could be very insightful indicators for the coaching staff.
It’s just sort of lame the way they are trotted out here and on Twitter after a loss as a way to try and look big, it kind of comes across as pathetic at times. They should be used as mild evaluation rather than some trumpeted chest thump.

You can look at it as "was our game good enough to beat an average team like the 2010s Wild/Predators if their goalie and shooters were having neither a particularly great or terrible game, and by how much".

 

[Gallagbi]

I find the power play lacks focus. They don’t seem to be in a hurry to get into the offensive zone, they don’t bring the puck up cleanly and efficiently.

For all the talent they have they seem to funnel too many bodies into the slot area which descends into a garbage goal hunt with our scoring options bunched together, losing body positioning as they get boxed out. The way their formation has set up seems to be predicated on having 3 JVR’s. But since JVR left that spot seems to be a bit a dead zone to waste a forward on. First Kadri. Then Tavares. And now Matthews.

Once Matthews is healthy you want that trigger man at the hash marks but we also could use a guy behind the net, and even the point could be reinvented a little bit. Maybe more of an umbrella formation that can get the puck to each side wall with more efficiency.

Overall just very sluggish.

Feels like they're content looking good vs. being good. An easy zone entry and a few spins with possession at the top of the umbrella make them happy.

Not enough across the seams, or quick puck movement

 

[JT AM da real deal]

I think that most of us wanted our stars to play more, but Keefe is going overboard. Matthews and Marner both averaging 22 minutes of ice time a night. I am concerned if that will continue for the remainder of the season as there are no more breaks from now till the end of the season (unless we'll run into a covid situation somewhere) that will run them straight into the ground by playoff time.

They are kids man .. OMG they are not even vets yet ... they could go 30 minutes a night easy ... every 2nd night .. game is so soft today anywho ... nobody is getting banged up like we used to