Leafs are the Victims: Editor in Leaf

[justashadowof]

When I take my kids to games I love pointing at the expected Stanley Cup banners hanging in the rafters. Makes me happy that I was alive to see the team win them. And the memories of the expected Cup parades I will cherish for the rest of my days on earth.

I get chills seeing this Canadian holding one of those beautiful Expected Cup banners.

 

[Mess]

This x 1,000

It always comes down to “luck” apparently

I’m willing to argue that the prerequisite of being part of the analytics crowd is not playing hockey ever. They refuse to accept the impact systems and strategy have on the game. And as mentioned xG is extremely flawed

Systems and structure and coaching strategy and goaltending etc etc are all are missing from the spreadsheet as variables that determine the outcome of a game, but that doesn't matter to the analytics crew because all of that falls under the "Bad Luck umbrella" when the spreadsheet numbers don't match the actual results.

Which column in the spreadsheet show puck over glass delay of game penalty and then GWG on the PP by the opposition, even in a game where you have favourable expected goal stats?

Don't seem to factor in the goalie actually making a save..ie. Leafs 9 X HDSC and Price 9 X HDSC saves = goals Zero and therefore stat useless . That isn't bad luck that is strong goaltending which is often at the heart of winning teams, like say Andrei Vasilevskiy winning the Conn Smythe as playoff MVP by ending 5 consecutive series with a shutout.

 

[Racer88]

What are you hoping to achieve by applying logic and reasoning to raw data found in a spreadsheet?

Sometimes I wonder why they even bother to play the games when all you have to do to determine the winner is look at the raw data, and if you have the better expected goals for/against you win, and if you generate more high danger scoring chances you win and if you win the Corsi battle and control possession and shot clock you win.

No need to play the games as the numbers already have some convinced it determines winners and losers with only "luck" the one missing component.

The article says " The last two series were bad. The Leafs should have won both of them, but they got unlucky. The Leafs have a positive expected goals rating in 11 of their last 12 playoff games". Leafs were suppose to win 11 of those 12 games based on the flawed stat of xGF/xGA .. Yet we know Leafs actual record 5W - 7L in last 12 games. So Leafs lost > 50% of the games in which they had better expected goals and were expected to win. How could any reasonable thinking person rely on data if they're accurate only 1/2 the time at best, or have a margin of error of 50%?

At those odds you might as well just ignore the spreadsheet, and simply flip a coin because that also give you 50% of being correct of predicting winners and losers at the same rate as analytics.

Yup the numbers don’t lie…….but they prove how silly expected goals are as a stat

 

[Stonehands1990]

Systems and structure and coaching strategy and goaltending etc etc are all are missing from the spreadsheet as variables that determine the outcome of a game, but that doesn't matter to the analytics crew because all of that falls under the "Bad Luck umbrella" when the spreadsheet numbers don't match the actual results.

Which column in the spreadsheet show puck over glass delay of game penalty and then GWG on the PP by the opposition, even in a game where you have favourable expected goal stats?

Don't seem to factor in the goalie actually making a save..ie. Leafs 9 X HDSC and Price 9 X HDSC saves = goals Zero and stat useless. That isn't bad luck that is strong goaltending which is often at the heart of winning teams, like say Andrei Vasilevskiy winning the Conn Smythe as playoff MVP by ending 5 consecutive series with a shutout.

A screened shot and an unscreened shot have the same expected goals value. It doesn’t factor in teammate, opponent or goalie position (you know the things that determine how a play evolves)

Yet the analytics crowd preaches it like gospel

It explains why we are so easily shutdown in the playoffs

 

[Racer88]

Until analytics get so in depth that they can lower or raise a goalies save % based on who shot from where...this stuff is not telling us much more than the eyes do. The stats were supposed to help someone make a decision...not make the decision for you.

Unfortunately those stats are helping Dubas to make a decision…….do the same thing next year as they did this year because we were simply unlucky as evidenced by Marner saying he wasn’t going to do anything different to prepare for next year.
Dubas and his fancy meaningless stats have these guys convinced they were awesome but unlucky.
This is why we are screwed until he is fired

 

[Mess]

A screened shot and an unscreened shot have the same expected goals value. It doesn’t factor in teammate, opponent or goalie position (you know the things that determine how a play evolves)

Yet the analytics crowd preaches it like gospel

It explains why we are so easily shutdown in the playoffs

Analytics was always designed to be nothing more than and add-on tool to be used as a drill down option to get a better determination of a player or teams play but not determine wins and losses overall.

Hockey analytics 101: Introduction to core concepts

Expected Goals
Expected goal models assign a value to shots based on their location and other factors such as whether the shot was a rebound, one-timer, etc. The concept of expected goals in hockey is based on the concept that some shots are more valuable than others based on how likely they are to result in goals.

Anyone who has played the game, even in a casual setting, or has watched it intently can attest to the fact that not all shots are created equal. A shot taken from the slot or right on the doorstep is far more likely to go in than a shot taken from a bad angle at the half-boards or a shot taken outside the offensive zone.

Just like Corsi and Fenwick (and other stats), we can measure the expected goals (xG) for a player, line, pairing or team, whether it’s for (xGF) or against (xGA). This makes xGF% a valuable tool in discerning the quality of shots that occur when a player is on the ice and helps us gain a better understanding of how sound their play is with and without the puck.

Concepts and stats related to expected goals for and against include: Scoring Chances For/Against (SCF and SCA) and High-Danger Corsi For/Against (HDCF and HDCA) follow these same principles.

NOTE: They're using xGF% by a player to determine "how sound his play is with and without the puck" it says nothing at all about predicting game outcome and scores based off it because that would be ridiculous to make that jump and conclusion as you can't control the outcome of the shot. This is simply the analytics truthers misrepresenting the data for a purpose other than its intended use.

A good coach might use his teams xGF and xGA of various players and then deploy them strategically against the opposition to create mismatches, and emphasize strengths and mask weaknesses.

 

[Stonehands1990]

Analytics was always designed to be nothing more than and add-on tool to be used as a drill down option to get a better determination of a player or teams play but not determine wins and losses overall.

Hockey analytics 101: Introduction to core concepts

Expected Goals
Expected goal models assign a value to shots based on their location and other factors such as whether the shot was a rebound, one-timer, etc. The concept of expected goals in hockey is based on the concept that some shots are more valuable than others based on how likely they are to result in goals.

Anyone who has played the game, even in a casual setting, or has watched it intently can attest to the fact that not all shots are created equal. A shot taken from the slot or right on the doorstep is far more likely to go in than a shot taken from a bad angle at the half-boards or a shot taken outside the offensive zone.

Just like Corsi and Fenwick (and other stats), we can measure the expected goals (xG) for a player, line, pairing or team, whether it’s for (xGF) or against (xGA). This makes xGF% a valuable tool in discerning the quality of shots that occur when a player is on the ice and helps us gain a better understanding of how sound their play is with and without the puck.

Concepts and stats related to expected goals for and against include: Scoring Chances For/Against (SCF and SCA) and High-Danger Corsi For/Against (HDCF and HDCA) follow these same principles.

NOTE: They're using xGF% by a player to determine "how sound his play is with and without the puck" it says nothing at all about predicting game outcome and scores based off it because that would be ridiculous to make that jump and conclusion as you can't control the outcome of the shot. This is simply the analytics truthers misrepresenting the data for a purpose other than its intended use.

Bingo. I don’t mind it for roster building and player evaluation. I encourage it. But for systems and strategy it’s almost causing more harm than good. Our coaching staff can’t see their ineffective methods because it looks good on the xG

 

[7even]

Massive cope. What joy has this franchise brought you over the last five years to where you feel the need to shove your head that far up their ass

I suppose it's a simple pleasure to convince yourself you're the smartest person in the room. Of course, if you attribute all the bad to chance, and all the good to intention, you can never be wrong

 

[Garthinater]

What are you hoping to achieve by applying logic and reasoning to raw data found in a spreadsheet?

Sometimes I wonder why they even bother to play the games when all you have to do to determine the winner is look at the raw data, and if you have the better expected goals for/against you win, and if you generate more high danger scoring chances you win and if you win the Corsi battle and control possession and shot clock you win.

No need to play the games as the numbers already have some convinced it determines winners and losers with only "luck" the one missing component.

The article says " The last two series were bad. The Leafs should have won both of them, but they got unlucky. The Leafs have a positive expected goals rating in 11 of their last 12 playoff games". Leafs were suppose to win 11 of those 12 games based on the flawed stat of xGF/xGA .. Yet we know Leafs actual record 5W - 7L in last 12 games. So Leafs lost > 50% of the games in which they had better expected goals and were expected to win. How could any reasonable thinking person rely on data if they're accurate only 1/2 the time at best, or have a margin of error of 50%?

At those odds you might as well just ignore the spreadsheet, and simply flip a coin because that also give you 50% of being correct of predicting winners and losers at the same rate as analytics.

Very well said.

The analytic crowd has been wrong over and over and yet they still try and use these "advanced" stats in a vain effort to prove we were better.

The outcomes have proven them wrong.

 

[Gallagbi]

Very well said.

The analytic crowd has been wrong over and over and yet they still try and use these "advanced" stats in a vain effort to prove we were better.

The outcomes have proven them wrong.

The stats show we carried the play, but didn't win the series.

The stats aren't there to change history like some people are trying to claim, which is an argument nobody has ever made.

The stats are a reflection of what occurred on the ice. They're used to highlight the positive and negative occurrences and help explain the reason for an outcome.

 

[Garthinater]

The stats show we carried the play, but didn't win the series.

The stats aren't there to change history like some people are trying to claim, which is an argument nobody has ever made.

The stats are a reflection of what occurred on the ice. They're used to highlight the positive and negative occurrences and help explain the reason for an outcome.

"Advanced" stats are mostly garbage with very little real world application.

The problem is that people use these stats without understanding their limitations.

The ones who have been using the eye test and general knowledge have been correct far more than the "advanced" stats crowd has been.

Mess showed that using xgf you would think we should've won 11 out of our last 12 playoff games and yet have 5 wins and 7 losses. Why would you use a stat that is wrong over 50% of the time? You would be better to just flip a coin.

 

[darrylsittler27]

My advanced stats show that Dubas' gets fired and next year is a write off.

 

[saffronleaf]

what industry isn't results-based? isn't that like part of every job?

 

[TOGuy14]

Is there an expected Stanley Cup wins metric?

I am a man of science and stats but at the same time you can only rely on what should have happened vs what actually did for so long

 

[saffronleaf]

What a load of BULL. This is the dumbest thing I've read in the last week or so.

This is a results based business. Imagine running a business and not having any progress and some dumbass says "its not aobut results; the manager the business hired is a legend". What a f***ING MORON. Who is the author of this article? Tell him to F right off!

Dubas has absolutely RUINED the Leafs. Dubas fans piss the F outta me.

Leafs fans and the team have been the JOKE for a reason. Look at the picture

I don't fully agree with everything you're saying but good god that is a very depressing picture. f***. Florida will probably win 1 before the Leafs, too.

 

[Mess]

Leafs fans and the team have been the JOKE for a reason. Look at the picture

The Leafs are one of if not the richest team in the NHL and yet since a Salary Cap was instituted to level the playing field financially for all, the Leafs have produced the 31st and worst playoff results.

That is because then can only spend HARDER and not SMARTER and the results speak for themselves.

This is NOT a sign of good management in fact it highlights the very opposite that cap management and poor player personnel decisions have produced the worst results league wide in a results oriented bushiness where failure has been the only outcome annually.

 

[Trapper]

The Leafs are one of if not the richest team in the NHL and yet since a Salary Cap was instituted to level the playing field financially for all, the Leafs have produced the 31st and worst playoff results.

That is because then can only spend HARDER and not SMARTER and the results speak for themselves.

This is NOT a sign of good management in fact it highlights the very opposite that cap management and poor player personnel decisions have produced the worst results league wide in a results oriented bushiness where failure has been the only outcome annually.

The only thing left is for the Leafs and Panthers to meet in the 1st round next year with the Stanley Cup really being who wins the 0-for series.

 

[HarryLime]

Part of me hopes the team continues to falter, just so we can be rid of this era of Leafs hockey and to make people like the author look like the charlatans they are.. I see people like the author quite often making the same points. They exist for every fanbase but we have more of them by nature. I would love to honestly blow this thing up and start anew. Toronto has tons of pieces where we wouldn't be starting from scratch. I just wanna see a hockey team tbh. I've sat by and watched this young talented team and after 5-6 years it's just not that good. If only we could have a mixture of this team with the early 00s ones.

 

[leafsfan5]

That article is elite levels of coping lmao

 

[57 Years No Cup]

Do you think it’s a fluke that Montreal limited Matthews to 1 goal, Stone to 0 goals and Point to 0 goals? Do you think they just “didn’t convert”

Or did Montreal have a clear and concise game plan that isn’t pretty on the advanced stats side of the ledger but wins games when you don’t have a lot of skill?

"Advanced" stats in a random game like hockey are garbage. You're wasting your time arguing with the True Believers™.

 

[The CyNick]

A screened shot and an unscreened shot have the same expected goals value. It doesn’t factor in teammate, opponent or goalie position (you know the things that determine how a play evolves)

Yet the analytics crowd preaches it like gospel

It explains why we are so easily shutdown in the playoffs

From my experience the people who like analytics the most have played the least amount of hockey. So they don't appreciate all the nuances to the sport. There are exceptions obviously, but for the most part this is the case.

 

[usernamezrhardtodo]

what industry isn't results-based? isn't that like part of every job?

Government is not even reality based let alone results based....That's about the only one I can think of.

 

[onlygotmygrade10]

It was funny, I had seen more Editor in leaf articles on my Flipboard app and went to a few and thought the same thing. There is glass half full optimism and then there is some of these articles which look like they have forgot the last 5 years.

Also what industry isn't results based?

 

[notDatsyuk]

I won't read it. It's an obvious clickbait headline.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that 'James Tanner' and 'Garthinator' are the same person.

 

[notDatsyuk]

The Leafs are "winners" of a game-within-a-game that no one else cares about, but them and a few clueless people on the internet.

Montreal/Columbus - "We want to win the game."

Leafs / Twitter + Blogger fans - "We want to shoot more pucks closer to the net than they do."

I don't think that's what we want. However, for some fans, I think it's a matter of not winning anything important, so let's console ourselves with this participation trophy.