Leafs are the Victims: Editor in Leaf

[mcleafs]

Statistically there was a 1.4% chance they lost every one of the last 5 series.

This guy can choose to believe that that was just ‘bad luck’, but it’s such a hilariously bad take that willfully ignores that Matthews and Marner are all time chokers.

 

[notDatsyuk]

The thing that I find silly is that a shot from the slot with two opposing players sitting on you, which barely reaches the goalie, is considered 'high danger', while an Ovechkin one-timer from his 'office' isn't, because he was just outside the high danger box.

 

[lebdafor norris]

Of course it doesn't xGF measures opportunities and area.

Although highlighting how strong positioninally Price both was, and can be, while he's on would suggest we did get "goalied", especially when you're seeing a variety of chances in different situations whether it be onetimers, in tight plays, rebounds and rush opportunities.

As for the chances on odd man rushes. I've done a detailed review of the Game 6 OT. We have stats to measure rush opportunities, rebounds and various levels of scoring chances. All suggests the Leafs outplayed the Habs, which aligns with my eye test. I have seen odd man rush counts, but don't have it at my finger tips.

We started with the Habs not wanting to trade chances and thay impacting xGF. But that's not how the stat I measured or typically presented. We moved to traffic, seems like we had the advantage there even if we didn't convert.

At the end of the day, we didn't win, but to say we were shut down or limited in opportunities doesn't seem at all accurate. Seems like we didn't convert.

xGF is such a flawed stat, the problem with it is that they value all "high dangers chances" as equal, so for example, a muffin shot by Mikeyhev near crease with 2 Habs Dman cutting the angles would be worth the same as Toffoli and Suzuki getting a 2 on 1 breakaway chance after a Dermott/Sandin turnover. It is highly debatable whether the 1st case is even a high danger chance to begin with even if you were to replace Mikeyhev with AM but according to xGF since it was shot near the crease then it must be a high danger shot.

I agree with the concept of xGF but the formula used by sites such as NST is simply not good enough to give us accurate results hence that is why xGA/xGF at times gives us wonky findings such as how the Flames and CBJ were somehow the superior 5 vs 5 defensive team from the time period of 2019-2021 (2 shortened seasons, about 125 game sample size) compared to the Islanders, the Canes and the Golden Knights, you and I know that this is simply not true.

 

[Stonehands1990]

The thing that I find silly is that a shot from the slot with two opposing players sitting on you, which barely reaches the goalie, is considered 'high danger', while an Ovechkin one-timer from his 'office' isn't, because he was just outside the high danger box.

Team xG at it again

 

[al secord]

I've gotta use this one on my boss

 

[lebdafor norris]

The thing that I find silly is that a shot from the slot with two opposing players sitting on you, which barely reaches the goalie, is considered 'high danger', while an Ovechkin one-timer from his 'office' isn't, because he was just outside the high danger box.

According to xGA, the Flames and the CBJ were a superior 5 vs 5 defensive team compare to the Canes, Isles and the VGK for the past 2 seasons, the "pesky" Buffalo Sabres was somehow a top 10, 5 vs 5 defensive team from 2017-2020, the Capitals had the 3rd worst 5 vs 5 defence during the year they won the cup (even worst than the leafs during that year) and the "defensive powerhouse northern division" had 3 in the top 8 when it comes to 5 vs 5 xGA.

Its not really a stat you can take at face value.

 

[Kairi Zaide]

The thing that I find silly is that a shot from the slot with two opposing players sitting on you, which barely reaches the goalie, is considered 'high danger', while an Ovechkin one-timer from his 'office' isn't, because he was just outside the high danger box.

xG is a stat that gains value over a large sample size. Analytical models also are starting (or already do) to take into account the finishing ability of players when it comes to individual offensive contribution.

From a playmaking PoV, making the exact same pass to either Ovechkin or John Scott standing in the exact same spot should hold the same value. From a defensive PoV - which is really where I think xG shines -, over a large enough sample size, those "outliers" fade and lose a lot of relevancy. You also end up with a rather consistent distribution of quality of competition across all shots for any team.

xGF is such a flawed stat, the problem with it is that they value all "high dangers chances" as equal, so for example, a muffin shot by Mikeyhev near crease with 2 Habs Dman cutting the angles would be worth the same as Toffoli and Suzuki getting a 2 on 1 breakaway chance after a Dermott/Sandin turnover. It is highly debatable whether the 1st case is even a high danger chance to begin with even if you were to replace Mikeyhev with AM but according to xGF since it was shot near the crease then it must be a high danger shot.

I agree with the concept of xGF but the formula used by sites such as NST is simply not good enough to give us accurate results hence that is why xGA/xGF at times gives us wonky findings such as how the Flames and CBJ were somehow the superior 5 vs 5 defensive team from the time period of 2019-2021 (2 shortened seasons, about 125 game sample size) compared to the Islanders, the Canes and the Golden Knights, you and I know that this is simply not true.

I think it's important (as you seem to understand) to point that different xG models exist. The best of them actually take some contextual clues into account. In your example, while a close shot would still likely get a decent xG value, a 2-on-1 would get a much higher one. For instance, the Suzuki goal from Caufield in Game 5 OT had an xG value of about 0.2 using MoneyPuck's model.

Regarding the wonky findings, I think it's also important to remind that, in the end, they are statistics, and consequently, should be treated as such. This means that the number you see is the center of the confidence interval. Websites could always decide to show you the 95% confidence interval upper and lower bounds, but that just happens to not be user friendly, really. Technically, the three teams you mentioned do not have a statistically different xGA over the period you are referring to. Another thing to take into account is the bias introduced by the 2021 season divisions, which basically caused the league to operate as 4 different entities. Considering some divisions were stronger than others, this means that teams did not face the same distribution of opponents (in terms of quality).

According to xGA, the Flames and the CBJ were a superior 5 vs 5 defensive team compare to the Canes, Isles and the VGK for the past 2 seasons, the "pesky" Buffalo Sabres was somehow a top 10, 5 vs 5 defensive team from 2017-2020, the Capitals had the 3rd worst 5 vs 5 defence during the year they won the cup (even worst than the leafs during that year) and the "defensive powerhouse northern division" had 3 in the top 8 when it comes to 5 vs 5 xGA.

Its not really a stat you can take at face value.

Even under Trotz, the Caps were still a PP merching team, and they won in large parts due to that.

Regarding the "defensive powerhouse northern division", 2 of those teams were Tampa and Boston. The other was Buffalo, and there was no statistical difference between them and like the 15th team in the league. With almost any stats there will be a "middle of the pack" plateau. They also had awful goaltending, which can explain a lot of the discrepancy between xGA and their actual GA.

 

[PromisedLand]

According to xGA, the Flames and the CBJ were a superior 5 vs 5 defensive team compare to the Canes, Isles and the VGK for the past 2 seasons, the "pesky" Buffalo Sabres was somehow a top 10, 5 vs 5 defensive team from 2017-2020, the Capitals had the 3rd worst 5 vs 5 defence during the year they won the cup (even worst than the leafs during that year) and the "defensive powerhouse northern division" had 3 in the top 8 when it comes to 5 vs 5 xGA.

Its not really a stat you can take at face value.

sticky this post on top of every thread and ban the expected BS/60 posts. Really getting sick of them

 

[Morbo]

Those "expected" stats are total nonsense.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Its not really a stat you can take at face value.

Your personal perception of specific teams overall not matching the actual abilities of those teams at one specific aspect of play over one specific time frame in one specific game state doesn't suggest any issue with the stat.

 

[Mess]

Those "expected" stats are total nonsense.

I think the main problem lies in the naming convention as "expected" tends to suggest that its a realistic outcome or regarded as likely or anticipated.

They should call them "pretend" stats as in p/GF and p/GA = pretend GF% because they only exist in a spreadsheet as an accumulation of data that record events, and act so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact it is not.

Raw data in a spreadsheet recording shots on net and from where and how many doesn't transfer nor translate to the results on the ice where the game is actually played to accurately predict wins and losses as it was never intended to in the first place by those that created them originally.

 

[Garthinater]

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.

What about my posts made you come to that conclusion? Lmao

 

[ACC1224]

Those "expected" stats are total nonsense.

Pretty much. No one of consequence would take them seriously.

 

[Arzak]

That'd be great. While I don't agree with the article he's reasoned it with examples and explained his positioned. We could really use more well reasoned responses around these parts.

Oh did he really? Teams get gollied , only two teams in NHL are better than Leaf and Kyle Dubas will go down as legend. Few of my favourite jokes in the article. His reasons and examples? Tampa and Colorado ( the only two teams better than Leafs..) got some serious playoff failures just like Leafs, that shows we are right there


"The only 2 teams in the NHL better than the Leafs right now are Colorado and Tampa – two teams that combined to miss the playoffs in 8 of 11 seasons that featured the first five years of Nathan MacKinnon and Steve Stamkos career.".


By this logic, if we won one of those series or two, we might be in trouble because we don't suck as the current winner did in the past(or at least the main sound argument he used would disappear)... at the same time, our losses are experiences, because you get none from the second round on.


Now, what really showed this author that Leafs got what it takes ? It was the way we lost the first rounds, apparently, you can tell more about future Cup winners by how they lose in the first round, now if they regularly get to CF or SCF.

How to spot a champion below :

"If you have a team that should have won but didn’t, if you have a team that almost won by getting no contribution by their three best players, and if you have a team with seven stars on it (eight if Campbell holds up) you are in a good position."


I had a good laugh reading the article, maybe it was satire after all. Teams get gollied it's killing me Nothing we can do fellas, we got gollied, it happens, no protection against it. yes they gollied Leafs again, different team, same tactic .

Someone protest to Bettman, there needs to be a cap on number of times we can get gollied. You rarely see it with other teams, their offense can get dry in playoffs, but we get gollied.


PS: Some might argue Kyle Dubas is already a legend. 3 years till Mathews is gone and JT looks like Jumbo (@11m). How is this team winning back to back cups in 5 years? Matthews will be gone, Marner will be up for a raise and JT looking good out there in 4 years, you have to expect the second Cup by that time...


That's like 8 series without getting gollied .

 

[Trapper]

Oh did he really? Teams get gollied , only two teams in NHL are better than Leaf and Kyle Dubas will go down as legend. Few of my favourite jokes in the article. His reasons and examples? Tampa and Colorado ( the only two teams better than Leafs..) got some serious playoff failures just like Leafs, that shows we are right there


"The only 2 teams in the NHL better than the Leafs right now are Colorado and Tampa – two teams that combined to miss the playoffs in 8 of 11 seasons that featured the first five years of Nathan MacKinnon and Steve Stamkos career.".


By this logic, if we won one of those series or two, we might be in trouble because we don't suck as the current winner did in the past(or at least the main sound argument he used would disappear)... at the same time, our losses are experiences, because you get none from the second round on.


Now, what really showed this author that Leafs got what it takes ? It was the way we lost the first rounds, apparently, you can tell more about future Cup winners by how they lose in the first round, now if they regularly get to CF or SCF.

How to spot a champion below :

"If you have a team that should have won but didn’t, if you have a team that almost won by getting no contribution by their three best players, and if you have a team with seven stars on it (eight if Campbell holds up) you are in a good position."


I had a good laugh reading the article, maybe it was satire after all. Teams get gollied it's killing me Nothing we can do fellas, we got gollied, it happens, no protection against it. yes they gollied Leafs again, different team, same tactic .

Someone protest to Bettman, there needs to be a cap on number of times we can get gollied. You rarely see it with other teams, their offense can get dry in playoffs, but we get gollied.


PS: Some might argue Kyle Dubas is already a legend. 3 years till Mathews is gone and JT looks like Jumbo (@11m). How is this team winning back to back cups in 5 years? Matthews will be gone, Marner will be up for a raise and JT looking good out there in 4 years, you have to expect the second Cup by that time...


That's like 8 series without getting gollied .

Back to back Cups?
Let’s start with back to back 1st round wins.
Hell, let’s start with one.

 

[The CyNick]

xGF is such a flawed stat, the problem with it is that they value all "high dangers chances" as equal, so for example, a muffin shot by Mikeyhev near crease with 2 Habs Dman cutting the angles would be worth the same as Toffoli and Suzuki getting a 2 on 1 breakaway chance after a Dermott/Sandin turnover. It is highly debatable whether the 1st case is even a high danger chance to begin with even if you were to replace Mikeyhev with AM but according to xGF since it was shot near the crease then it must be a high danger shot.

I agree with the concept of xGF but the formula used by sites such as NST is simply not good enough to give us accurate results hence that is why xGA/xGF at times gives us wonky findings such as how the Flames and CBJ were somehow the superior 5 vs 5 defensive team from the time period of 2019-2021 (2 shortened seasons, about 125 game sample size) compared to the Islanders, the Canes and the Golden Knights, you and I know that this is simply not true.

I find it's helpful to watch the games in order to draw proper conclusions on situations vs aggregating a bunch of flawed data to draw conclusions from.

 

[forecheck]

I can tell just by reading that article he’s probably never played a game of hockey in his life. This narrative that we won the expected goals battle is such nonsense. It implies that Montreal and CBJ would try to trade chances with us. As for “getting goalied” we make it easy for the goalie. Nobody on this team crashes the net hard for screens, tips and rebounds. Expected goals means nothing when the goalie has a clear view of the shot and can take away the entire net because there’s zero traffic

Those are Dubas's biggest cheer leaders .... Hes the one that fooled them and made it .

 

[notDatsyuk]

What about my posts made you come to that conclusion? Lmao

You may have misunderstood.

The only conclusions I came to were that, based on the title as per the link you provided, and to a lesser extent the quote you included, the article was intended as clickbait, and not something I wish to read.

As for my comment that I wouldn't be surprised to find you were the author, I didn't conclude or even suggest that you were. Having seen many posts of "look at the interesting article I found", here and elsewhere, where the poster is also the article's author, I said I wouldn't be surprised if this was another such example.

I also wouldn't be surprised if it isn't. If that's what you are saying, I'll quite happily accept it.

 

[bodechek]

The Editor in Leaf is viewing this only thru blue and white glasses. I understand the move, but saying that he Dubas fleeced the Penguins is so far from being accurate. The Penguins might of lost Mc Cann in the expansion draft anyway, this just gives that team something for said player.

 

[notDatsyuk]

I find it's helpful to watch the games in order to draw proper conclusions on situations vs aggregating a bunch of flawed data to draw conclusions from.

Then you're not a true Leafs fan.

Real fans would much rather sift through terabytes of data to find the one thing that might possibly suggest that there is a slight chance that there could maybe be something vague enough that it perhaps could be used to suggest that we might almost have been good enough.

So much more fun than actually watching the most exciting sport in the world.

 

[Racer88]

sticky this post on top of every thread and ban the expected BS/60 posts. Really getting sick of them

I wonder what the expected/per thread…expected posts really are

 

[Superstar]

Toronto Maple Leafs: Kyle Dubas Will Come Out of This a Legend

"The Toronto Maple Leafs are the victims of a results-based industry that has really no idea how to evaluate a team that got very unlucky."

Why is editor in leaf so bad? Is he paid by the leafs?

This James Tanner reminds me of a few posters around these parts.

Leafs were really unlucky to be up 3-1 in the series against the Habs...

 

[tmlms13]

Toronto Maple Leafs: Kyle Dubas Will Come Out of This a Legend

"The Toronto Maple Leafs are the victims of a results-based industry that has really no idea how to evaluate a team that got very unlucky."

Why is editor in leaf so bad? Is he paid by the leafs?

This James Tanner reminds me of a few posters around these parts.

I would have said "short-term results based" or "small picture outlook"

 

[Dekes For Days]

Real fans would much rather sift through terabytes of data to find the one thing that might possibly suggest that there is a slight chance that there could maybe be something vague enough that it perhaps could be used to suggest that we might almost have been good enough.

So much more fun than actually watching the most exciting sport in the world.

Actually, a wide variety of valuable statistics are used to paint a more complete and accurate picture, and it's hilarious that you think people utilizing them don't watch hockey. They often watch much more than your average fan, and they actually understand what's happening and why. Not sure what's "exciting" about endlessly repeating one small sample surface result with no context to pretend that everything is horrible.

 

[egd27]

A real complete and accurate picture.....