Yep, nobody understands what they are watching except you. A.I. has come a long way
Yes Holl is so good Detroit put him on waivers this year, nobody claimed him and he's barely holding on to the #6 spot with a team in the bottom 3rd of the league.
And none quite as bad as you. We tried telling you for years that Holl is a terrible player but your Dubas blinders just couldn't quite let you see reality. We told you directly that Holl would be exposed the second he played for another team and exactly that happened.
Lots of people understand what they're watching. That's why our coaches limit Benoit's minutes and role relative to some of our former defensemen, and why he only gets 1.35m coming off a career year, instead of something like say 3.4m. And while some here struggle to understand what they're watching, most understand what they're watching and just don't understand how much there is that they're not watching, and their limitations.
What a player is doing now on a mess of a team doesn't change what a player did years ago. Benoit was bad in 2022-2023, got waived last year, and is struggling this year, but that doesn't take away from the good play he brought to the team during most of last year.
What the player did years ago was sub par which is why he is no longer here.
Depth players come and go all the time. He is no longer here because what he did made him too expensive. Hopefully, one day, Benoit can put up the kind of results that make him too expensive.
xGF% is a laughable stat to measure a defensive defenceman who has the third most starts in his own zone and doesn't get Powerplay time. These stats in general are almost useless, they don't take into account who you are playing with and who you are playing against. Also these stats are often compiled using faulty criteria and entered by people without in depth hockey knowledge. Who exactly is determining shot quality which is the basis for this particular stat? A former NHL coach or some University student who's never even laced up a pair of skates?
lol what? You think people are manually assigning xG values to every single scoring chance in every game? Are you serious?
First of all we are discussing xGF%, but, thanks for confirming the stat is basically useless and there are errors with entries. So all it measures is shots from certain areas? I see so if a player fires a puck from the slot into the top corner it counts the same as a player fanning a shot in the slot that goes 5 feet wide or maybe it bounces off a defenders pads and they opposing team clears the zone. I guess that counts lowers his xGF%, what an absolute waste of time.
They have to switch sides sometimes depending on where there opponents are and where the play takes them. Tanev is very good at this, McCabe and OEL too. The other 3 not so much, they have trouble recognizing what their responsibilities are at times. Benoit and Myers are getting better, Timmins and Rielly not so much.
There's so much wrong here. You seem to have poor understanding of our former players, and their impact, value, attributes, etc. You seem to have poor understanding of the many different attributes that exist, the different types of defensemen that exist, and the ways in which different defensemen utilize different attributes and skills to be effective. But worst of all, you're bashing valuable stats, and you don't even know how they work.
That first sentence isn't really a compelling defense of aggregate statistics - unusual plays (i.e. egregious breakdowns or superhuman effort/skill) do happen and people do attempt to track them along with more detailed microstatistics like zone exits and entries, neutral zone play and so on, it's just that most of the people doing this are being paid by NHL teams and don't release their data. Also the NHL has tracked subjective stats like giveaways/takeaways for years, just... badly.
Yes, more detailed microstats are tracked to supplement the data, but I'm not sure what that has to do with my post. Yes, unusual plays do happen, but unusual plays (especially ones that result in shot events) are, by definition, rare. Sticks, for example, don't break and lead to a shot against often enough for that to have a significant impact on a reasonable sample of results. It's also not like only Benoit has sticks break. He's just as likely to be benefited by it. And some of the scenarios the individual was referencing wouldn't have any impact on the metric in the first place. If somebody has additional contextual information for Benoit, then I'm all ears, but he wasn't giving any valid reasons to ignore the macro data.
None of this addresses what I stated and you have zero citations to back any of this up. Nhl provides this data? From where? Again who is entering this data? Who is determining what a scoring chance is? Those events I mentioned happen multiple times a game.
I addressed everything you stated, and if you want more information, Moneypuck has a whole section on their website to explain. The data is scraped from the NHL. It's public information. They have puck and player tracking, and for every game that's played, you can go and look at detailed play by play and shift information, team stats, player stats, and like 10 different game reports. XGF% isn't impacted by "scoring chance" labels, but those categorizations are determined by the objective chance of a goal. I don't know why you think these obscure events you're referring to discriminate against Benoit, but most of them don't have any impact on his xGF% results in the first place, let alone a significant one.
These stats do have value, but are next to useless without context and the people keeping track of them admit that. You posted a single stat xGF% and then declared benoit was a bad player. Yeah that's laughable.
oilersnation.com
