Prospect Info: Marlies/Prospects Thread - 2021/22 PART III
- Thread starter uncleben
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Morgs
#16 #34 #44 #88 #91
From what I'm reading, Amirov's coach said multiple times it's concussion related.
It wouldn't suprise me if Dubas is partly in on the decision making here. Amirov is too valuable to screw around with a concussion.
acrobaticgoalie
Registered User
- Jun 18, 2014
- 3,468
- 3,561
Fogelhund
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2007
- 24,340
- 29,458
acrobaticgoalie
Registered User
- Jun 18, 2014
- 3,468
- 3,561
Right after I posted I realized the time. Figures I was off today and didn't even think about the games being on
cbc.ca is streaming everything Olympics for free
weems
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2008
- 18,841
- 13,486
The prospects section is easily one of the better reads on this board.
What's everyones thoughts on sites like NaturalStattrick or Moneypuck and more specifically how they track scoring chances that eventually become what makes up xGF.
I ask this because I was watching our game recently against Anaheim and was curious to look into some of the adavanced stats/expected goal numbers.
There was a Kevin Shattenkirk chance that really stood out. On both Moneypuck and NaturalStattrick they both charted the shot as being taken place halfway between the faceoff dot and the edge of the faceoff circle (34ft to be exact).
When you actually watch the replay, you can see when freeze framed, that he actually release's the shot right in the defensive centers faceoff lane. He's feet are literally over the faceoff dot when released. They werent even close to getting this chance anywhere close to where it took place.
So I started looking at this more closely at past games/ following games and its actually crazy how often these sites are posting shot locations that arent that accurate. It might not seem like a big deal but all these shot locations are what is influencing the expected goals for stats.
I messaged Jack Han to ask him about this and he said it happens quite often with public sites. Just funny considering we see these stats get thrown around like their bible when in reality many times these sites cant even properly post where scoring chances are happening from.
Heres the video to the Ducks game. The chance I'm speaking of happens at the 5:10 mark of the video. Actually you can also look at the Silfverberg goal (4:40) and thats also a hilariously bad shot placement (it says he took the shot below the defensive hash mark when in reality he shot it from like 2-3 feet inside the top of the circle).
What's everyones thoughts on sites like NaturalStattrick or Moneypuck and more specifically how they track scoring chances that eventually become what makes up xGF.
I ask this because I was watching our game recently against Anaheim and was curious to look into some of the adavanced stats/expected goal numbers.
There was a Kevin Shattenkirk chance that really stood out. On both Moneypuck and NaturalStattrick they both charted the shot as being taken place halfway between the faceoff dot and the edge of the faceoff circle (34ft to be exact).
When you actually watch the replay, you can see when freeze framed, that he actually release's the shot right in the defensive centers faceoff lane. He's feet are literally over the faceoff dot when released. They werent even close to getting this chance anywhere close to where it took place.
So I started looking at this more closely at past games/ following games and its actually crazy how often these sites are posting shot locations that arent that accurate. It might not seem like a big deal but all these shot locations are what is influencing the expected goals for stats.
I messaged Jack Han to ask him about this and he said it happens quite often with public sites. Just funny considering we see these stats get thrown around like their bible when in reality many times these sites cant even properly post where scoring chances are happening from.
Heres the video to the Ducks game. The chance I'm speaking of happens at the 5:10 mark of the video. Actually you can also look at the Silfverberg goal (4:40) and thats also a hilariously bad shot placement (it says he took the shot below the defensive hash mark when in reality he shot it from like 2-3 feet inside the top of the circle).
Last edited:
Morgs
#16 #34 #44 #88 #91
It's pretty well known in the analytics community. It's also well established that different websites value xG differently even with the same shot location (sometimes to an insane degree) and it's why I personally prefer EW & NSS to Moneypuck.
These websites take the shot tracking directly from the NHL, and I've seen it asked many different times on twitter for them to fix it (and it has improved over the years) but it's not perfect. Some places (like MSG) track everything being closer to the net to the point where unadjusted, Hank is like 2.5x better than the 2nd best (Price) goalie in GSAA since 2007. Some like Minny track shots further consistently which is part of why they grade so well defensively.
The only thing you can take comfort in is that although it's not an exact science (due to the NHL always having their heads up their asses) it's predictive qualities are far better than anything else being used in the public sphere, and it's not close.
I use public advance analytic sites more so to reaffirm what I am seeing with my eyes.
But I completely agree, the stat tracking with respect to HDCF is suspect to say the least. I remember a game last season where there was something like 3 breakaways in the period for the Leafs, and they came out of the period with 2 HDCF, or something to that degree. It was clearly inaccurate is what I am getting at.
That said, the inaccuracies likely effect both teams proportionately. Maybe not on a game by game basis, but in the long run.
The major problem with advanced analytics is that it doesn't take into account who the shooter is as well. A point blank shot from 7 feet out from Ryan Reeves should not equal the same as a point blank look from 7 feet out from Auston Matthews. Unless Reeves is playing the Leafs of course.
Point being, there will inherently always be major inconsistencies when looking at expected results vs actual results. But they both serve a major purpose in Hockey IMO. It's kind of like Fantasy Football, if a WR is being targeted 10+ times a game but the results are not there, it is only a matter of time before that player breaks out. case in point, Jaylen Waddle if you're a Football guy.
I love how progressive our management staff is with "fancy metrics". There is this common belief among the naysayers that Dubas builds his teams purely on analytics, which is entirely inaccurate. But he is not going to neglect the raw data that is available to identify diamonds in the rough. It's all about leaving no stone left unturned.
weems
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2008
- 18,841
- 13,486
Ya I agree these sites certainly provide valuble additional context to the eyetest.
I highly suspect that front offices are also tracking this much more closely with better technology. I wouldnt even be suprised if they will go back after the fact and look at certain scoring chances again to see if their innitial shot placement was right and obviously they have the very best shot counters/trackers out there and I doubt public sites will do that.
It was just interesting to see that routinely they're placing shots sometimes like 5 to even 10 feet off the mark and this has a big effect on expected goal totals and goal probability. These stats are going to be by far the most useful for people that understand them, but also are very good at placing proper context towards each chance.
The Shattenkirk chance
34.7 feet (it was most likely closer to 30 feet)
56.8 degree angle
1.4 % chance of scoring
74.7 % chance of hitting net
Saying that chance only had a 1.4% chance of scoring is obviously hilarious. It was a cross ice pass that when he caught the pass, Campbell was fully on the other side of the net. Brodie was in front of the net but wasnt able to fully get over to block the shooting lane. He basically had an open net with no traffic in front. For a talented shooter thats facing nooone in front of his shooting lane, he's going to hit the net at least like 9 out of 10 times and the stop was only made because Campbell has elite quickness and closed down the open net very quickly.
Naturalstattrick gave it a 0.02 xG grade when in reality it was way higher than that and one of the better looks you're going to get but wasnt even credited as a high danger scoring chance.
Last edited:
Scion
Registered User
- May 25, 2012
- 2,739
- 1,475
As someone that does tracking, I can tell you that a ton of mistakes happen even when you are manually doing it. Something as simple as camera angle can make it hard. For example a shot in between the top of the circles is a MD chance and just behind it is a LD chance. Well depending on the angle of the camera a player who is directly in between the top of the circle or 4-5 feet outside (which is the difference between MD and LD) can be imperceptible to the eye. There are also alot of shots (particularly rebounds) that are really hard to judge unless you are lucky enough to get a high res replay in slo mo. Was it a rebound and then a shot or just a bunch of sticks in the area and then a puck being collected by the goalie or going off of some skates etc.
weems
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2008
- 18,841
- 13,486
Ya that makes alot of sense but there's many chances that are literally point blank chances that these public sites are totally off the mark on.
Look at this Silfverberg goal against us.
The 0:20 mark shows it best. He releases the puck maybe 3 feet inside the top of the circle but Naturalstattrick posts him taking the shot on the defensive side hash mark.
They could be wrong by 10 to 15 feet there.
WTFMAN99
Registered User
- Jun 17, 2009
- 34,627
- 12,800
stickty111
Registered User
- Jan 23, 2017
- 27,260
- 34,233
Hirvonen scored today. He passed last year's goal total in 20 less games.
crump
~ ~ (ړײ) ~ ~
Welp, back to the eye test again. Once they get the real time GPS chips in the crests or something like that we will see more accurate numbers. Until then its not a precise science.
Generally speaking, you used to know when a guy was as good as his numbers just by watching him. Pierre Larouche had great numbers yet bounced from team to team partly due to he didn't play much defence or hit. The guy still holds the Canadiens record for the most goals in a season by a center, yet you never think of him as one of their greats. Dangerous at both ends of the ice.
BertCorbeau
F*ck cancer - RIP Fugu and Buffaloed
I don't think anyone is arguing advanced stats are foolproof .. but I believe they're more reliable than the eye test because it eliminates more bias.
At the very least using advanced stats should help you flag notable positives and negatives of a player you're scouting, and you should back that up by the eye test. Or vice versa. After scouting by the eye test, using stats as a measuring stick can help keep yourself in check. That is if you can show some humility that your eye may be wrong.
weems
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2008
- 18,841
- 13,486
Ya I'm sure actual NHL franchises have amazing data and the very best shot trackers.
My complaint was solely about some of these public websites that many people cite.
Yup, just finished watching the recording of the game now. They were easily the best USA line, even though the Farrell line was statistically more productive. I can totally see what all the fuss is about with Abruzzese as well. Very intelligent player. He looked really good IMO. Would like to see him get some PP time, he's got such great vision.
Overall good game for both of our guys. All of the young guns for USA came to play. Faber looks like a stud, and Farrell showed some really nice finish as well. 5pts in his olympic debut, jesus murphy.
But he's a Habs prospect, so he will end up being shit
WTFMAN99
Registered User
- Jun 17, 2009
- 34,627
- 12,800
Yup, just finished watching the recording of the game now. They were easily the best USA line, even though the Farrell line was statistically more productive. I can totally see what all the fuss is about with Abruzzese as well. Very intelligent player. He looked really good IMO. Would like to see him get some PP time, he's got such great vision.
Overall good game for both of our guys. All of the young guns for USA came to play. Faber looks like a stud, and Farrell showed some really nice finish as well. 5pts in his olympic debut, jesus murphy.
But he's a Habs prospect, so he will end up being shit
It was weird they had Abruzzese at wing despite being older...figured they'd keep him at centre.
I am hoping he finally goes pro, maybe he can slide into bottom 6 role and give us some scoring from there in the NHL.
Morgs
#16 #34 #44 #88 #91
Abruzzese is a winger though and has been his whole NCAA career. I'm not sure the last time he played C, maybe the USHL?
BertCorbeau
F*ck cancer - RIP Fugu and Buffaloed
Honestly, I know they were playing "China" and its hard to draw anything from that game. But the truth of the matter is that was not Team China lol. I wonder how many Chinese passports are even on the team. That was essentially Team World reserves or just Kunlan Red-Star. They are likely the equivalent to a nation like Latvia TBH. They were extremely physical all game. Very clearly trying to abuse the young Americans. I was actually a bit worried for Abruzzese being that he is on the undersized side of the hockey player scale.
He was so shifty in the corners, and extremely intelligent at anticipating the contact, and also making plays in or before the contact came. That was something I was not expecting, and was very impressed. He also created a ton for his line. It seemed like every scoring chance for Knies or Beniers came off of a play that Nick had made seconds prior.
I was very impressed.
He has pro level hockey sense, no question about it. It's a completely lazy comparison given that he has Harvard roots and is a shifty undersized player, but he reminds me of a Alexander Kerfoot type player with slightly better vision. He just makes subtle little plays to keep pucks alive, and has that shiftiness to evade oncoming pressure.
He didn't look to get any PP time, which will effect his output for sure. But as long as he continues that play I will be very happy. He is ready for the pro game IMO. Would love to see him on the Marlies after his NCAA season is done. Just need to get that guy an ELC
- Status
