Gary Nylund
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2013
- 30,168
- 22,714
I'm sure trading Kadri will solve whatever problem he's on about now.
This is truth and hilarity, all wrapped in one.
I'm sure trading Kadri will solve whatever problem he's on about now.
Going strictly by eye test, I have no idea who is winning the Zeke/Pookie debate.
I’m not sure he’s even debating
The basic point is that whether we use Scoring Chances, Corsi Against, Expected Goals... limitations of those aside... our Leafs should be giving up more goals than they are.
That points squarely at Freddy. Data suggests we rely more on him than most other contending teams do.
This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. 75% of the games so far. With a .923 vs Sparks’ .905.
30 GP for Freddy which is more than most other contenders (eg Tampa 19 GP for their starter).
The other stuff.... like zeke saying these 40 games count and these 40 don’t when it’s convenient... or learning what a meta analysis is... I just chalk it up to the school system.
Freddy is playing out of his mind relative to the shots he faces. League average goaltending or worse and we are in a heap of trouble. Now I realize not all shots are created equal but any goalie among the leaders in shots faced AND save percentage usually would mean we are getting quite a few wins because of goaltending (or at least not losing as much as we should be).
Going strictly by eye test, I have no idea who is winning the Zeke/Pookie debate.
What's the lie on sample size? Seems like he has a quote, I don't think it's made up.Hint: It's not the guy who claimed r^2 justification for his stats then ran away when confronted with the actual r^2 for his stats, then lied about sample size to cover his tracks.
Freddy is playing out of his mind relative to the shots he faces. League average goaltending or worse and we are in a heap of trouble. Now I realize not all shots are created equal but any goalie among the leaders in shots faced AND save percentage usually would mean we are getting quite a few wins because of goaltending (or at least not losing as much as we should be).
What's the lie on sample size? Seems like he has a quote, I don't think it's made up.
And your thought is that it is a ~12,300 game sample since it's 2 segments of 41 games for all 30 teams over 5 years?I quoted the methodology from the link I posted more than once.
Read it.
Then realize that Pookie is calling that a 41gm sample size.
This is demonstrably false, by every measure we have.
Corsica provides dsv%, which is the difference between save percentage and expected save percentage based on shot quality.
dSV% (min 1000 minutes)under
1.Gibson +2.09
2.Halak +1.74
3.Greiss +1.68
4.Rittich +1.43
5.Desmith +1.21
6.Holtby +1.08
7.Rinne +0.93
8.Andersen +0.90
9.Bishop +0.89
10.Howard +0.87
Andersen ranks pretty much exactly as well in dsv% as he does in sv%.
And your thought is that it is a ~12,300 game sample since it's 2 segments of 41 games for all 30 teams over 5 years?
This is demonstrably false, by every measure we have.
Corsica provides dsv%, which is the difference between save percentage and expected save percentage based on shot quality.
dSV% (min 1000 minutes)
1.Gibson +2.09
2.Halak +1.74
3.Greiss +1.68
4.Rittich +1.43
5.Desmith +1.21
6.Holtby +1.08
7.Rinne +0.93
8.Andersen +0.90
9.Bishop +0.89
10.Howard +0.87
Andersen ranks pretty much exactly as well in dsv% as he does in sv%.
Am I understanding it right? Andersen is 8th in the league (5th or so among starters with heavy workload) in saving BETTER than his expected save percentage? All while being top 3 in shots faced in the league. Help me understand why that isn't helping my case?
And your thought is that it is a ~12,300 game sample since it's 2 segments of 41 games for all 30 teams over 5 years?
Is it possible that you are both right? I figure that anyone who doesn't point to the right side D as the weakest part of the team is blind. That being said, they are occasionally capable of mounting an acceptable performance that allows the leafs to win if the opposing team doesn't target their right side like Boston. They are good enough to not see an incremental team lift by a Faulk or Pesce if the tradeoff is an impactful forward. They would however see a notable improvement with a gritty, puck moving RHDAnd that sir is the essence of the “debate”
We win with an above average offence, relying on one above average goalie in particular, riding him through more games than other contenders. Our D needs to improve relative to the others.
And I’d say we need a little sandpaper but that’s just a feeling.
This is what we all know to be true. Zeke seems intent on fudging and ignoring both the eye test and tests of statistical evidence he claims to be an expert in.
I tried logic. I tried using stats. It’s just a lost cause.
You and I are in agreement. A happy new year to you.
you are reading it right.
Andersen ranks 8th in the league in sv% over expected save percentage based on shot quality.
Is it possible that you are both right? I figure that anyone who doesn't point to the right side D as the weakest part of the team is blind. That being said, they are occasionally capable of mounting an acceptable performance that allows the leafs to win if the opposing team doesn't target their right side like Boston. They are good enough to not see an incremental team lift by a Faulk or Pesce if the tradeoff is an impactful forward. They would however see a notable improvement with a gritty, puck moving RHD
Going strictly by eye test, I have no idea who is winning the Zeke/Pookie debate.
Wouldn't his dSv% be 0 if he's performing as expected? Not exactly a list of Allstars at the top of that chart either (though I do like Gibson)This is demonstrably false, by every measure we have.
Corsica provides dsv%, which is the difference between save percentage and expected save percentage based on shot quality.
dSV% (min 1000 minutes)
1.Gibson +2.09
2.Halak +1.74
3.Greiss +1.68
4.Rittich +1.43
5.Desmith +1.21
6.Holtby +1.08
7.Rinne +0.93
8.Andersen +0.90
9.Bishop +0.89
10.Howard +0.87
Andersen ranks pretty much exactly as well in dsv% as he does in sv%.
Wouldn't his dSv% be 0 if he's performing as expected? Not exactly a list of Allstars at the top of that chart either (though I do like Gibson)
@Gallagbi
The author zeke cites suggested that because they used data over 4 seasons (my bad) that his sample size was 120.
The author is incorrect. Sample size is the number of data events being measured. In this case, Corsi over 41 games. n=41. We can repeat this 30 times (for each team) or 120 times (for each team over 4 seasons) or 10,000 times if we want... but it doesn't change the event being measured.