Zebras will always be corrupt, we both know that. I wasn't even surprised anymore when Janmark got his stick slashed out of his hands in the final minute that had no call, but the refs decide to give a powerplay to the blackhawks seconds after hoping the blackhawks would tie up the game to get to OT. All in the name of sports betting. It's never gonna change in this league or even all pro sports even. NBA officials are just as shit as NHL's.
Post-Game Talk: Oilers win the battle but lose the war against their arch nemesis…
- Thread starter Cloned
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Zebras will always be corrupt, we both know that. I wasn't even surprised anymore when Janmark got his stick slashed out of his hands in the final minute that had no call, but the refs decide to give a powerplay to the blackhawks seconds after hoping the blackhawks would tie up the game to get to OT. All in the name of sports betting. It's never gonna change in this league or even all pro sports even. NBA officials are just as shit as NHL's.
TheNumber4
Registered User
- Nov 11, 2011
- 48,452
- 60,088
I’ve gone through the exercise of going through shots visually in a game and comparing to MoneyPucks danger ratings a couple times this season and there are definitely red flags that show up.
From what I can gather, they put a huge emphasis on shot distance from the net. Net front plays are given a lot of danger. Net front rebound plays even more. There’s some sense to it, but I’ve seen Goalies go into their butterfly, just sit there, and have a forward jam pucks into their pad with no space, and a sequence of a 2-3 shots in tight to a non-moving goalie making routine positional saves, explode a goalies GSAX rating in that game from that one sequence. A sequence of solid goaltending sure, but nothing spectacular. Goalies with teams that have very weak net front D coverage and crease clearing, seem to benefit hugely.
On cross crease daggers I think Money Puck fails to rate danger. Money Puck says they take into account the previous event that happened before a shot. And even note in their explainer that East-West “previous event” is taken into account. However nowhere in their explainer do they note that they track passes as a “previous event” to a shot. Hits, faceoffs, turnovers and “etc.” are noted as previous events but NOT passes. I could be wrong on this, and that pass data is included in “etc.” but it matches my previous analyses of these situations. The data they state they are using is from 2007-2015, and someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Passes and Pass Location data even existed for these years. So it seems that if it’s an East West One Timer they don’t appropriately capture the danger that comes from that. For example a McD to Draisaitl pass for one timer on our power play is treated like just a stand-still slap shot from that same location and shot angle. We know of course if Drai just stood there at the extreme angles he takes those one timers, and just does a stand-still slap shot that the danger from that shot is alot less than if it’s a one timer with a preceding East-West pass.
Other things I don’t think they capture, are net front screens (we know player tracker was not available for the years in that data set) and shots off the rush (they state they don’t track rush shots as a variable). Which are pretty big factors.
You can see their explainer for their model here: MoneyPuck.com -About and How it Works
Note that Pass Location, Pass Data, and One-Timers are never explicitly mentioned. But they write it in a way where the reader might assume they are included with such great descriptors as “etc.”
Last edited:
Slats432
Registered User
- Jun 2, 2002
- 15,532
- 4,062
And those are the ones that are pretty publicized, and injure guys. I think it is not an everyday occurance, and not that isolated and I saw more than a couple guys doing it.
These are tweets about slewfoots this month.
Drivesaitl
Finding Hemingway
If it helps any, probably not, its every pro league now. I rarely watch NFL football but on Christmas break turned a game on just channel surfing. The first play I saw was a QB getting tackled in endzone for a safety, an OBVIOUS face mask grab. So obvious would be impossible not to see it, or how the tackle was executed, and the official in the endzone was staring right at it. Its the easiest call to make in Football, the most obvious, and nothing. Not reviewable either from what telecast said. I just changed the channel.
Absolutely fair. I appreciate you showing more proof of evidence of it.
Sad thing is, it won't change anything in this league.
The face of the league and best player since Lemieux/Gretzky could've gotten injured last night by a dirty player in Kempe, and the league is once again silent for that matter. Same shit, different day.
I don't care much about the NFL either but I have hardcore pals who especially hate Mahomes for the favoritism calls he gets or the KC chiefs for that matter from the refs lol.
Slats432
Registered User
- Jun 2, 2002
- 15,532
- 4,062
I will agree that I find it strange that officiating in all professional sports seems inadequate. They seem to lean to allowing lesser players compete by breaking the rules against elite players. It has always been this way.
The funny thing is that it’s a myth that mahomes gets the favoritism.
The actual QB getting the favouritism is Josh Allen.
jesusbuiltmyhotrod
Registered User
- Feb 27, 2021
- 7,290
- 9,499
Lol people are playing why are u so uptight? People can focus on multiple things
Drivesaitl
Finding Hemingway
I hardly follow the league and dislike the Mahomes orchestration that goes on. So much that the games and results don't seem scripted. They likely are. With several ex players and officials on record saying they are.
If I even liked gambling, and I'm against any form of it, I wouldn't bet on pro sports ever. Doesn't even seem like fun to me knowing that results can be contrived.
btw your response and exchange to @Slats432 shows me again why you're one of my favorite posters here. Pleasure to read a respectful exchange. Also to Slats for the digging. Great replies.
Drivesaitl
Finding Hemingway
Disagree here. In NBA the quintessential calls go the way of the star players. To help them look ever elite. Anything from travelling to double dribble to fouls offensive or defensive. The NBA is geared so that the star player gets the beneficial call or non call. Soccer has a huge problem with this too internationally.
The NHL definitely leans heavily into what you're stating but not just player by player but team by team. Keeping games close, game management. Thats of course the bigger picture in NHL. Really they probably want most of the games having a chance to go OT more time slot, more ratings for 3 on 3 action or any OT etc. The NHL would know by now as well in replays that viewers will hone in on the OT segments and so any NHL night where the games offer several OT's makes for better viewing in real time and postgame views.
Passes are included in last event.
"Variables In Shot Prediction Model:
6.) East-West Location on Ice of Last Event Before the Shot"
A change of possession is an event; this is a pass.
The reality is a short pass between the circles - like Stu's 2 on 1 save in the first - changes the shot angle less than a pass from hash mark to hashmark.
The model is perhaps not perfect in a given opportunity - but it's pretty accurate over a game and certainly over a season. Better than the eye test. Certainly it agrees with other models, like the natural Stat Trick one, Dom's, or the Puckalytics ones.
There's an argument that the money puck model undervalued that chance - it would have valued it the same or perhaps sightly less than the Draisaitl 2 on 1 in the third.
There's also an argument that maybe it only looked so impressive because Skinner was slow reading the play and he could have got over faster, but I'm trying to avoid criticizing the guy who had a shut out and in my opinion played a great game.
Drivesaitl
Finding Hemingway
Skinner was pretty good and did enough to keep puck out of net. Did just enough on the Kempe shot to tip it just over cross bar. Needed some Emberson magic saving another GA, Another couple posts. But the thing that really still worried me, and yes even in a shutout (as it was a scoreless game) is giving the puck right to Byfield for what could've been a GA, or turning puck over to Foegele which ended up in a pk, and another turnover to Moore I believe it was.
The puck playing aspect is still a huge problem and it featured as early as a Kempe dash at net early in the game trying to strip Skinner. Didn't cost us last night but these tend to hurt us at worst moments and any of them could. So Skinner was valuable in this game, got the shutout, but his puckplay alone ought to rule out first star. My concern though is how much teams are viewing and scheming for Skinner. Seems to be the case. If I'm an opponent team I would bang pucks off the backboards hoping for a rebound. I would do that when a direct shot isn't there. Just make a puck bounce and come out front. Makes puck tracking difficult.
As to Skinner getting over slow on the Kempe shot it wasn't completely that either. He didn't really make it. Thus his desperation arm lunge stop, and no goalie is trying intently to stop a shot like that with his arm. It was desperation, and it worked. Credit to him, he didn't give up on the play, but he got some luck on the play. Work hard and you get the breaks they say. He was game and working hard for what he got.
ps thanks for all your work and digging as well. the board is better for it.
bellagiobob
Registered User
- Jul 27, 2006
- 25,077
- 62,039
Yup, since Mahomes came into the league the Chiefs are the 6th most penalized team. Haters gonna hate.
bucks_oil
Registered User
- Aug 25, 2005
- 8,884
- 5,260
Lol...
definitely a workplace injury. Coach is probably liable for putting him in an unsafe environment.
OilerTyler
Disgruntled
The narrative isn't really about the amount of penalties called. It has more to do with the Chiefs ability to draw game saving calls (or non-calls) when it's do or die time in the final minutes of a close game.
TheNumber4
Registered User
- Nov 11, 2011
- 48,452
- 60,088
It only says "Last Event" though. And "Last Event" is described as "(Faceoff, Hit, etc)"
It makes no reference to Pass, it makes no reference to even a change of possession as an event. A change of possession is also not a pass, a team passing to eachother isn't even a change of a possession.
The change in angle of the Puck going East-West can only be compared if one event is recorded (a shot) then another event is recorded (another shot). They use change of angle when it comes to rebounds and it's explained quite explicitly, when a shot on net happens then a rebound shot is also recorded, in that situation the original shot angle is compared to the rebound shot angle:
"Also, for rebound shots the model looks at the change in angle between the shots divided by the amount of time between the two shots."
In the case of an East-West pass though, how could they compare change of angles? Since they are using "events" as the puck tracker and not actual puck tracking (wasn't invented yet), the model can only see that a shot was taken from X location at X angle. I don't think it takes into account where the puck was just prior to that X location shot, a hit or a faceoff prior doesn't exactly tell you where that puck was.
I've looked at the 4 models. Puckalytics is actually the most accurate one, in that it matches Actual Goals For for a SEASON most accurately compared to the other XGFs models. Of course long sample sizes are better when it comes to data, I don't think a one game sample constitutes a large sample though. A season's worth of Expected Goals can be compared to Actual Goals and verified to be a good or bad performing model, but I don't see how you can verify one games worth of expected goals to actual goals. The sample size too small. So while I agree with using them over a season or long stretch of games, using them for one game samples seems to have its faults.
Eye test can obviously vary in the eye of the beholder, and even the beholder's eye test can vary. I know for myself watching a game live is alot different than watching it after the fact, knowing the result and taking emotional biases out of it. But for short samples, either one game, one period, or one chance, I trust the my eyes and even comments from observers (broadcasters) to determine dangerous a singular chance was or how well a goalie played.
Last edited:
TheNumber4
Registered User
- Nov 11, 2011
- 48,452
- 60,088
Just some additional research to add to what I think is implicitly true analyzing the 2 on 1 on Stu last night:
This article also denotes that Pass Location and East-West One timers are not considered in these XGF models:
"So when new data, new shot information, becomes available from NHL they run it through the code and show you xG value, but it will be only about 80% accurate prediction, in addition to all inaccuracies of shot registration by NHL, to tell how probable was that shot to become a goal.
For example, when the model says shot had 2% or 0.02 xG value in reality chances were somewhere between 1.6% and 2.4% and it was still possible that shot will go in on any given shot like that.
Another example, let’s say shot was in close and the model shows 40% chance of scoring, 0.40 xG value. In reality it was somewhere between 32% and 48% chance but model can’t say exact because it’s missing information/attributes/features like: was the goalie screened, was it cross crease pass for “back door one timer” or where goalie or opposition player were located. At the same time commercial (non-public) models will have some of those additional features and will narrow the range saying that this shot had between 34% and 46% chance to become a goal."
Expected Goals (xG) Models Explained
<em>(Editors Note: <strong><a href="https://twitter.com/YuriGelfat">Yu...
jetsnation.ca
Here's another article:
"Perhaps the biggest gap is pre-shot movement. We know that passes before a shot affect the quality of the scoring chance, but the pbp data does not include them."
Expected Goals Model with Pre-Shot Movement, Part 1: The Model
There are few questions in hockey analytics more fundamental than who played well. Consequently, a large portion of hockey analysis has been focused on how to best measure results. This work is som…
hockey-graphs.com
bellagiobob
Registered User
- Jul 27, 2006
- 25,077
- 62,039
bucks_oil
Registered User
- Aug 25, 2005
- 8,884
- 5,260
That wasn't a particularly "short pass between circles", it was a lot closer to "dot-to-dot".
And it doesn't look here like he was particularly late with the read, he needs to stay with the passer to respect a potential shot until the puck is actually off his stick.
Tremendous save (and read)... especially since we know Skinner is (big and therefore) not the fastest post to post.
As for Draisaitl's 2:1 in the third, are you referring to McDavid's goal... this play below?...
To me the first stop (which was made) is easier than Skinner's, since Keumper doesn't have to move that far... the pass is a longish pass, but the lateral distance (post-to-post) required of Keumper is much less than Skinner's save, since his came off the rush and he was well on top of the crease...
Below, Keumper only has to slide central off the post and get as close to the top of the blue as he can.
Both good saves, I think Skinner's took more work, harder push than Keumpers.
I would hope the model would not value them the same.
KlefDown
I adore Soli
- May 2, 2014
- 10,167
- 8,830
bellagiobob
Registered User
- Jul 27, 2006
- 25,077
- 62,039
A fine in the amount of what the player spends on a night out will definitely send the right message around the league. Open season on superstars with no repercussions. Much like it’s been during the entirety of Gary’s reign of error.
Frank the Tank
The Godfather
At least he now has a DPS record that can be used against him if he tries this again. However, attempting to injure star players with a slew foot appears to be the Kings go to move when losing
TheNumber4
Registered User
- Nov 11, 2011
- 48,452
- 60,088
Thank god the NHL even looked at it. Credibility +1 to the League on this one.
Missing smitty
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2018
- 1,811
- 1,952
The back up was the reason they went to the finals. Skinner at his best Paris like this, he needs someone pushing him to keep him honest.
bellagiobob
Registered User
- Jul 27, 2006
- 25,077
- 62,039
LA has it down to a science. They will just rotate the next guy to do the slewfooting. Nothing to see here from the leagues standpoint.
Ad
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Australian Open - Women Jule Niemeier vs Marta KostyukWagers: 3Staked: $455.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Australian Open - Men Casper Ruud vs Jakub MensikWagers: 4Staked: $36,210.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
Australian Open - Men Jack Draper vs Thanasi KokkinakisWagers: 2Staked: $300.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
AFC Semifinal Houston Texans @ Kansas City ChiefsWagers: 2Staked: $5,440.00Event closes - 4 days from now- Updated:
-
