You go to evolving hockey to get those score-adjusted all situations xGF%?
I probably should start using those more TBH.
Yeah from evolving.
The stat I think is appropriate here for simplicity and standings-like usage here - but breaking it down into game situations would still be more useful when really trying to look at what's going on with the team.
Yea, I break it down to 6 different things in the division thread (5v5 corsi, 5v5 xGF, PP xGF, PK xGA, team save %, team shooting %) along with NHL rank but even that feels like a ton of work. I really should throw a few bucks down on getting access to more premium content though. I spend enough frigging time on this stuff.
EDIT - I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask this…but hopefully I learn something on the other side.
This is not a snide or sarcastic post, I genuinely want to talk about this stuff.
What does XGF%, or, to be honest, generally all advanced stats, have to do with wins?
I am trying to get into advanced stats, but have a tough time reconciling reading a stat, or a team’s rank in a particular stat, and determining just how that relates to winning percentage.
PIT - 7th in XGF%, yet 25th in Win%.
NYR - 15th in XGF%, yet 5th in Win%.
I love stats as much as the next guy, but I love stats that explain WHY something is the way it is. Plus, if stats can help gain an edge when finding value on, say, ProLine+….
1. Xgf% ignores goaltending completely, which is a huge part of both NYR and PIT discrepancies.
2. All stats - including Wins - are unreliable in the short term. It is very early days yet so I wouldn't put too much confidence in any number yet, including team record.
3. In general in the short term xgf% gives us a better idea of how teams are actually playing on the ice than anything else (goaltending excepted).
Hi Zeke, thank you for replying….
So, is the goal, so to speak, to have the teams’ Win% standings closely parallel the teams’ XGF% rank as time progresses?
And you say that the XGF% ignores goaltending…so, presumably, there are stats that measure relative goaltending results AND these stats are married somewhere in a stat that says “expected wins” or something?
With all the advanced stats out there, I feel like there must be something more reliable than a modified Pythagorean Theorem that would indicate a teams’ expected win%.
I want to believe. =)
If your talking about the Islanders being a strong team, I've got some news for you. They are not. 2nd last in goals scored this year and although their goals against is still low, they average 3 goals against per game.5 Game heater, 1 loss, 4 game heater
Very encouraging stuff. Our biggest problem right now is backup goaltending, Mirtle suggested that maybe if a vet gets waived we can get lucky and claim them. We'll have to play Woll or Hutch against a strong team a few times soon.
Sure, there's plenty of expected wins models out there, and all the models incorporate goaltending.
On this thread though I'm not interested in tracking the prediction models per se. This thread is just tracking what is actually happening this year so far.
But all models said the Leafs would be elite this year, for the record.
They also have been on the road since the season began. I don't think anyone knows what they are yet, regardless it will be a tough game.If your talking about the Islanders being a strong team, I've got some news for you. They are not. 2nd last in goals scored this year and although their goals against is still low, they average 3 goals against per game.
Imagine without that botched B2B followed a day later by Carolina? Throw out those 4 days and the Leafs lead in everything.
4 of last years north teams in the top 11 league wide this year. Yeah, that North division was weak. lol!
3 of the worst bottom 5 teams in the entire league standings Vancouver, Ottawa and Montreal are from the former North, and one of the other bottom 5 teams is the expansion Kraken.
But also 3 in the bottom 5...4 of last years north teams in the top 11 league wide this year. Yeah, that North division was weak. lol!
But also 3 in the bottom 5...