Series Talk: - WCQF Dallas Stars (C2) vs Colorado Avalanche (C3) | Stars win 4-3 | Page 15 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League

Series Talk: WCQF Dallas Stars (C2) vs Colorado Avalanche (C3) | Stars win 4-3

Who Wins the Series?

  • DAL in 4

    Votes: 5 3.2%
  • DAL in 5

    Votes: 5 3.2%
  • DAL in 6

    Votes: 7 4.5%
  • DAL in 7

    Votes: 3 1.9%
  • COL in 4

    Votes: 8 5.1%
  • COL in 5

    Votes: 34 21.7%
  • COL in 6

    Votes: 81 51.6%
  • COL in 7

    Votes: 14 8.9%

  • Total voters
    157
  • Poll closed .
Out of Curiousity, Which players provided the best and worst value relative to their contracts this season—strictly based on on-ice performance?
Don’t worry about injuries or missed games; just focus on whether a player, when in the lineup, on average performed above or below what they’re being paid.
Bonus points if you can provide rough value estimates based on performance vs. cap hit.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: RoyIsALegend
I imagine those odds take into account matchups, too, and no doubt the Golden Knights have an easier looking first two rounds.
Moneypuck is looking at a large number of stats and is running a simulator 100 000 times to come up with those %. Getting an easier path to the cup improves your chance to win the cup once you get there. Fresher legs, fewer injuries, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dahrougem2
Moneypuck is looking at a large number of stats and is running a simulator 100 000 times to come up with those %. Getting an easier path to the cup improves your chance to win the cup once you get there. Fresher legs, fewer injuries, etc.

Are we sure Moneypuck isn't a totally inaccurate gimmick?

The Deserve To Win meter for instance, all the data used should be constant on older games, and they say they run 1000 sims, but when I refresh the page for games, I get a wide variance in results.

I ran it 10 times for Game 5 vs the Stars and got a 6.4% variance. That feels like too much to put much stock into it.

67.5%, 72.8%, 68.3%, 71.8%, 72.6%, 73.5%, 73.9%, 70.4%, 72.3%, 73.0%

 


were doomed.gif
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Three On Zero
Are we sure Moneypuck isn't a totally inaccurate gimmick?

The Deserve To Win meter for instance, all the data used should be constant on older games, and they say they run 1000 sims, but when I refresh the page for games, I get a wide variance in results.

I ran it 10 times for Game 5 vs the Stars and got a 6.4% variance. That feels like too much to put much stock into it.

67.5%, 72.8%, 68.3%, 71.8%, 72.6%, 73.5%, 73.9%, 70.4%, 72.3%, 73.0%

I've never trusted MoneyPuck, and their win meter has always been a gimmick but it drives all their traffic.

I trust NaturalStatTrick way more.
 
Why do they love the Canes so much?

They always seem to be analytic darlings, and they promoted their analytic guru to GM, but it seems like more of an indictment on overreliance on analytics that anything.

They haven't won a game past the 2nd round since they won the Cup in 05-06.

They've made it to the conference finals three times since then, which is nice, but how impressive is it really when they've been swept all three times?
 
Are we sure Moneypuck isn't a totally inaccurate gimmick?

The Deserve To Win meter for instance, all the data used should be constant on older games, and they say they run 1000 sims, but when I refresh the page for games, I get a wide variance in results.

I ran it 10 times for Game 5 vs the Stars and got a 6.4% variance. That feels like too much to put much stock into it.

67.5%, 72.8%, 68.3%, 71.8%, 72.6%, 73.5%, 73.9%, 70.4%, 72.3%, 73.0%

There's no way to calculate something as complicated as "who deserves to win", not to mention that it's completely subjective. The site does have real stats as well so I wouldn't disregard all of it.
 
Are we sure Moneypuck isn't a totally inaccurate gimmick?

The Deserve To Win meter for instance, all the data used should be constant on older games, and they say they run 1000 sims, but when I refresh the page for games, I get a wide variance in results.

I ran it 10 times for Game 5 vs the Stars and got a 6.4% variance. That feels like too much to put much stock into it.

67.5%, 72.8%, 68.3%, 71.8%, 72.6%, 73.5%, 73.9%, 70.4%, 72.3%, 73.0%

That's an interesting find! Wonder what the average variance is
Just mindboggling that the Stars didn't rest their top guys in a meaningless game. The Avs sat Mack for the last 3, Makar and Toews didn't go on the 2 game Cali trip, and Nuke and Lehk got sat for the Ducks game.
Yeah I'm actually surprised it isn't more commonly accepted. First big one I remember is when Kariya got injured in the last game against Nashville
 
So, losing 7 in a row is a good thing, right? Jesus, what are they doing?!?
And it's not that they are resting players or something like that to explain things.

At this point it would be a pretty huge upset if Dallas wins that series. They are slumping at the worst time possible. Still not sure if i like it or not.
 
Stars were at +409 shot differential at their best in January. Since then they've fallen down to +70. However in goal differential they kept gaining until April, then they went down 16 goals and ultimately ended at +53.

Avs were at +753 shot differential a few games before the end, and they ended at +736. That is 666 shots above the Stars which means we are Satan the lord of darkness. Avs were at their lowest goal differential in Dec 5 at -14 and ended the season at +42.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad