[Game Takes] Wings 5 Flames 2

[Bingo]

Wings 5 Flames 2

- Flames with a solid if unspectacular start Calgary drops it with two 2nd period powerplay goals by the Wings.
- Vladar with a tough night
- Season just keeps on sputtering

[Strange Brew]

I do wonder what Kadri is hearing from the coaches. People want to blame Lucic for slowing down that line and I’m not so sure about that.

[D as in David]

Kadri must have the slowest release in the league on wrist shots.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Kadri had even more offsides than turnovers. Ugly game

[kermitology]

Sutter looks checked out. Disaster season.

[The Cobra]

I don’t get your comment that Vladar was pretty solid when the expected goals against him was 2.35, and he gave up 5.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I don’t get your comment that Vladar was pretty solid when the expected goals against him was 2.35, and he gave up 5.

I thought up to the stinker in the third he had made some good saves but let some tough gets by him.

Typical Flames game.

At that point he was 2.35 expected and 4.00 against, but I didn't think he was particularly awful. Just not as good as the guy at the other end (that Calgary shooters make better on a nightly basis)

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I thought up to the stinker in the third he had made some good saves but let some tough gets by him.

Typical Flames game.

At that point he was 2.35 expected and 4.00 against, but I didn't think he was particularly awful. Just not as good as the guy at the other end (that Calgary shooters make better on a nightly basis)

This is so evident - they are just not dangerous offensively. Just imagine how ineffective they would be during the playoffs when defense gets tighter across all teams.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I thought up to the stinker in the third he had made some good saves but let some tough gets by him.

Typical Flames game.

At that point he was 2.35 expected and 4.00 against, but I didn't think he was particularly awful. Just not as good as the guy at the other end (that Calgary shooters make better on a nightly basis)

At that point he had given up 70% more goals that expected, which ended up being 113%.

If that is not just particularly awful, what is?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

At that point he had given up 70% more goals that expected, which ended up being 113%.

If that is not just particularly awful, what is?

The xGA model is awful as applied to this situation

These things are based on statistics and probabilities

Low shot totals with a high number of dangerous chances is anomalous and the model predicts wrong

I suggest to understand the wagon to which you are attaching your horse

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

The xGA model is awful as applied to this situation

These things are based on statistics and probabilities

Low shot totals with a high number of dangerous chances is anomalous and the model predicts wrong

I suggest to understand the wagon to which you are attaching your horse

Vladar didn't have a great night. He gave up five goals, one very suspect, one somewhat suspect.

Are you debating that?

The average NHL team gives up 12.5 high danger chances a game, the Flames 11 last night.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Vladar didn't have a great night. He gave up five goals, one very suspect, one somewhat suspect.

Are you debating that?

The average NHL team gives up 12.5 high danger chances a game, the Flames 11 last night.

Your game story said we gave up 8 was that an typo?

11 high danger chances on 24 shots is pretty bad considering we had 12 on 35 shots.

Does it mean our zone coverage is bad or are teams doing a getter job a possessing the puck to create better looks and not firing a bunch of volume on net.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Your game story said we gave up 8 was that an typo?

11 high danger chances on 24 shots is pretty bad considering we had 12 on 35 shots.

Does it mean our zone coverage is bad or are teams doing a getter job a possessing the puck to create better looks and not firing a bunch of volume on net.

Just a bad game. Typically it looks like HDSF make up about around 30% of total shots. HDSF makes up less than 30% of our total shots and HDSA makes up less than 30% of our total shots against. So, taking 12/35 is pretty average (good for us) and allowing 11/24 is poor.

That said, the Flames are near the lead for HDSA, total shots allowed, and total shots taken, but are just below average when it comes to HDSF.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Just a bad game. Typically it looks like HDSF make up about around 30% of total shots. HDSF makes up less than 30% of our total shots and HDSA makes up less than 30% of our total shots against. So, taking 12/35 is pretty average (good for us) and allowing 11/24 is poor.

That said, the Flames are near the lead for HDSA, total shots allowed, and total shots taken, but are just below average when it comes to HDSF.

It does seem like the chances we give up seems to big blunders that end up in the back of our net causing a bias maybe just in my case that we give up to much high danger chances.
On the flip side it seems we have to work extra hard to get our chances because the opposition isn't making those errors or if they are we are smoking the post.

Frustrating all around.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Your game story said we gave up 8 was that an typo?

11 high danger chances on 24 shots is pretty bad considering we had 12 on 35 shots.

Does it mean our zone coverage is bad or are teams doing a getter job a possessing the puck to create better looks and not firing a bunch of volume on net.

Eight was five on five ... another three with the Wings on a powerplay.

The Flames are positive ... 12.14/60 to 11.28/60 in all situations, but that's not an elite team. It's 15the overall in splits.

Five on five the Flames are 12th.

You're talking ratios though ... honestly not sure that's an issue. I'm personally more concerned with totals, but I do see that if you take the easy shot more often than not you may not generate as much in high danger, and they don't.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Vladar didn't have a great night. He gave up five goals, one very suspect, one somewhat suspect.

Are you debating that?

The average NHL team gives up 12.5 high danger chances a game, the Flames 11 last night.

No, that wasn’t my point at all

Let me put it this way. I do not believe that any individual event has an xGA of over ~.33.

The probability of a shot being a goal has as much to do with defensive positioning, and where shooters place shots, which are not quantified, as much as where the shot is from, and what type of shot it is, things a model may factor in

So if the only 3 shots taken are the ones resulting in goals 3 and 4, and the one that Stone deflected, the xGA is probably no more than 1.

Very saveable shots contribute a small but non zero xGA.

My point simply was what it was. The guy asked what was awful. I said the xGA model, because it has limitations. Low total shots and high number of actual high danger (and again not ‘high danger’ as models are able to measure) chances are anomalous, and the model which is a simple weighted average comes up lean

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

No, that wasn’t my point at all

Let me put it this way. I do not believe that any individual event has an xGA of over ~.33.

The probability of a shot being a goal has as much to do with defensive positioning, and where shooters place shots, which are not quantified, as much as where the shot is from, and what type of shot it is, things a model may factor in

So if the only 3 shots taken are the ones resulting in goals 3 and 4, and the one that Stone deflected, the xGA is probably no more than 1.

Very saveable shots contribute a small but non zero xGA.

My point simply was what it was. The guy asked what was awful. I said the xGA model, because it has limitations. Low total shots and high number of actual high danger (and again not ‘high danger’ as models are able to measure) chances are anomalous, and the model which is a simple weighted average comes up lean

It can improve for sure, and it will.

But at least it's an even base to compare goalie outcomes, something I've been doing for most games in the last few months since goaltending has become an issue.

Improving the model in the future likely wouldn't change what a poor performance for Vladar though.