[Game Takes] Avalanche 4 Flames 1

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Your lick of data isn't any more valuable than someone watching Markstrom and saying he should have stopped that puck on say Mackinnon last night.

Means nothing.

60 games of data collected independently from sources that have objective events and areas of the ice is data.

Bingo, please. Come on, man.

It’s pretty easy to tell if a puck hits the pad of a goalie on the ice, or in the logo, vs. a shot that is roofed on a breakaway

It’s kind of silly to pretend that it’s not

Even you agree they aren’t measuring the things I am talking about, for goodness sake.

[Finger Cookin]

Without being familiar with the stats, or how they're compiled, it seems that a lot of the problem has been that the defence and goaltending has never seemed to be in sync most of the season, which seems like a smaller issue of the whole team not being in sync. If the defense plays solid, the goalies let in softies. If the goalie is playing well, they have to make a lot of spectacular saves and understandably can't make all of them. If the defense and goaltending both perform well on a given night, the offense can't finish. Or the special teams let them down. Or there's a bad line change.

I can't imagine how frustrating this season has been for the players.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Moneypuck shows them as 10th. They are only 6 goals against off from the model too

Doesn’t fit the narrative that the goalies are league worst, does it?

There's a been a huge discrepancy between Moneypuck and NaturalStatTrick all season which I've brought up numerous times.

On moneypuck they're actually 6th best in xGA per game, which is more in line with the all situations xGA60 of NaturalStatTrick.

Actual goals against they're ranked 15th

So you're saying two websites that have the Flames near the top of what they give up don't have a goaltending issue with a team save percentage ranked 29th?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Bingo, please. Come on, man.

It’s pretty easy to tell if a puck hits the pad of a goalie on the ice, or in the logo, vs. a shot that is roofed on a breakaway

It’s kind of silly to pretend that it’s not

Even you agree they aren’t measuring the things I am talking about, for goodness sake.

Jesus ...

Starting to think I'm being spoofed.

My point is that it's not statistically relevant to say you're watching and therefore we should all trust you.

And my point was that referring to goals you think Markstrom should have had isn't proof that it's all his fault either. They are single instances that aren't run against the entire league for a huge amount of games to land at any real conclusions.

Glad to see you're running into more than just me being dismissive.

[NegativeSpace]

So they need to win three out of four for the rest of the way. Yeah, I think that they are done. They basically need to rattle off an eight or nine game win streak to even get close to that range.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Jesus ...

Starting to think I'm being spoofed.

My point is that it's not statistically relevant to say you're watching and therefore we should all trust you.

And my point was that referring to goals you think Markstrom should have had isn't proof that it's all his fault either. They are single instances that aren't run against the entire league for a huge amount of games to land at any real conclusions.

Glad to see you're running into more than just me being dismissive.

I am not just saying “I’m watching, trust me”

I’m saying, many games I observe that
- 1. the Flames are outshooting their opponents. (We can agree on any given night because the NHL measures it)
- 2. the Flames are taking a lot of shots that are easy to stop. (You disagree somewhat, citing quantities of x danger chances, so I tell you in this game in detail specifically how Georgiev saved every shot, which factors in unmeasured but practically important shot placement)
- 3. they have costly turnovers and breakdowns and are allowing more shots that are harder to stop. (For this game, I discussed the goals allowed, plus itemized some other saves Marky made that required more movement beyond basic positioning than Georgiev had to make. Big discrepancy)

The xGF and xGA splits really did not reflect the relative work required by the goalies last night

This happens a lot. And last night, each of these was particularly and observably true. (You didn’t even take issue with the GA, though you thought they had more better chances than I thought.)

If it was an outlier, great. We would all be happier because team would win more

I’m not making outrageous claims, or anything.

I’m telling you how I hypothesize the on ice events, and details which are not measured, are impacting the outcomes. The models suggest the Flames should be doing better.

We both can agree they are disappointing. You say the goalies are bad. I’m saying the models are missing something else that matters.

Then I’m observing the events and lo and behold, they support my view

I don’t know why this is so contentious.

I am not going to accept the simple conclusion that both goalies stink. I think the team is underachieving, largely due to its mistakes.

The Flames play a style that places them on the extremes of shots for and against. Why is it implausible that they may have somewhat different outcomes than the model would predict?

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I get it, I’ve heard that argument before. But I disagree.

I don’t disagree that Marky has let in some stinkers, either. Heck, I’m not in line with his rebound control and his post save recovery far too often.

But your point is why I went ahead and described every shot they took.

The Flames outshot the Avs, and all stats favoured them. But the goalies were asked to play two very different games.

As pointed out in great detail, Georgiev saved a lot by having his pads on the ice and/or simply being square to the shot. No equivalent to the Mackinnon or Malgin breakaways, except for when Mang missed the net.

Even Bingo’s description of the goals Marky allowed acknowledged they weren’t really on him. But there’s the fatigue because of the overall GA and first 2 shots

Like I said, the Flames first shot comparable to the Avs first 2 was their 21st shot. That is not good.

A lot of people last night said the Flames had a lot of good chances. The stats supported. Buy a close look at Georgiev’s body of work shows he had a routine night

Many nights, we have seen the same thing. 10 bellers our way, and a guy ‘just getting the job done’ down there. It’s not coincidence.

I do watch more than Flames hockey, and respectfully do see it differently.

I really think the Gs are getting a raw deal in terms of their perception

You referenced Moneypuck to say the Flames are getting average goaltending. I merely used the exact same site and pulled Markstrom's performance which says he has been very bad relative to other starting goalies. You can't use those stats when they support your narrative, and then ignore them when they don't.

You seem to think MacKinnon in the slot is unstoppable, or a shot through traffic is unstoppable. I think these are only standing out to you because they result in goals against the Flames far more than other teams. Which is a position aligned with the analytics.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I am not just saying “I’m watching, trust me”

I’m saying, many games I observe that
- 1. the Flames are outshooting their opponents. (We can agree on any given night because the NHL measures it)
- 2. the Flames are taking a lot of shots that are easy to stop. (You disagree somewhat, citing quantities of x danger chances, so I tell you in this game in detail specifically how Georgiev saved every shot, which factors in unmeasured but practically important shot placement)
- 3. they have costly turnovers and breakdowns and are allowing more shots that are harder to stop. (For this game, I discussed the goals allowed, plus itemized some other saves Marky made that required more movement beyond basic positioning than Georgiev had to make. Big discrepancy)

The xGF and xGA splits really did not reflect the relative work required by the goalies last night

This happens a lot. And last night, each of these was particularly and observably true. (You didn’t even take issue with the GA, though you thought they had more better chances than I thought.)

If it was an outlier, great. We would all be happier because team would win more

I’m not making outrageous claims, or anything.

I’m telling you how I hypothesize the on ice events, and details which are not measured, are impacting the outcomes. The models suggest the Flames should be doing better.

We both can agree they are disappointing. You say the goalies are bad. I’m saying the models are missing something else that matters.

Then I’m observing the events and lo and behold, they support my view

I don’t know why this is so contentious.

I am not going to accept the simple conclusion that both goalies stink. I think the team is underachieving, largely due to its mistakes.

The Flames play a style that places them on the extremes of shots for and against. Why is it implausible that they may have somewhat different outcomes than the model would predict?

Well you've got yourself convinced!

I've honestly never had a discussion with a person that uses themselves as a source as much as you.

It's shocking to me.

The Flames goaltending is near league worst at medium danger chances, not high.

So even IF the Flames were giving up ten bell chances more than other teams that would be reflected in the high danger more than the medium.

They play the same system, they have the same coach, they have the same goalies. Last year they had very good goaltending. This year they don't.

Every stat supports that.

You have a goalie issue every single season.

Why can't you see yourself in this?

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by NegativeSpace

So they need to win three out of four for the rest of the way. Yeah, I think that they are done. They basically need to rattle off an eight or nine game win streak to even get close to that range.

Playoffs suck without the Flames.

Even if we exit round 1 it’s fun to be part of the media hype, intensity etc.

When you miss the season seems like such a waste.

At least the bottom feeders have the draft to look forward to.

So very frustrating to be a fan.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well you've got yourself convinced!

I've honestly never had a discussion with a person that uses themselves as a source as much as you.

It's shocking to me.

The Flames goaltending is near league worst at medium danger chances, not high.

So even IF the Flames were giving up ten bell chances more than other teams that would be reflected in the high danger more than the medium.

They play the same system, they have the same coach, they have the same goalies. Last year they had very good goaltending. This year they don't.

Every stat supports that.

You have a goalie issue every single season.

Why can't you see yourself in this?

You really don’t get it? Your model’s classification of high and medium danger don’t reflect anything in terms of shot placement. That’s the point

I’m saying the Flames are in fact doing something different, and it’s not the number of chances that go in to the high danger bucket, it’s the number of chances that afford the shooter time and space to place their shots

Even outlined the shots for the team, shot by shot, a whole game to illustrate it.

The Flames aren’t taking the extra time to aim, they are deliberately dumping anything towards net. Their mistakes are turnovers that seem to see the opposing team have a few extra nice unpressured looks a game

I dunno. I really don’t see how you can’t see the difference. Even when spelled out shot by shot.

Maybe you didn’t watch the game?

[Strange Brew]

So what’s the consensus on the price for Talbot? Cuz now I think I want to see it just to show what the team looks like with decent goaltending.

You won’t find anyone that thinks the current high danger models are perfect. But what they are measuring matches what I see in terms of the Flames goaltending performance.

With all the tracker technology measuring how fast the puck is moving and how far/fast guys are skating, it shouldn’t be long before we see models showing speed, placement, timing, prior puck movement etc. of shots faced.

[Burning Beard]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So what’s the consensus on the price for Talbot? Cuz now I think I want to see it just to show what the team looks like with decent goaltending.

You won’t find anyone that thinks the current high danger models are perfect. But what they are measuring matches what I see in terms of the Flames goaltending performance.

With all the tracker technology measuring how fast the puck is moving and how far/fast guys are skating, it shouldn’t be long before we see models showing speed, placement, timing, prior puck movement etc. of shots faced.

I agree. I've been saying I want to see this team with even average goaltending before its blown up.

[GullFoss]

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So what’s the consensus on the price for Talbot? Cuz now I think I want to see it just to show what the team looks like with decent goaltending.

You won’t find anyone that thinks the current high danger models are perfect. But what they are measuring matches what I see in terms of the Flames goaltending performance.

With all the tracker technology measuring how fast the puck is moving and how far/fast guys are skating, it shouldn’t be long before we see models showing speed, placement, timing, prior puck movement etc. of shots faced.

They aren’t perfect. I generally trust them but this year it just seems to me that they are a little exaggerated for both the Flames shooters (as in I just don’t see the number of actual great scoring chances that the stats tell me happened) and a little penalizing for both of the goalies (in that for some reason the shots are unusually grade A chances, usually including the name of the shooter).

In other words, Flames shooters are shooting from high danger areas but to me a lot of the time they turn them into routine saves by failing to make goalies work.

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ It’s kind of that simple

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

You really don’t get it? Your model’s classification of high and medium danger don’t reflect anything in terms of shot placement. That’s the point

I’m saying the Flames are in fact doing something different, and it’s not the number of chances that go in to the high danger bucket, it’s the number of chances that afford the shooter time and space to place their shots

Even outlined the shots for the team, shot by shot, a whole game to illustrate it.

The Flames aren’t taking the extra time to aim, they are deliberately dumping anything towards net. Their mistakes are turnovers that seem to see the opposing team have a few extra nice unpressured looks a game

I dunno. I really don’t see how you can’t see the difference. Even when spelled out shot by shot.

Maybe you didn’t watch the game?

I don't get it? Maybe I didn't watch the game?

Maybe you're being an ass?

It's one game. I'm not disagreeing on one game. In the game story I said it wasn't really on Markstrom and he played pretty well after giving up the first two shots.

But one game doesn't prove an entire event counting system is flawed for one goalie and one team only. It just doesn't.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

^ It’s kind of that simple

Well, I dunno. It just is what seems weird to me about this season. I don't want to come across as anti-stats. I think they are usually, acorss a season, very useful and reflective of what went on.

I do think this is a tough position to quantify because goals are magnified, saves tend to be forgotten, and there's simply no way to adjust for a shot from the same position being taken by Nathan Mackinnon versus Brett Ritchie.

[Enoch Root]

It was one game - too small a sample size to dismiss the value or accuracy of the stats - just as any one game is too small of a sample size to say that .875 GAA is meaningful.

However, when you collect all the games and stats, those numbers do become meaningful.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It was one game - too small a sample size to dismiss the value or accuracy of the stats - just as any one game is too small of a sample size to say that .875 GAA is meaningful.

However, when you collect all the games and stats, those numbers do become meaningful.

And I suppose the overall trend would be that better players get better chances as well.

The issue I suppose us what the stats say should be done as opposed to what happened. Say the Flames have lots of high danger chances but they are not scoring. Keep up the same play? Or try something different with those HDCs?

My eye says the Flames are turning a lof of HDCs into easy saves, but that's maybe my confirmation bias.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

And I suppose the overall trend would be that better players get better chances as well.

The issue I suppose us what the stats say should be done as opposed to what happened. Say the Flames have lots of high danger chances but they are not scoring. Keep up the same play? Or try something different with those HDCs?

My eye says the Flames are turning a lof of HDCs into easy saves, but that's maybe my confirmation bias.

What you do with a change is certainly talent, and the Flames have a drop in talent up front this season for sure.

Defensively it's the same goaltenders, and an improved top four with more strength up the middle.

By metrics year over year it's xGA60 2.37 vs 2.29 last year, and they're giving up about 1 high danger chance per 60 minutes of five on five play more.

Hard to absolve goaltending given all that.