[Game Takes] Avalanche 6 Flames 5

[Bingo]

Avalanche 6 Flames 5

- Flames blow 5-3 third period lead
- Vladar great in the first, but gives up 6 on the night
- Kadri, Zary and Coleman continue hot hand
- Tanev hurt 15 seconds in

[Don Benji]

Appreciate your game takes. Thanks.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Nice write up, agree on all points. Zary is a beauty

Some horrendous puck watching by the D, letting Avs sneak in to the slot for some grade A’s

Winnable game except for their hideous breakdowns and a bad bounce or two

Losing Tanev hurt

[Samonadreau]

Bread's best game of the year.

[Kidder]

Agreed with your take that Gilbert had a really strong game and looked good with the elevated minutes.

[The Cobra]

I find some inconsistency in your report.

You spend a lot of time praising Zary, then mention his xGF% is in the 30%.

You conclude that Vladar had a good game , but his expected goals against was about 3, so he was actually -3 on the night.

I think on goaltenders we tend not to blame them when a goal is scored on a high danger chance, especially a breakaway. But in reality, even a breakaway should be stopped about 70% of the time looking at shoot out goals.

Both goaltenders were very poor last night, I think the difference was simply the skill of the AV players.

[Flamesfan05]

I thought Andersson and Hanifin was horrible defensively

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I find some inconsistency in your report.

You spend a lot of time praising Zary, then mention his xGF% is in the 30%.

You conclude that Vladar had a good game , but his expected goals against was about 3, so he was actually -3 on the night.

I think on goaltenders we tend not to blame them when a goal is scored on a high danger chance, especially a breakaway. But in reality, even a breakaway should be stopped about 70% of the time looking at shoot out goals.

Both goaltenders were very poor last night, I think the difference was simply the skill of the AV players.

Eye test vs advanced stats. Somewhere in between is the real answer.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I find some inconsistency in your report.

You spend a lot of time praising Zary, then mention his xGF% is in the 30%.

You conclude that Vladar had a good game , but his expected goals against was about 3, so he was actually -3 on the night.

I think on goaltenders we tend not to blame them when a goal is scored on a high danger chance, especially a breakaway. But in reality, even a breakaway should be stopped about 70% of the time looking at shoot out goals.

Both goaltenders were very poor last night, I think the difference was simply the skill of the AV players.

I think hockey is an inconsistent sport!

The goaltending thing has been that way all season ... low save percentages in games where you think the guy played quite well. But didn't I allude to all that?

Great in the first.
Played well for the most part.
But still 6 goals against.

With Zary ... I was talking more in general. Love his patience in moving pucks. But for sure his line was out there for the two third period goals that tied things up.

Luckily Zary isn't a 30% player most nights, fitting my narrative.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I find some inconsistency in your report.

You spend a lot of time praising Zary, then mention his xGF% is in the 30%.

You conclude that Vladar had a good game , but his expected goals against was about 3, so he was actually -3 on the night.

I think on goaltenders we tend not to blame them when a goal is scored on a high danger chance, especially a breakaway. But in reality, even a breakaway should be stopped about 70% of the time looking at shoot out goals.

Both goaltenders were very poor last night, I think the difference was simply the skill of the AV players.

I am curious what in-game breakaway success rate is v. shootout success rate. It seems to me that players score at a higher precent on breakaways that happen in the flow of the game v. shootouts. But I can't seem to find the stat anywhere.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I find some inconsistency in your report.

You spend a lot of time praising Zary, then mention his xGF% is in the 30%.

You conclude that Vladar had a good game , but his expected goals against was about 3, so he was actually -3 on the night.

I think on goaltenders we tend not to blame them when a goal is scored on a high danger chance, especially a breakaway. But in reality, even a breakaway should be stopped about 70% of the time looking at shoot out goals.

Both goaltenders were very poor last night, I think the difference was simply the skill of the AV players.

Here’s the deal with xG

xG is basically looking at every shot, taking its location, shot type, and depending on the model, some other events.

Then it calculates an xG for that shot, by basically saying that shot has the same probability of going in as the average shot, from the average shooter, that meets the same descriptive criteria, within the data set

You correctly note that breakaways are stopped ~ say 70 percent of the time, based on shootouts (ignoring that there is no back pressure on shootouts). But just think about when you watch a guy in a shootout put the puck into the goalie’s pad because he can’t elevate, or just puts it in to the goalie’s logo. Both of those shots have the same ~30% xG then, as the shootout attempts that are elevated over the pad, or sniped top corner. They get lumped in to that bucket of shots that fit the description.



Goalies stop about ~90 percent of all shots, and say 70 percent of breakaways.

xG models simply try to divide those shots into basic groups of higher and lower probability shots, based on some pretty basic differences. So breakaways are more likely to go in than the average shot

Obviously any single breakaway shot where the shooter puts it in a logo has no real life expectation of going in, but (using your 70 percent number) still has a xG of ~0.3. So the goalie’s GSAx changes by +0.3 on that poorly shot puck. If the guy undresses him, his GSAx changes by -0.7


The goalie covers about what, 75-85 percent of the net if they’re in good position? Lots of shooters simply hit the goalie with their shot. Goalie doesn’t have to do anything other than be there, and it’s a data point. xG ranges are based on large data sets, and have zero to do with where the puck is aimed

So Makar’s one timer blast placed perfectly inside the post has xG based on many shots, and the xG for that shot is tempered by the numerous other one timers that are blasted into the goalie, because they fit the same basic criteria.

MacKinnon’s breakaway dinged the GSAx by probably ~-0.7

Understand its applicability and its limitations and then you will be able to evaluate it appropriately

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I am curious what in-game breakaway success rate is v. shootout success rate. It seems to me that players score at a higher precent on breakaways that happen in the flow of the game v. shootouts. But I can't seem to find the stat anywhere.

I do know this. I'd much rather watch a full speed breakaway with a guy being chased down that the dipsy doodle, slo mo trick shot shootout.

Forget that it's a silly way to decide a game, I just find shootout attempts embarrassing to watch at this point.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I am curious what in-game breakaway success rate is v. shootout success rate. It seems to me that players score at a higher precent on breakaways that happen in the flow of the game v. shootouts. But I can't seem to find the stat anywhere.

Found this:

Within the breakaway category are three types that goalies face. “There’s the full breakaway that happens from the red line in,” Valiquette said on this week’s episode of The Garden Faithful. “The partial breakaway, which is typically off a turnover or breakdown, and that happens from the top of the circles. A little bit more of an element of surprise for goalies. Then the third type is a half-ice partial breakaway, when your teammate is tracking back through the middle of the ice. So your defenseman is not allowing the puck carrier to have access to the other side of the ice. It’s really a clear read for the goalie, one on one. There is room for the puck carrier but he will not be able to cross the ice.”

According to the Clear Sight data from the entire league last season, full breakaways were successful 31 percent of the time. Partial breakaways were at 25.6 percent and half-ice partials were 18.2 percent — anything below a 20 percent success rate is deemed a mid-danger scoring chance, where the first two are high-danger based on the data.

From here - https://theathletic.com/3644101/2022...ves-analytics/

[PeteMoss]

Looks like shoot-outs are being scored at 29.5% this year. Flames are at 16.7% (outside of Sharangovich - they are 0-9)

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by MrMike

Eye test vs advanced stats. Somewhere in between is the real answer.

When a player has a breakaway and puts it in to the goalie’s logo, the eye test tells you it was not a good shot and wasn’t going in. The xG model gives it a percentage probability based on all similar shots within the data set no matter where the shot is placed (so 18-29 percent chance based on Clearsight data quoted above)


The eye test can be very good for individual events but it does something very different than advanced stats

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think hockey is an inconsistent sport!

The goaltending thing has been that way all season ... low save percentages in games where you think the guy played quite well. But didn't I allude to all that?

Great in the first.
Played well for the most part.
But still 6 goals against.

With Zary ... I was talking more in general. Love his patience in moving pucks. But for sure his line was out there for the two third period goals that tied things up.

Luckily Zary isn't a 30% player most nights, fitting my narrative.

The bad cross-ice giveaway at his own blue line was a rare mistake that led to a goal against; a rarity which is pretty uncommon for a player with as little experience as he has. His poise and puck management have been an unexpected surprise.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I am curious what in-game breakaway success rate is v. shootout success rate. It seems to me that players score at a higher precent on breakaways that happen in the flow of the game v. shootouts. But I can't seem to find the stat anywhere.

I'm not sure that's the case, but they are completely different animals, which makes comparison hard. No breakaway occurs at less than close to full speed. Some are pressure, some are forced at a particular angle, some even have a passing option. And of course, lots of breakaways go to players who are not exactly top of the list on shootouts. How many breakaways has Coleman (eg on the PK) had versus shootout attempts?

[Teroy]

The game last night was listed on all the Sportsnet channels. I recorded it on the logical channel, Sportsnet Pacific as I live in BC. Surprise, surprise; when I turn it on to watch, I don't get the Flames till there's only 1 minute left in the 1st. The powers that be obviously think we'd rather watch the Leafs and highlights. Fours channels and no consideration of the fans who don't give a poop about Tavares and his 1000th. I haven't been able to bitch to them as I can't find an email address. Hopefully someone from there follows this blog and realizes how p**sed some of us are with their pathetic programming.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Teroy

The game last night was listed on all the Sportsnet channels. I recorded it on the logical channel, Sportsnet Pacific as I live in BC. Surprise, surprise; when I turn it on to watch, I don't get the Flames till there's only 1 minute left in the 1st. The powers that be obviously think we'd rather watch the Leafs and highlights. Fours channels and no consideration of the fans who don't give a poop about Tavares and his 1000th. I haven't been able to bitch to them as I can't find an email address. Hopefully someone from there follows this blog and realizes how p**sed some of us are with their pathetic programming.

You're best off using social media to get through to them. If you are able to find an email address, chances are no one is monitoring or, if someone is monitoring it, they won't reply. I stopped using their streaming service once I realized there was no one on the other end when I had an issue and sent them an email to their one and only tech support option.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Here’s the deal with xG

xG is basically looking at every shot, taking its location, shot type, and depending on the model, some other events.

Then it calculates an xG for that shot, by basically saying that shot has the same probability of going in as the average shot, from the average shooter, that meets the same descriptive criteria, within the data set

You correctly note that breakaways are stopped ~ say 70 percent of the time, based on shootouts (ignoring that there is no back pressure on shootouts). But just think about when you watch a guy in a shootout put the puck into the goalie’s pad because he can’t elevate, or just puts it in to the goalie’s logo. Both of those shots have the same ~30% xG then, as the shootout attempts that are elevated over the pad, or sniped top corner. They get lumped in to that bucket of shots that fit the description.



Goalies stop about ~90 percent of all shots, and say 70 percent of breakaways.

xG models simply try to divide those shots into basic groups of higher and lower probability shots, based on some pretty basic differences. So breakaways are more likely to go in than the average shot

Obviously any single breakaway shot where the shooter puts it in a logo has no real life expectation of going in, but (using your 70 percent number) still has a xG of ~0.3. So the goalie’s GSAx changes by +0.3 on that poorly shot puck. If the guy undresses him, his GSAx changes by -0.7


The goalie covers about what, 75-85 percent of the net if they’re in good position? Lots of shooters simply hit the goalie with their shot. Goalie doesn’t have to do anything other than be there, and it’s a data point. xG ranges are based on large data sets, and have zero to do with where the puck is aimed

So Makar’s one timer blast placed perfectly inside the post has xG based on many shots, and the xG for that shot is tempered by the numerous other one timers that are blasted into the goalie, because they fit the same basic criteria.

MacKinnon’s breakaway dinged the GSAx by probably ~-0.7

Understand its applicability and its limitations and then you will be able to evaluate it appropriately

Exactly (the whole post), but I'll focus on the Makar shot as an example.

As you say, the Makar shot, being a one timer from the top of the slot, probably has a 10-15% chance of scoring. But he made a perfect shot, which is going to beat any goalie. None the less, xGA says that the goalie failed by .8% (or whatever the actual percentage was).

In the aggregate (i.e. over many games) these things should balance out, but in a single game, they do not - JUST LIKE SAVE PERCENTAGE.

When a puck is tipped, it probably has a 5% chance of going in (or whatever the number is), but a perfect tip leaves the goalie with no chance. If there are a couple perfect tips or lucky bounces in a game, the goalie is going to be under water, vs their xGA. In the exact same way that they will be under water vs shot attempts on some nights.

People put way too much value in these stats.