Only Florida has allowed more goals per game than the Flames

[fredr123]

I'm not sold on the quality of scoring chances making a big difference. In the long run, I think it probably evens out. I feel like for every "Grade AAA" chance you see the Flames give up, there's probably just as many softies. Seems like you hear a few times a game that the 'tender would "probably like that one back." Over 82 games it's probably a wash. Over the 28 or so we've had so far this season, it may look skewed in one direction or the other.

Not to mention the fact that judging the quality of a scoring chance is so friggin' subjective it makes whatever data you do collect almost meaningless. Heck, official NHL stats like hits and even shots on goal vary dramatically from one building to the next.

There is a loose collection of unassociated bloggers around the internet that have taken it upon themselves to track scoring chances (much like the spreadsheet linked to above). They all use a relatively standardized definition of a scoring chance to take most of the subjectivity out of it, but you will sometimes see two bloggers disagree over the number of chances when they're both watching the same game.

[l33t_hax0r]

Scoring chances definitely seem too subjective. What I do think would be more objective is to look at data on shot location. I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that shots taken from certain areas of the ice have a better chance of going in (slot vs point).

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by l33t_hax0r

Scoring chances definitely seem too subjective. What I do think would be more objective is to look at data on shot location. I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that shots taken from certain areas of the ice have a better chance of going in (slot vs point).

The people that track scoring chances on the 'net mainly use this definition:

A clear play directed toward the opposing net from a dangerous scoring area - loosely defined as the top of the circle in and inside the faceoff dots (nicknamed the Home Plate), though sometimes slightly more generous than that depending on the amount of immediately-preceding puck movement or screens in front of the net. Blocked shots are generally not included but missed shots are. A player is awarded a scoring chance anytime he is on the ice and someone from either team has a chance to score. He is awarded a "chance for" if someone on his team has a chance to score and a "chance against" if the opposing team has a chance to score.

Intuitively, a weak wrister from the point probably has a lower probability of finding the back of the net than a snapshot from the slot. Of course, we see a buttload of shots from the point get redirected or find their way through a screen. We also see plenty of Flames (and to be fair, other players around the league) get the puck in the slot and shovel it into the goalie's pads or fire a howitzer into the crest on the goalie's chest.

Adding data on shot type and shot location would probably be useful but it is ridiculously difficult to track. Maybe when SportsVU (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...cal-revolution) comes to the NHL that will change. Many fear, however, that NHL teams with this kind of data would keep it close to their vest and not share it though.

[moon]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I'm not sold on the quality of scoring chances making a big difference. In the long run, I think it probably evens out. I feel like for every "Grade AAA" chance you see the Flames give up, there's probably just as many softies. Seems like you hear a few times a game that the 'tender would "probably like that one back." Over 82 games it's probably a wash. Over the 28 or so we've had so far this season, it may look skewed in one direction or the other.

Not to mention the fact that judging the quality of a scoring chance is so friggin' subjective it makes whatever data you do collect almost meaningless. Heck, official NHL stats like hits and even shots on goal vary dramatically from one building to the next.

There is a loose collection of unassociated bloggers around the internet that have taken it upon themselves to track scoring chances (much like the spreadsheet linked to above). They all use a relatively standardized definition of a scoring chance to take most of the subjectivity out of it, but you will sometimes see two bloggers disagree over the number of chances when they're both watching the same game.

I think scoring chances are subjective but goals like in the Dallas game where Morrow is left wide open 3 feet in front of the net twice seems like a fairly obvious easy scoring chance. Consistently leaving guys wide open between the hash marks like in the Dallas and Kings games also seem like easy scoring chances.

Paralex can bury his head in the sand all he wants but the Flames defensemen leave guys wide open in scoring areas way too often and more than I have seen from a team this year or Flames teams the last 4-5 years. I don't have any stats because nobody tracks it but it is fairly obvious if watching this team versus others.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by l33t_hax0r

Scoring chances definitely seem too subjective. What I do think would be more objective is to look at data on shot location. I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that shots taken from certain areas of the ice have a better chance of going in (slot vs point).

No. Consider jamming a rebound into a goalie's pad with Shea Weber manhandling you vs a nice cross crease pass and tap in with Bouwmeester admiring from a distance.

[l33t_hax0r]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

No. Consider jamming a rebound into a goalie's pad with Shea Weber manhandling you vs a nice cross crease pass and tap in with Bouwmeester admiring from a distance.

But that's exactly the point. Weber will put you on your ass so you get one jam at the puck, not 2 or 3. It may show a lot more shot selection from the perimeter and not in front of the net or the slot.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by l33t_hax0r

But that's exactly the point. Weber will put you on your ass so you get one jam at the puck, not 2 or 3. It may show a lot more shot selection from the perimeter and not in front of the net or the slot.

I understand this, and agree, but thought this discussion came from assessing goalie performance based on sv%.

Any goalie playing 26 minutes behind Shea Weber should have a better save percentage than behind Bouwmeester, all else being equal.

[moon]

Originally Posted by l33t_hax0r

But that's exactly the point. Weber will put you on your ass so you get one jam at the puck, not 2 or 3. It may show a lot more shot selection from the perimeter and not in front of the net or the slot.

Hell of a difference between Weber hammering you in the back and the Flames leaving a guy wide open.

[SebC]

According to this article, goaltender skill is about 3x more important to save percentage than shot quality. (Luck is ahead of both.)

[puckluck2]

Someone who's watching this game please explain to me how any of the 4 goals were the fault of Kipper.

Our defensive game is atrocious. If you can't see that then you can't assess hockey games correctly.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Someone who's watching this game please explain to me how any of the 4 goals were the fault of Kipper.

Kipper gets himself into trouble by playing too far out of his net.

Goal #1: Tip took enough speed off and was far enough out that it was saveable.
Goal #2: Probably the highest quality goal of the bunch.
Goal #3: He tried to prevent the pass and failed, leaving the back door wide open. Should've pushed off to try to make the save instead. Still would've been a high quality chance, but he might have saved it.
Goal #4: Playing as far out of his net as he does is why he had no chance.
Goal #5: Butterfly goalie, beaten five-hole.

While none of them are blatantly his fault, he could have saved at least a few of them. Bottom line is when you score 3 goals and limit the opponent to 23 shots, your goalie should at least get you to overtime - particularly if he has a $5.8M cap hit.

[opendoor]

If shot quality played as large a role as people are suggesting, you'd expect to ES SV% to vary dramatically when goalies change teams but that simply hasn't proven to be the case. It plays a role, but one article I read showed that based on a decade or so of data, goalies who changed teams saw an average change of only 2 ES GA over a full season one way or the other.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by opendoor

If shot quality played as large a role as people are suggesting, you'd expect to ES SV% to vary dramatically when goalies change teams but that simply hasn't proven to be the case. It plays a role, but one article I read showed that based on a decade or so of data, goalies who changed teams saw an average change of only 2 ES GA over a full season one way or the other.

That's really odd. You'd think ES SV% would persist, rather than ES GA.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by SebC

Kipper gets himself into trouble by playing too far out of his net.

Goal #1: Tip took enough speed off and was far enough out that it was saveable.
Goal #2: Probably the highest quality goal of the bunch.
Goal #3: He tried to prevent the pass and failed, leaving the back door wide open. Should've pushed off to try to make the save instead. Still would've been a high quality chance, but he might have saved it.
Goal #4: Playing as far out of his net as he does is why he had no chance.
Goal #5: Butterfly goalie, beaten five-hole.

While none of them are blatantly his fault, he could have saved at least a few of them. Bottom line is when you score 3 goals and limit the opponent to 23 shots, your goalie should at least get you to overtime - particularly if he has a $5.8M cap hit.

Oh man you're a real piece of work SebC. Every shot is saveable amiright?

Thought I'd check out your post to see if you were still up to your usual schtick and I it appears you are.

Why blame leaving guys wide open in the slot, or turnovers, when you can just blame the goalie on every goal amiright?

I guess you just see the game in a different way from most of us. A special way.

PS just because they show highlights in slow motion doesn't mean that a tip slowed down a puck enough that the goalie should have saved it. Goalies are usually in motion before the tip and can't make big adjustments with microseconds to work with.

Blaming Kipper for most of those would show a complete lack of understanding the game IMO.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by opendoor

If shot quality played as large a role as people are suggesting, you'd expect to ES SV% to vary dramatically when goalies change teams but that simply hasn't proven to be the case. It plays a role, but one article I read showed that based on a decade or so of data, goalies who changed teams saw an average change of only 2 ES GA over a full season one way or the other.

I would love to see that article.

Why the sudden change in Bryzgalov's game? Did he really get that bad that fast? or did Phoenix play a better defensive game?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I guess you just see the game in a different way from most of us. A special way.

Yeah, and my way is supported by stats.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by SebC

Kipper gets himself into trouble by playing too far out of his net.

Goal #1: Tip took enough speed off and was far enough out that it was saveable.
Goal #2: Probably the highest quality goal of the bunch.
Goal #3: He tried to prevent the pass and failed, leaving the back door wide open. Should've pushed off to try to make the save instead. Still would've been a high quality chance, but he might have saved it.
Goal #4: Playing as far out of his net as he does is why he had no chance.
Goal #5: Butterfly goalie, beaten five-hole.

While none of them are blatantly his fault, he could have saved at least a few of them. Bottom line is when you score 3 goals and limit the opponent to 23 shots, your goalie should at least get you to overtime - particularly if he has a $5.8M cap hit.

Goal #3 - There is a Nashville player driving the middle lane and you think he should push off to the far post to cover the backdoor play? haha, that goal is entirely on Bouw and Cammy not communicating. Cammy takes the backdoor guy there on any team that communicates

Goal #4 - No goalie plays point shots deep in their net, basic physics should tell someone that. He sure was far out of his net on that one though, he was still in the blue paint

Goal #5 - You are just wrong on this one

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by SebC

Yeah, and my way is supported by stats.

Yep and some of the people who disagree with you are supported by reality. You know watching the game and realizing that the wide open guy in front of the net will probably score.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by SebC

Yeah, and my way is supported by stats.

Your way is supported by absolutely nothing. Your goal by goal analysis would make Helen Keller cry. I love the one where he should have pushed back post and left the guy in the slot or one of the two Flames players attempting to cover the guy in the slot open to tip it into the empty net. That, along with Kipper being in the blue paint yet still playing a point shot from too far out were my favourite two pieces of goaltending analysis.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Goal #3 - There is a Nashville player driving the middle lane and you think he should push off to the far post to cover the backdoor play? haha, that goal is entirely on Bouw and Cammy not communicating. Cammy takes the backdoor guy there on any team that communicates

Goal #4 - No goalie plays point shots deep in their net, basic physics should tell someone that. He sure was far out of his net on that one though, he was still in the blue paint

Goal #5 - You are just wrong on this one

#3 On that play he did the absolute worst thing possible - he commited to intercepting the pass and failed.
He absolutely should have tried to block the shot after the pass, instead of trying to block the pass itself.

#4 That's conventional wisdom, but there's physics and game theory arguments in favour of playing deeper too. Physics: playing deeper gives you more time to react to the shot, to tips, and to deflections. You're in better position if the angle the shot comes from changes quickly, which is exactly what happened on that goal (and several near misses). The game theory argument is that you want to minimize the success rate of your opponent's highest percentage play, that is if you leave the back door open, it doesn't matter how much you've improved your chance if they don't go back door because they will. For what's it's worth, Luongo's goalie coach, Roland Melanson, pushed him to play a deeper style back in 2010, so it's not just me who thinks playing too far out can be a bad thing.