[Game Takes] Islanders 5 Flames 2

[Bingo]

Islanders 5 Flames 2

- all kinds of shots and shot attempts
- however not that dangerous five on five
- 18-11 scoring chance edge suggests Gibson was the difference.

[LChoy]

Just want to mention I really like the bullet point preview to your Game Takes. Great 2 second review to the game, and then I can find out more by reading the take itself.

LChoy

[Gaskal]

Bingo, do you believe there is any value in adding another filter to the data to fine-tune the definition of what is a “high danger scoring chance”, to paint a clearer picture? Just like in 2014-15, we looked much better on Fenwick than Corsi due to Hartley’s collapse to the net style.

Someone made a post this weekend on how HDSC% wasn’t the strongest correlator with that of goals for. War-on-ice’s definition lists one problem here. I think if you changed the definition it could be a much more reliable metric.

http://blog.war-on-ice.com/index.htm...512.html#ref-2

Blocked shots pose an extra problem: they’re shots that have been recorded at the point at which they’ve been blocked, and are also more likely to be shots of less quality and speed by nature of their blocking.

War On Ice takes into account whether the chance is a rebound or off the rush, but not whether it challenged the goalie or not. If you factored in the amount of HD scoring chances to actually get on net AND not hit the goalie right in the chest, I’m guessing the Flames would be doing pretty abysmal.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Bingo, do you believe there is any value in adding another filter to the data to fine-tune the definition of what is a “high danger scoring chance”, to paint a clearer picture? Just like in 2014-15, we looked much better on Fenwick than Corsi due to Hartley’s collapse to the net style.

Someone made a post this weekend on how HDSC% wasn’t the strongest correlator with that of goals for. War-on-ice’s definition lists one problem here. I think if you changed the definition it could be a much more reliable metric.

http://blog.war-on-ice.com/index.htm...512.html#ref-2


War On Ice takes into account whether the chance is a rebound or off the rush, but not whether it challenged the goalie or not. If you factored in the amount of HD scoring chances to actually get on net AND not hit the goalie right in the chest, I’m guessing the Flames would be doing pretty abysmal.

Yeah I saw the article on Leafs Nation

War-on-ice no longer exists so you can't go there, but he did summize that scoring chance and not high danger scoring chance is a better predictor of future results.

Unfortunately for Calgary it doesn't change much as they are ranked 3rd league wide in both categories five on five.

HDCF%
1 Dallas
2 Minnesota
3 Calgary
4 Montreal
5 Boston
6 Tampa
7 Jersey
8 Carolina
9 Winnipeg
10 Toronto

SCF%
1. Boston
2. Carolina
3. Calgary
4. Chicago
5. Tampa
6. Montreal
7. Vegas
8. Winnipeg
9. Pittsburgh
10. Dallas

The second list has four non playoff teams, the first three.

Last night the Flames had an 18-11 edge in all situation high danger chances 62%, and 41-23 in scoring chances (66%).

The Flames seem consistent in both stats.

[Flash Walken]

Islanders players who scored and their yearly total in brackets followed by icetime:

Leddy (10) (19:32)
Boychuck (5) (21:05)
Eberle (24) (12:44)
Lee (32, 33) (15:57)

Flames Players who scored with their year total in brackets followed by icetime:

Gaudreau (21) (24:06)
Giordano (13) (25:50)

Story of the season in my opinion.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah I saw the article on Leafs Nation

War-on-ice no longer exists so you can't go there, but he did summize that scoring chance and not high danger scoring chance is a better predictor of future results.

Unfortunately for Calgary it doesn't change much as they are ranked 3rd league wide in both categories five on five.

HDCF%
1 Dallas
2 Minnesota
3 Calgary
4 Montreal
5 Boston
6 Tampa
7 Jersey
8 Carolina
9 Winnipeg
10 Toronto

SCF%
1. Boston
2. Carolina
3. Calgary
4. Chicago
5. Tampa
6. Montreal
7. Vegas
8. Winnipeg
9. Pittsburgh
10. Dallas

The second list has four non playoff teams, the first three.

Last night the Flames had an 18-11 edge in all situation high danger chances 62%, and 41-23 in scoring chances (66%).

The Flames seem consistent in both stats.

So this just boils down to the worst group of "finishers" in hockey essentially?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So this just boils down to the worst group of "finishers" in hockey essentially?

Pretty much.

If you pick CF, SCF, HDCF, shot splits ... Flames look to be a top 5-10 team.

2014-15 they bucked the odds and pissed the analytics community off. This year it's time to pay off their debts.

The 17/18 equivalent of the 14/15 Flames would be the Ducks, Capitals, and Avalanche

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Islanders players who scored and their yearly total in brackets followed by icetime:

Leddy (10) (19:32)
Boychuck (5) (21:05)
Eberle (24) (12:44)
Lee (32, 33) (15:57)

Flames Players who scored with their year total in brackets followed by icetime:

Gaudreau (21) (24:06)
Giordano (13) (25:50)

Story of the season in my opinion.

It's Monday ... I'm not sure I follow your story of the season.

Team is too thin?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It's Monday ... I'm not sure I follow your story of the season.

Team is too thin?

Yeah, flames were hammered by depth of the point producing, goal scoring variety.

Eberle is 6th in icetime for forwards on the islanders this year: 48 points

Ferland is 6th in icetime for forwards on the Flames this year: 36 points. Career year from Ferland to be sure, but that kind of production in your top 6 isn't going to cut it.

Islanders 5/6 for goals have produced 32, Flames 5/6 in goals have produced 25.

Once again, the Flames score 2 goals and lose.

I don't know if it's luck after 70 games now. I think it might be a combination of skill and coaching.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Yeah, flames were hammered by depth of the point producing, goal scoring variety.

Eberle is 6th in icetime for forwards on the islanders this year: 48 points

Ferland is 6th in icetime for forwards on the Flames this year: 36 points. Career year from Ferland to be sure, but that kind of production in your top 6 isn't going to cut it.

Islanders 5/6 for goals have produced 32, Flames 5/6 in goals have produced 25.

Once again, the Flames score 2 goals and lose.

I don't know if it's luck after 70 games now. I think it might be a combination of skill and coaching.

The Islanders bury their scoring chance relative to the Flames.

The Flames have 5 players with 10 % or higher shooting % and the Islanders 12. Nashville 9.


The Flames need to generate twice as many chances to score the same amount of goals.

Maybe the fact that you give up possession when you score a goal is a factor.

There are 14 players with 30 or more goals the lowest shooting % of the 14 is 13%.