[GDT] 2020 WC Play-In Round: Calgary Flames (8) vs. Winnipeg Jets (9) Flames 2-1

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

9 of the top 10 teams in xgf% are still playing. I think that's significant in this argument. Don't you?

You seem pissy about this.

Am I being too hard on the Jets?

LOL at the bolded.

My point was ultimately semantic. If you pick such an obviously cherrypicked number of teams, it makes you look like a cherrypicker, even if the data really IS objectively on the side of the point you're trying to make. That's all.

As for the significance of shot-based stats, meh.

You can just as easily put it this way: the shot-based stats in combination with the standings and goals differential suggest Jets are about as good as us even when they get dominated in shots. That suggests we need to dominate them in shot attempts just to make the series as close as the standings were, and even then we'd be slight underdogs (because of what the goal differential says). Additionally, shot-based stats remain relatively weak predictors especially in small sample sizes.

However since all data is months old anyway, what ever. None of the team stats are super relevant anymore. There's no harm in talking corsi while waiting for the puck to drop.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

LOL at the bolded.

My point was ultimately semantic. If you pick such an obviously cherrypicked number of teams, it makes you look like a cherrypicker, even if the data really IS objectively on the side of the point you're trying to make. That's all.

As for the significance of shot-based stats, meh.

You can just as easily put it this way: the shot-based stats in combination with the standings and goals differential suggest Jets are about as good as us even when they get dominated in shots. That suggests we need to dominate them in shot attempts just to make the series as close as the standings were, and even then we'd be slight underdogs (because of what the goal differential says). Additionally, shot-based stats remain relatively weak predictors especially in small sample sizes.

However since all data is months old anyway, what ever. None of the team stats are super relevant anymore. There's no harm in talking corsi while waiting for the puck to drop.

I'm still going with pissy.

Any one that starts with "a little hint" is talking down to someone. Not a good look.

But you be you.

[BigErnSalute_16]

Originally Posted by Itse

LOL at the bolded.

My point was ultimately semantic. If you pick such an obviously cherrypicked number of teams, it makes you look like a cherrypicker, even if the data really IS objectively on the side of the point you're trying to make. That's all.

As for the significance of shot-based stats, meh.

You can just as easily put it this way: the shot-based stats in combination with the standings and goals differential suggest Jets are about as good as us even when they get dominated in shots. That suggests we need to dominate them in shot attempts just to make the series as close as the standings were, and even then we'd be slight underdogs (because of what the goal differential says). Additionally, shot-based stats remain relatively weak predictors especially in small sample sizes.

However since all data is months old anyway, what ever. None of the team stats are super relevant anymore. There's no harm in talking corsi while waiting for the puck to drop.

He wasn't cherry picking stats just because it wasn't a usual number like top 10, 15, or 20? those are technically just as arbitrary when the point he was making was that LA is the only team with good numbers who aren't living up to potential.

I for one would like to know the exact number when making a point like that as opposed to cutting it off at 10 because that would be a less accurate stat

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by AC

https://twitter.com/user/status/1287173280093179904
Dube is in playoff Jesus mode.

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

He's got the Scotty Hartnell vibe going.

Very Mike Commodore-ish

Commodorian?

[flamesrule_kipper34]

Originally Posted by TED

Looks like the gap in the front middle is out of respect for the late Ken King who would have sat there. A nice touch by the organization.

It's actually to allow John Bean to be CGIed in.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by flamesrule_kipper34

It's actually to allow John Bean to be CGIed in.

Oh.

Guess that’s why we’re taught not to assume.

[Itse]

(Wanted to separate the following from the post above to make clear this is a different track from stats talk and not an answer to anyone in particular.)

I've said in this thread it's mostly a mental duel, but thinking more about it, I think this is primarily a coaching duel. Who picks the right tactics and who gets their team mentally in the right place is likely to win the series (unless the goalie battle is too one-sided for anything else to matter).

There's not going to be a lot of time for adjustment. The series is quite possibly being won and lost right now, in the preparation phase.

Paul Maurice is well known to be painfully average, and that makes this series very winnable.

Fun fact: did you know that the last time Geoff Ward was a head coach for a team in the playoffs, he guided his team Adler Mannheim to DEL championship, losing only three games in three seven game rounds? He also has two coach of the year awards, one from AHL in 2004 and another from that championship season in DEL in 2015.

Is that a strong indicator of future success? Obviously not. But it's one positive indicator that he could be a pretty good playoff coach. (A negative indicator is the way the Oilers/Flames head to head season series went from Flames dominance to Oilers dominance as the season progressed.)


The more I watch hockey, the more convinced I've become that playoff coaching is very different from regular season coaching, and that coaching is an underrated issue when it comes to playoff success. The regular season is big data stuff, it's all about the averages. Do what usually works, and you're likely to end up high in the standings.

In the playoffs, all that matters is what works against the one team you're trying to beat in a series. You need to have a good eye for tactical analysis and individual player skills to really make the most of what you have, and to take advantage of the weaknesses the other team has.

In the playoffs the moment-to-moment coaching becomes extremely important. When emotions are high and the pressure is high, you have to find ways to turn all that into motivation and momentum instead of nervousness, or all the skill in the world will not save you. The coaching staff needs to be constantly on their toes, looking out for players that get too high or too low, while also looking for good matchups and avoiding bad ones. Every shift becomes important and every player becomes important. You can't rely on what usually works, you have to be able to see the details to make the right choices for each moment.

This summer, with the bubble, the coaches likely have the players attention in a way they can usually only dream of, which is likely to highlight the importance of the coaching staff... and the general atmosphere/chemistry of the team.

I'm also hoping that the bubble helps keep the Canadian fan/media pressure cooker off the players backs. Of course this would benefit the Flames and Jets equally, but should the Flames win, it might make things easier for the actual playoffs.

[handgroen]

Originally Posted by AustinL_NHL

I swear, some people truly do their best to ignore analytics or the point of analytics.

As a team, it is infinitely better to be analytically great than not, but just because a team is great in most analytical categories doesn't necessarily mean that team is necessarily gonna be a great team.

You still need talent.

This is one thing people who hate analytics never seem to understand. They see these analytically great players and/or teams and think that just because the results don't match the analytics that analytics have no value, which is just absolutely false.

Of course, it's much better and more valuable to your team if you're constantly out-shooting and out-chancing your opponents, but if you don't have the talent to finish your chances, then your results aren't going to match your xGF.

This is why you always see incredible shooters like Laine, Ovechkin, Monahan, etc... outperforming their ixGF and also why you always see incredible skaters like McDavid, Byron, Athanasiou, etc... outperforming their ixGF.

So, in short: while a team like the Kings might have great scoring chance rates & xGF analytical stats that are among the very best in the NHL, they just don't have the talent on their roster to actually produce those results. So basically, they're being coached great but they just don't have the talent.

A team with 18 McDavid's and analytical stats like the Kings would completely dominate the NHL and score an infinite amount of goals, whereas a team with 18 McDavid's and analytical stats like the Jets would still dominate the NHL due to the talent of the team, but would struggle mightily and get destroyed against the McDavid's with Hurricanes analytics if put head to head in a Best of 7.

When it comes to the Jets, they're truly a horrible team 5v5, but along with having some elite scoring talent upfront, they also have Hellebuyck who played like a total God this season saving their a** night in and night out. Don't know what's so hard to understand.

You need a solid mix of great analytics AND talent on the team.

Hope that helps.

Helps what? Helps whom?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by flamesrule_kipper34

It's actually to allow John Bean to be CGIed in.

That's stupid if true.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by BigErnSalute_16

He wasn't cherry picking stats just because it wasn't a usual number like top 10, 15, or 20? those are technically just as arbitrary when the point he was making was that LA is the only team with good numbers who aren't living up to potential.

I for one would like to know the exact number when making a point like that as opposed to cutting it off at 10 because that would be a less accurate stat

Well, obviously there's no rule that objectively defines what is cherrypicking and what is not. To me, any time you're specifically looking for the cutoff spot where your argument looks the strongest, you are cherrypicking.

The reason why using a more typical cutoff point like 10 teams is probably not as cherrypicky (IMO) is because while equally arbitrary, the decision to pick that specific point isn't (hopefully) based on what makes that particular set of data most loudly say what you want. In fact a person should preferably FIRST pick a comparison group / cutoff point and THEN look at how the data lines up, not the other way around.

That said, the NHL allows for so many "natural" cutoff points that I think people should generally be very sceptical when they hear any argument in the form of "this is true for most teams above/below this cutoff point". In fact, preferably there should always be a clear reason why the comparison group is what it is, and that reason should be directly related to the point someone is trying to make.

To me personally, if you really want to argue that a stat is relevant in predicting the outcome of the Flames-Jets series, you really should be looking at "how often does the regular season leader in this stat win their series". However since this would likely require a lot more work, I don't hold it against Bingo that he didn't do that.

(That said, since it wouldn't be THAT much work, if corsi is indeed a relevant indicator of who wins a playoff series, that information should already be available in the internet somewhere.)

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

That's stupid if true.

Why is it stupid?

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Domoic]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Missing man formation for Ken King?

[AC]

Originally Posted by Domoic

Missing man formation for Ken King?

No, it's for the president and owners.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1287143459120246784

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Itse

LOL at the bolded.

My point was ultimately semantic. If you pick such an obviously cherrypicked number of teams, it makes you look like a cherrypicker, even if the data really IS objectively on the side of the point you're trying to make. That's all.

As for the significance of shot-based stats, meh.

You can just as easily put it this way: the shot-based stats in combination with the standings and goals differential suggest Jets are about as good as us even when they get dominated in shots. That suggests we need to dominate them in shot attempts just to make the series as close as the standings were, and even then we'd be slight underdogs (because of what the goal differential says). Additionally, shot-based stats remain relatively weak predictors especially in small sample sizes.

However since all data is months old anyway, what ever. None of the team stats are super relevant anymore. There's no harm in talking corsi while waiting for the puck to drop.

The 2 most recent of the top-3 dynasty teams... dominating the league in the regular season and winning Stanley cups on a regular basis were out-shot in the regular season over the length of their league dominance.

New York Islanders, 1980-84 (four Stanley Cups in 1980, '81, '82 and '83)

They were out-shot in the 480 regular season games 29.7 for to 30.4 against

Over this period there were 10 also ran teams that out-shot the opposition and would theoretical played a better possession game and thus be a better team.

Edmonton Oilers 1983-90 (five Stanley Cups in 1984, '85, '87, '88 and '90)

They also dominated the regular season with a .650 winning % ahead of 2nd place Philly .96 despite being out-shot 30.8 for to 31.5 shots per game against.

The Flames were the best possession team ( best team overall?) over these 640 regular season games: 33.0 shots for 30.0 against

[AC]

LOL. Shooting statistics from the 80s?

What is happening?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

New York Islanders, 1980-84 (four Stanley Cups in 1980, '81, '82 and '83)



They were out-shot in the 480 regular season games 29.7 for to 30.4 against...

Gee. That's a whopping 0.7 shots per game ...

Edmonton Oilers 1983-90 (five Stanley Cups in 1984, '85, '87, '88 and '90)



They also dominated the regular season with a .650 winning % ahead of 2nd place Philly .96 despite being out-shot 30.8 for to 31.5 shots per game against

Also a 0.7 shot-disparity. It seems to me that margins that are this small are also not especially relevant.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by AustinL_NHL

I swear, some people truly do their best to ignore analytics or the point of analytics.

As a team, it is infinitely better to be analytically great than not, but just because a team is great in most analytical categories doesn't necessarily mean that team is necessarily gonna be a great team.

You still need talent.

This is one thing people who hate analytics never seem to understand. They see these analytically great players and/or teams and think that just because the results don't match the analytics that analytics have no value, which is just absolutely false.

Of course, it's much better and more valuable to your team if you're constantly out-shooting and out-chancing your opponents, but if you don't have the talent to finish your chances, then your results aren't going to match your xGF.

This is why you always see incredible shooters like Laine, Ovechkin, Monahan, etc... outperforming their ixGF and also why you always see incredible skaters like McDavid, Byron, Athanasiou, etc... outperforming their ixGF.

So, in short: while a team like the Kings might have great scoring chance rates & xGF analytical stats that are among the very best in the NHL, they just don't have the talent on their roster to actually produce those results. So basically, they're being coached great but they just don't have the talent.

A team with 18 McDavid's and analytical stats like the Kings would completely dominate the NHL and score an infinite amount of goals, whereas a team with 18 McDavid's and analytical stats like the Jets would still dominate the NHL due to the talent of the team, but would struggle mightily and get destroyed against the McDavid's with Hurricanes analytics if put head to head in a Best of 7.

When it comes to the Jets, they're truly a horrible team 5v5, but along with having some elite scoring talent upfront, they also have Hellebuyck who played like a total God this season saving their a** night in and night out. Don't know what's so hard to understand.

You need a solid mix of great analytics AND talent on the team.

Hope that helps.

This tirade was intended as a defense of analytics, but serves well as the argument against them. Shooting stats and the like will correlate with results, but never add much with respect to predicting them. Because results aren't a function of improved statistics, they are a function of talent and execution.

The difference between winning and losing isn't improving your xGF or whatever stat you want to look at, it's about execution.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Gee. That's a whopping 0.7 shots per game ...


[/I]
Also a 0.7 shot-disparity. It seems to me that margins that are this small are also not especially relevant.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

You are nothing if not consistent. You are conceptually challenged and seem proud of it.


The simple fact that great teams dominating the standings and being the obvious best teams of the era were not out-shooting the rest of the teams is a open and direct challenge to the concept that shots based possession stats have any value whatsoever.

If shots based stats were important in identifying good/great hockey teams I would have expected that the Oilers would have been out-shooting their opposition by a huge margin.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by AC

LOL. Shooting statistics from the 80s?

What is happening?

They didn't shoot pucks or keep track of them in the 80s?

Unlike the cap era there were exceptionally good teams that stayed together for 5-10 years and there is not any hockey analyst that can make a cogent argument that the Islander and Oilers were not great teams.

[AC]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

They didn't shoot pucks or keep track of them in the 80s?

Unlike the cap era there were exceptionally good teams that stayed together for 5-10 years and there is not any hockey analyst that can make a cogent argument that the Islander and Oilers were not great teams.

The point being, why are you bringing up stats as old as 40 years ago to try and prove something relating to Calgary vs Winnipeg in 2020?

Talk about grasping for straws.

Please look into the overall summed +/- for each team in the 1980s next for reference. I'm sure it will be compelling stuff.