But trying to identify a good or better team by shots-based stats is not valid.
The Oilers and Islanders were great teams in the day and they were confident in Fuhr and Billy Smith stopping the shots that they need to win.
Teams with confidence in their goalie will play a different possession game.
For the Oilers a hard save by Fuhr was the start of a scoring chance for them.
I am just using Oilers as an example of an unarguable great team.
The Hartley Flames worked the same way without the future HOFers in the lineup. They counted on Hiller and Ramo to make some saves and generate offense from the defense zone and the goalie doing his job.
Bad possession stats were a result of playing a system that was most successful for the team.
No one is going to argue that the Oilers could have been even better if they focused on shutting down shots against.
Don't agree.
First off a stat like xGF% is considerably better than just shots on goal. It's not even close.
Second, you're naming some examples on a weak stat. If there was xGF% back then you'd see the Oilers were getting out shot, but when they countered with odd man rushes and late arriving defensemen their high danger chances would be large, and with that xGF% also strongly positive.
Getting out shot isn't a big deal if you have the talent to create more high danger chances for than against.
The Jets five on five are the fourth worst team in shot splits, and worst team in xGF%.
That says they get outplayed.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
Only two positive tests in the last two weeks of Phase 3, and none in the last week. Good job everyone!
__________________
The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. Go Flames Go!
First off a stat like xGF% is considerably better than just shots on goal. It's not even close.
Second, you're naming some examples on a weak stat. If there was xGF% back then you'd see the Oilers were getting out shot, but when they countered with odd man rushes and late arriving defensemen their high danger chances would be large, and with that xGF% also strongly positive.
Getting out shot isn't a big deal if you have the talent to create more high danger chances for than against.
The Jets five on five are the fourth worst team in shot splits, and worst team in xGF%.
That says they get outplayed.
I agree with everything that you are saying Bingo (and you have a tonne of patience explaining your thoughts, especially in light of the counter-arguments that seem rather silly!).
One thing that I do come back to however, is the Hartley surprise team. This is why.
The last half of the season the Flames were a decent team - definitely not great, but decent. The following season they catapulted themselves into the playoffs, and into the 2nd round. That team had a tonne of intangibles that I think stats don't properly describe yet (probably never will), but they were a big outlier that year.
What were their xGF% that season? The reason I ask is that there were many games that they got their head caved-in with regards to the analytics, but they didn't SEEM to get out-chanced. I remember many games I felt this way - that they were the more dangerous team on the ice, that it seemed they were the ones dictating play, even if the other team had the puck more. I wasn't alone, as many people posted similar thoughts in many of the PGTs that season.
I still do think that a team can experience legitimate success in the NHL while having SOME poor underlying stats, by being more of a counter-punch team. xGF% is a tough nut to be behind in, even if it is a sometimes subjective stat (after all, how do you measure quality in a quantitative way?).
That season was such a treat as a fan. Of course they out-performed expectations. They won some games that they had no business in winning, but they also lost some games that they controlled. I know the analytics said that the team was lucky, but I felt Hartley had a really good system that year that fit the team. If they tried to play a more puck-possession system, I don't think they would have experienced the same success - they just didn't have the talent to do so, and playing that counter-attack style while (trying) to limit shots to the outside was probably their best bet at any success, not to mention just out-working teams and having some swagger on the ice (physical team or confidence from winning? both?).
The Jets are NOT that team. I see them as a broken team with bad defence that justifies their poor numbers. I think the metrics really lines up with the Jets. The question will be if the Jets are still that team from this past shortened regular season, or if they adjusted and are a bit different. They are reminiscent of the Hartley Flames, but they seem to be relying on their (exceptional) goaltending too much, rather than try and stifle as much down-low as possible like the Flames did that year. They don't seem to be a team that is fully committed to playing with a lot of structure in their game.
Will be an exciting series, but I see the Flames taking advantage of the Jets in this series. Scheifele and Connor scare me, but if you manage to contain them, you win the series. They have Laine of course, and Wheeler, who both need some attention, but it is the aforementioned players that really scare me.
Defence wins championships 9 times out of 10, and the Jets are simply too weak on the blue line, and too uncommitted (unless something has changed) at playing a structured enough game to compensate. I definitely agree with your notion that the Flames are broken too, and we don't know what team is going to show up, and that makes this series interesting. I am just a bit more sure that the more broken team will in fact be the Jets.
The Following User Says Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
xGF% is a step up from corsi as it takes into account quality of shot and situation. It will evolve and get better, get replaced, whatever, but not sure where the logic is faulty.
If one team gives up more high danger chances against than for, that will drive their xgf% down. Where is the logic break in that?
The faulty logic is in interpretation. Shot-based stats are almost without exception applied with the logic that "big xGF good, therefore if team A has better xGF than team B then that is advantage team A". This just isn't true. It's both bad and good. I already said why in this thread.
All shot-based stats can ever definitively say is this: "With this value in this stat, this team has got these results." No matter how many shot-based stats you combine, this does not change. (Especially since it's all just different spins on mostly the same data.)
You can not use shot-based stats to say a team is playing good or bad, yet they are consistently, in fact almost without failure, used to say just that.
You yourself used shot-based stats to claim that
Quote:
The Jets are a poor five on five hockey team.
and
Quote:
The Jets are a tire fire
This is just nonsense. The Jets are in fact a slightly better 5-on-5 hockey team than the Flames when we look at the primary stats: goals for and against 5-on-5. In the last 20 games they've also gone 12-6-2, which again is hardly a tire fire. They've also scored 64 goals which is not too shabby and has nothing to do with Hellebuyck.
Your claim is the equivalent of looking at the horse powers of a race car and saying it's slow, while ignoring things like actual race times.
Shot-based stats do not measure how "good" or "bad" team plays. It just measures what it measures; shots. No matter whether you call it corsi or xGF or what ever, it all just measures shots. No more, no less.
There will always be more to "good hockey" than shots.
Well it seems to me that all the corsi stats show is that the Jets have excellent goaltending, maybe the best. Exactly the kind of thing that wins you a playoff series or two in the short run.
The faulty logic is in interpretation. Shot-based stats are almost without exception applied with the logic that "big xGF good, therefore if team A has better xGF than team B then that is advantage team A". This just isn't true. It's both bad and good. I already said why in this thread.
All shot-based stats can ever definitively say is this: "With this value in this stat, this team has got these results." No matter how many shot-based stats you combine, this does not change. (Especially since it's all just different spins on mostly the same data.)
You can not use shot-based stats to say a team is playing good or bad, yet they are consistently, in fact almost without failure, used to say just that.
You yourself used shot-based stats to claim that
and
This is just nonsense. The Jets are in fact a slightly better 5-on-5 hockey team than the Flames when we look at the primary stats: goals for and against 5-on-5. In the last 20 games they've also gone 12-6-2, which again is hardly a tire fire. They've also scored 64 goals which is not too shabby and has nothing to do with Hellebuyck.
Your claim is the equivalent of looking at the horse powers of a race car and saying it's slow, while ignoring things like actual race times.
Shot-based stats do not measure how "good" or "bad" team plays. It just measures what it measures; shots. No matter whether you call it corsi or xGF or what ever, it all just measures shots. No more, no less.
There will always be more to "good hockey" than shots.
When you're out of the playoffs (Jets were) with the best goaltender in the league there's a pretty good chance you're not playing that well.
So yeah a race car can have other variables. The driver, the tires ... for sure. But if you want to say it's light on horse power it can be tested.
It isn't nonsense at all.
The Jets have bad balances on every single attempt, shot and chance metric. That's not a recipe for success.
You and Ricardo can name the actual results all you want. If that's all you care about I honestly don't care.
But some pretty easy stats suggest they spend too much time in their own zone, and that's not a good five on five hockey team.
The bolded part isn't even correct.
Corsi measure shot attempts, not shots. Xgf% takes into account location and danger level by parameters like passing into the slot or deflections, rebounds.
The only thing that measure just shots is the shot clock.
AC's highlights of last year's comebacks gets me amped up. Mainly because it highlights this core's dominance when they were playing their best and most determined. Reminds us what this group is capable of. Also watching Norris Giordano at his finest is a thing of beauty.
Look at how they imposed their will on the Avs in those games. They can do great things if they're all on the same page.
That has to be the worst D group in the playoffs right now, including Edmonton.
You know your D-core has taken a huge hit when a deadline acquisition, whom you acquired for a measly pick is on your top pairing.
Apparently Demelo has been really good the last couple seasons. He's no Trouba or Buff in his prime, but I don't think he's a huge weak link or anything.
But some pretty easy stats suggest they spend too much time in their own zone
They suggest nothing of the sort. They say they spend x time. (Or do they? Does it actually include zone time?) . You're suggesting x is too much and that they're bad because they spend too much to in their own zone.
This is not what "bad" is. Bad is a team that scores less than their opponent and loses games.
When you're ignoring goals, you're choosing to ignore stats that don't fit what you want to believe.
The Jets are not garbage. They have weaknesses, and the shot-based stats do bring out some of those weaknesses, but you're stretching their significance way further than what the data says.
They suggest nothing of the sort. They say they spend x time. (Or do they? Does it actually include zone time?) . You're suggesting x is too much and that they're bad because they spend too much to in their own zone.
This is not what "bad" is. Bad is a team that scores less than their opponent and loses games.
When you're ignoring goals, you're choosing to ignore stats that don't fit what you want to believe.
The Jets are not garbage. They have weaknesses, and the shot-based stats do bring out some of those weaknesses, but you're stretching their significance way further than what the data says.
Simply put, if the Jets didn't have the best goaltender in the NHL this year, they're definitely not facing the Flames in the Play-Ins and more likely aren't even in the Play-Ins, even with a top 5 goaltender.
They're a truly horrible team with Godly goaltending
That defence is nothing to write home about. But I like Morrissey. Apparently DeMelo has been pretty good too. And Pionk has been solid this season (I'd argue better than Trouba). The rest of the defence is pretty meh though.
I have to admit today has been a little hard to focus on work. CP refresh is getting a workout today. Anyone know if they have the good HD/4K trucks at each of the hubs? Considering the finals are in Edmonton, I would assume the good stuff should be out west.
They mentioned the NHL spent 60 or 70 million to make these games as presentable as possible for TV viewers, so I would hope they wouldn't cheap out on the HD equipment.
