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

[AC]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1287899753452167168

https://twitter.com/user/status/1287915676376559618

[djsFlames]

Gotta stop referring to it as playoffs until they get by the play in round.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Our “soft” 1C.

I think you’re misunderstanding what people are interring when they call him soft.

Having muscles is one thing, using them another.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Wood

RNH is not ready for the rematch

I have no idea how that fight was pretty much a draw. RNH has the muscle tone and weight of a grey alien.

Maybe Sean needs more age to come into his old man strength.

[wired]

I have a feeling they are going to play Valimaki (sp) and let Gio swing in the wind.
No evidence, just a hunch.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Our “soft” 1C.

One thing he doesn’t get enough credit for is the punishment he’s willing to take in front of the net and tough areas of the ice.

He may not dish it out, but he gets slashed and whacked constantly in front of the net, and just keeps going back there shift after shift.

It’s why the “soft” label is harsh, “soft” players don’t go to those dirty areas.

[blender]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

I have no idea how that fight was pretty much a draw. RNH has the muscle tone and weight of a grey alien.

Maybe Sean needs more age to come into his old man strength.

Have you seen RNH shirtless? I haven't, but I suspect he's pretty muscular as are most NHL players.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

As I said ... you can stop at the bottom line, the result and call it a day. Not the deepest look at something, but I can't stop you.

But no ... it's not that simple.

Hellebucyck is part of their team so they have better five on five actual results than the Flames, but they're not the better five on five hockey club. There are plenty of statistics that prove that out.

I'm choosing to go deeper than the result, you don't have to. But I'm not ignoring stats that don't fit what I believe. I'm choosing to look into other elements than just goals to see how they play.

It's not hard to find stats that say they get out played five on five but have a great goaltender. Almost every preview of the Jets or the series by any source has said the exact same thing.

No, you're not going deeper. You're going shallower, because again, you're ignoring goals. A team that scores more than their opponent is not getting outplayed.

Because let me point out that obvious: your argument would be exactly the same no matter how good or bad the Jets were at scoring and not getting scored on. Goals literally have no place in your argument in how good or bad a team is 5-on-5 which is ridiculous.

Also, you keep repeating that it's all about Hellebuyck, which is objectively clearly just false, because once again the Jets also score goals at a decent pace, and again it's an argument only someone who literally ignores goals could make.

Shots are secondary data. Goals and points are primary data. There's nothing deep about what you're doing, because you're not combining information. You're just ignoring goals in favor of shots and jumping to hyperbolic conclusions.

[AC]

Originally Posted by blender

Have you seen RNH shirtless? I haven't, but I suspect he's pretty muscular as are most NHL players.

Speaking of which, even Johnny is looking surprisingly built lately:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CalgaryFlam...mer_in_jersey/

[Mathgod]

Getting pumped for it!! Bring on the Pets!

[djsFlames]

He better start crunching people now. Like a Gimli, on skates.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by wired

I have a feeling they are going to play Valimaki (sp) and let Gio swing in the wind.
No evidence, just a hunch.

You feeling ok?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

I have no idea how that fight was pretty much a draw. RNH has the muscle tone and weight of a grey alien.

Maybe Sean needs more age to come into his old man strength.

Was it a draw? I think Monahan landed most of the punches outside of a few late ones from Nuge

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Itse

No, you're not going deeper. You're going shallower, because again, you're ignoring goals. A team that scores more than their opponent is not getting outplayed.

Because let me point out that obvious: your argument would be exactly the same no matter how good or bad the Jets were at scoring and not getting scored on. Goals literally have no place in your argument in how good or bad a team is 5-on-5 which is ridiculous.

Also, you keep repeating that it's all about Hellebuyck, which is objectively clearly just false, because once again the Jets also score goals at a decent pace, and again it's an argument only someone who literally ignores goals could make.

Shots are secondary data. Goals and points are primary data. There's nothing deep about what you're doing, because you're not combining information. You're just ignoring goals in favor of shots and jumping to hyperbolic conclusions.

xGF is a great stat since it's meant to take out the variation of "luck" for teams that maybe are getting above average shooting/save percentage.

But The one thing advanced stats doesn't always take into consideration are those teams that have truly good goaltending or strong shooters. Teams shooting and save percentage generally does fluctuate year to year, but those teams that actually have above average shooting/goaltending talent will be able to overachieve on their xGF year to year.

It's why a team like the Washington Capitals always seem to outperform their results, they have great shooters who outperform their xGF every year.

Winnipeg is in a similar situation where they have an elite goalie and some great finishers, so they can out perform their xGF%.

Looking at a longer horizon to remove the variability (3 seasons) and the Jets are consistently near the top of save percentage and shooting percentage, and that's something that looking at just xGF% will not tell you.

Winnipeg: 10.2% (4TH), .914 (3rd)

Calgary: 9.3% (17th), .905 (18th)

And that's where the difference in GF vs xGF% for Jets shouldn't be classified as "luck" they've had the talent to consistantly overachieve on their xGF% and that can't be overlooked, especially since this most recent season is even more of a gap than the extended view.

Jets:
GF%: 52.7% (8th)
xGF%: 47.0% (29th)
SH%: 9.59% (15th)
SV%: .913 (5th)

Flames:
GF%: 48.8% (23rd)
xGF%: 50.4% (16th)
SH%: 9.22% (20th)
SV%: .906 (13th)

So Calgary might be able to carry the pace of play and generate more chances based on the xGF%, but the Jets have the advantage in finishing talent & goaltending, and that's a huge equalizer in a series like this.

And the other thing is it's not like the Flames are some type of xGF juggernaut this season. Based on the xGF and their actual GF% the Flames were quite poor before the break this season, so not exactly like they were getting "unlucky" results this season. They've been poor in their own right.

[BigErnSalute_16]

Originally Posted by Itse

No, you're not going deeper. You're going shallower, because again, you're ignoring goals. A team that scores more than their opponent is not getting outplayed.

Because let me point out that obvious: your argument would be exactly the same no matter how good or bad the Jets were at scoring and not getting scored on. Goals literally have no place in your argument in how good or bad a team is 5-on-5 which is ridiculous.

Also, you keep repeating that it's all about Hellebuyck, which is objectively clearly just false, because once again the Jets also score goals at a decent pace, and again it's an argument only someone who literally ignores goals could make.

Shots are secondary data. Goals and points are primary data. There's nothing deep about what you're doing, because you're not combining information. You're just ignoring goals in favor of shots and jumping to hyperbolic conclusions.

Are you saying you've never seen a game where a team wins despite being badly outplayed for the entire time but saved by their goaltender and perhaps a couple lucky bounces? Like that's just not a thing? if you score more goals you were the better team? that's the most shallow way to look at stats.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

No, you're not going deeper. You're going shallower, because again, you're ignoring goals. A team that scores more than their opponent is not getting outplayed.

Because let me point out that obvious: your argument would be exactly the same no matter how good or bad the Jets were at scoring and not getting scored on. Goals literally have no place in your argument in how good or bad a team is 5-on-5 which is ridiculous.

Also, you keep repeating that it's all about Hellebuyck, which is objectively clearly just false, because once again the Jets also score goals at a decent pace, and again it's an argument only someone who literally ignores goals could make.

Shots are secondary data. Goals and points are primary data. There's nothing deep about what you're doing, because you're not combining information. You're just ignoring goals in favor of shots and jumping to hyperbolic conclusions.

There is so much wrong with this.

A team that scores more than their opponent is not getting outplayed.

The Jets don't out score opponents five on five, they have at 49.3% goal split and have given up 142 goals and scored 138.

So I guess by your "deep" analysis, they're not good five on five. But you're right, the Flames are worse at -13.

Also, you keep repeating that it's all about Hellebuyck, which is objectively clearly just false, because once again the Jets also score goals at a decent pace, and again it's an argument only someone who literally ignores goals could make.

The Jets actually score goals five on five at the exact same pace as the Flames. The teams are ranked 19th and 20th at 2.35/60 and 2.34/60.

So the five on five difference between the teams comes down to team defense and the ability of their goaltenders. The Jets have a higher Shots against/60 (slightly), xGA/60 (3rd worst), SCA/60 (8th worst), High Danger against per 60 (2nd worst) ... but have the 9th best team save percentage five on five and you want to hammer me for thinking this is about their goaltender?

I honestly don't get how you see it any other way?

[blender]

So watching last night's game, and its early in the third, Flames down a goal and getting chances but can't buy one.

I look at my nephew and we both realize that this is typical Flames hockey. Either down 2-1 and can't buy a goal or up 2-1 and hanging on for dear life. We laughed at each other cause Flames hockey was back.

Is there a fancy stat for this?

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

One thing he doesn’t get enough credit for is the punishment he’s willing to take in front of the net and tough areas of the ice.

He may not dish it out, but he gets slashed and whacked constantly in front of the net, and just keeps going back there shift after shift.

It’s why the “soft” label is harsh, “soft” players don’t go to those dirty areas.

I remember when this board rightfully mocked the Sedins for this exact thing. Taking a beating and not standing up for yourself.

You used to be cool, CP.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I remember when this board rightfully mocked the Sedins for this exact thing. Taking a beating and not standing up for yourself.

You used to be cool, CP.

You used to be cool, never. I've never seen Monahan embellish ever in front of the net like the Sedins would do nor have I seen him just stand there get ragdolled by a rat player. Now I respect the Sedins but they were part of the Canucks diving team which was one of the more disgraceful things I've seen over the years in the NHL. It's not that he's soft and more that he's just a reserved (boring) guy that doesn't wear his passion on his sleeve.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by blender

So watching last night's game, and its early in the third, Flames down a goal and getting chances but can't buy one.

I look at my nephew and we both realize that this is typical Flames hockey. Either down 2-1 and can't buy a goal or up 2-1 and hanging on for dear life. We laughed at each other cause Flames hockey was back.

Is there a fancy stat for this?

Every team experiences these things regularly. And every fan base thinks it's their own team's unique identity.