[Game Takes] Flames 3 Jets 2

[PegCityFlamesFan]

Honestly that was a fast paced, enjoyable game. Lots of action going both ways. I can't stand fans saying the late call cost the Jets the game as it was a blatant high stick. I still can't figure out what was the penalty that lead to the Jets first goal either so to me it is a wash. Mangipane is a guy that really stands out for me, having watched the past 4 games. Really like what he does.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So a high danger chance has to meet one of these criteria? That adds a subjective factor to it (what constitutes a direct pass?) Also, that would mean that a breakaway isn't a high danger chance.

It’s why I don’t consider fancy stats ‘data’. They are an opinion expressed in numbers instead of words. Doesn’t make them worthless. In fact they can be interesting. But not more objective or accurate or telling than any other opinion.

I like the way they are presented in the write ups. The story is about the game. The stats are a perspective to add. (Not suggesting anyone doesn’t like the write ups, I’m sure all appreciate them).

[neo45]

Bennett’s cross check went uncalled but really could have lost us the game and was just utterly pointless

Everyone is cheering for him but he really can be his own worst enemy sometimes

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

It’s why I don’t consider fancy stats ‘data’. They are an opinion expressed in numbers instead of words. Doesn’t make them worthless. In fact they can be interesting. But not more objective or accurate or telling than any other opinion.

I like the way they are presented in the write ups. The story is about the game. The stats are a perspective to add. (Not suggesting anyone doesn’t like the write ups, I’m sure all appreciate them).

I would go so far as to say that they are quite often downright misleading. Last night is a great example.

Stats require specific criteria, obviously. High danger chances must be from home plate. Okay, but that means that any shot from the slot, that is above the dots, isn't considered high danger. Is what it is. EXCEPT, fans see the numbers are draw conclusions - only 1 high danger chance, compared to 12 for the Flames. Therefore the Flames were better.

But wait - the Jets had 12 shots from the slot, that were above the dots. Still potentially very dangerous, but don't count in that stat because they are a few feet further away.

If you dive into the data and digest it properly, there is some good information there. But most fans will see 12-1 and draw conclusions from that, when it does not accurately tell the story.

[Enoch Root]

Also, I am confused. I only see 8 shots from home plate on the Flames heat map, not 12.

And that is counting the 2 on the right, which appear to be outside home plate.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So a high danger chance has to meet one of these criteria? That adds a subjective factor to it (what constitutes a direct pass?) Also, that would mean that a breakaway isn't a high danger chance.

Sorry I shouldn't have used the word "direct" had no use there.

Any pass into a shot attempt in the home plate is a high danger, but so too is a rebound or a deflection.

So it's not subjective at all.

Shoot outside the plate ... not a scoring chance or high danger attempt
Shoot inside by carrying it in ... scoring chance, not a high danger
Shoot inside after taking a pass while inside the plate, or tipping it inside the plate, or getting a rebound inside the plate ... both scoring chance and high danger.

I think a breakaway is an exception, but I couldn't pin that down.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Want to address this because it goes hand in hand with the heat map, IMO.

Defensively, the Flames have been doing a terrific job of keeping the opposition to the outside (as the heat map indicates). They collapse all 5 guys, keeping the wingers down low. This inhibits the cross-ice pass through the slot.

The downside of that, is that, because they are collapsed, the opposition can maintain possession for long periods. Also, it doesn't facilitate a good breakout. When the Flames get the puck, it's over to the boards at the half wall, where the winger tries to get it past the opposing Dman. However, they are sitting on that and can easily pinch, resulting in more zone time.

So that's the good and the bad of it, with respect to their defensively play. It is kind of like Hartley's defensive zone system - collapsing into the slot. However, I think they are better at keeping the quality chances down. It also suits Markstrom's game to a tee.

So I am very torn. The defensive zone time is so painful. But they do a fairly good job of not giving up the slot. Their goals against is 16th in the league at 2.75 - exactly the middle of the pack.

Agree 100%.

Against Winnipeg in the play in round they were great.

Dallas against that same defensive structure ate them alive by wearing them out and then breaking through the formation on exhausted players.

The splits to start the season suggest either a) there aren't teams like Dallas in the division or b) the Flames have tweaked/fixed that issue ... or c) a bit of both.

[united]

Where is your model getting live passing data from?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I never thought you were trying to sell them, and I find for then most part that the advanced metrics pretty accurately reflect what I am seeing in the game. But last night was one of those instances where I still think they are not all that accurately reflective of what happened.

I definitely appreciate their inclusion in your game reports.

Yeah they generally match what I see too.

Last night had a good flow to it, both teams played well and it felt pretty even. But I have to admit that my most common memory in the Flame's zone was Markstrom swallowing up pucks without rebounds in a butterfly position. He was square to the shooter, no screens, no rebounds.

Kind of matches the stats.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

It’s why I don’t consider fancy stats ‘data’. They are an opinion expressed in numbers instead of words. Doesn’t make them worthless. In fact they can be interesting. But not more objective or accurate or telling than any other opinion.

I like the way they are presented in the write ups. The story is about the game. The stats are a perspective to add. (Not suggesting anyone doesn’t like the write ups, I’m sure all appreciate them).

I agree that they are imperfect, and from time to time do not provide an accurate picture of the action on the ice. But I do, in fact think that most of these are more "objective" than mere opinions. The numbers compiled from other sources by Bingo are fixed, established metrics; the criteria may be flawed, but it is certainly not what I would consider biased. It's about as objective as the intended result will allow with the tools at our disposal.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

It’s why I don’t consider fancy stats ‘data’. They are an opinion expressed in numbers instead of words. Doesn’t make them worthless. In fact they can be interesting. But not more objective or accurate or telling than any other opinion.

I like the way they are presented in the write ups. The story is about the game. The stats are a perspective to add. (Not suggesting anyone doesn’t like the write ups, I’m sure all appreciate them).

The only way they aren't factual is if they are recorded in error ... a shot outside the plate is considered in, the person missed a pass so it's classified wrong.

Otherwise it's pretty much the same as the guy counting traffic at an intersection. He probably misses the odd car, once and a while he hits the button twice by mistake but over the course of an hour the data is what it is ... largely factual.

However what do they mean is very much up for debate.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I would go so far as to say that they are quite often downright misleading. Last night is a great example.

Stats require specific criteria, obviously. High danger chances must be from home plate. Okay, but that means that any shot from the slot, that is above the dots, isn't considered high danger. Is what it is. EXCEPT, fans see the numbers are draw conclusions - only 1 high danger chance, compared to 12 for the Flames. Therefore the Flames were better.

But wait - the Jets had 12 shots from the slot, that were above the dots. Still potentially very dangerous, but don't count in that stat because they are a few feet further away.

If you dive into the data and digest it properly, there is some good information there. But most fans will see 12-1 and draw conclusions from that, when it does not accurately tell the story.

I'd agree with that.

Stats are correct but do you agree with what they are saying or suggesting?

I would think if you get 12 shots inside the area right in front of the net and your opponent gets 1 you're going to win most of those games ... so the inference is correct in my mind.

But it's not a guarantee or equation ... too many other variables/parameters for that to be the case.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Want to address this because it goes hand in hand with the heat map, IMO.

Defensively, the Flames have been doing a terrific job of keeping the opposition to the outside (as the heat map indicates). They collapse all 5 guys, keeping the wingers down low. This inhibits the cross-ice pass through the slot.

The downside of that, is that, because they are collapsed, the opposition can maintain possession for long periods. Also, it doesn't facilitate a good breakout. When the Flames get the puck, it's over to the boards at the half wall, where the winger tries to get it past the opposing Dman. However, they are sitting on that and can easily pinch, resulting in more zone time.

So that's the good and the bad of it, with respect to their defensively play. It is kind of like Hartley's defensive zone system - collapsing into the slot. However, I think they are better at keeping the quality chances down. It also suits Markstrom's game to a tee.

So I am very torn. The defensive zone time is so painful. But they do a fairly good job of not giving up the slot. Their goals against is 16th in the league at 2.75 - exactly the middle of the pack.

That's a good point... and you're right. The Flames have done a good job generally of stopping that cross-ice pass and limiting the high quality chances. That does seem to lead to a lot of challenges with the break out pass.

The ones that really frustrate me though are those unforced errors... the D has the puck behind the net and is waiting for something (a line change to complete, other players to come back, etc) and they wait so long that the opposition now has come in and pressured them into a turnover that leads to the extended zone time. Or the unforced error of a forward trying to make a move at our blueline, literally within a foot of the line, and giving the puck up to extend the zone time. Those often seem to come back to bite you in the ass.

Clean that up a bit, and put forth the same effort elsewhere as last night, and this team should be able to go on a little run and get back into contention.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Sorry I shouldn't have used the word "direct" had no use there.

Any pass into a shot attempt in the home plate is a high danger, but so too is a rebound or a deflection.

So it's not subjective at all.

Shoot outside the plate ... not a scoring chance or high danger attempt
Shoot inside by carrying it in ... scoring chance, not a high danger
Shoot inside after taking a pass while inside the plate, or tipping it inside the plate, or getting a rebound inside the plate ... both scoring chance and high danger.

I think a breakaway is an exception, but I couldn't pin that down.

So, another question due to my lack of knowledge...

What about a 2 on 1 (for example) that results in an excellent pass across and a shot that is either blocked or goes wide? Is that NOT a high danger attempt or scoring chance because it didn't result in a shot on goal?

In the game last night in the second period (I think) Backlund made a hard quick pass to EatBread who tried to pull it across the front of the net and went backhand high... but missed that top corner by inches. He had the goalie beat (I think) but missed that top corner. High danger chance or even scoring chance based on the statistical criteria, or no? What about shots that hit the post?

Apologies for my lack of understanding on the methodology....

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by old-fart

So, another question due to my lack of knowledge...

What about a 2 on 1 (for example) that results in an excellent pass across and a shot that is either blocked or goes wide? Is that NOT a high danger attempt or scoring chance because it didn't result in a shot on goal?

In the game last night in the second period (I think) Backlund made a hard quick pass to EatBread who tried to pull it across the front of the net and went backhand high... but missed that top corner by inches. He had the goalie beat (I think) but missed that top corner. High danger chance or even scoring chance based on the statistical criteria, or no? What about shots that hit the post?

Apologies for my lack of understanding on the methodology....

I believe the model factors in all shot attempts. So, in the instance above this indeed would count as a HDSC.

[Hot_Flatus]

For me this is all about how this team plays the next set of games against a struggling Canucks team now. We've seen the Jeckle and Hyde from this core way too much to be overly confident they will play the next handful at this same level.

Encouraging game for sure, but it is all meaningless if they cannot carry this through with similar efforts against a team they need to and should beat.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

For me this is all about how this team plays the next set of games against a struggling Canucks team now. We've seen the Jeckle and Hyde from this core way too much to be overly confident they will play the next handful at this same level.

Encouraging game for sure, but it is all meaningless if they cannot carry this through with similar efforts against a team they need to and should beat.

Sure, but it's not like the Flames have not already dominated the Canucks twice already this season, and pounded them into the ground. In fact, I would say that Game #2 v. Vancouver on 16 January was easily the Flames most complete game of year before last night.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I would go so far as to say that they are quite often downright misleading. Last night is a great example.

Stats require specific criteria, obviously. High danger chances must be from home plate. Okay, but that means that any shot from the slot, that is above the dots, isn't considered high danger. Is what it is. EXCEPT, fans see the numbers are draw conclusions - only 1 high danger chance, compared to 12 for the Flames. Therefore the Flames were better.

But wait - the Jets had 12 shots from the slot, that were above the dots. Still potentially very dangerous, but don't count in that stat because they are a few feet further away.

If you dive into the data and digest it properly, there is some good information there. But most fans will see 12-1 and draw conclusions from that, when it does not accurately tell the story.

All stats can be misleading taken by themselves and this is moreso if you take a small sample size like a game (eg Markstrom's best save was not a high danger chance - it was his toe save on a shot from near the dot where he had to move all the way across).

But over an extended time, a disparity in high danger chances tells you something.

[Red]

Would a Kucherov, Laine or Ovechkin one timer from the top of the circle be a HD chance? Since it's outside the home plate I guess it would not.

Now let's say a guy like Nordstrom fights checks to get to the net and gets a weak backhand off in to the goalie chest while trying not to fall. That is a HD chance, correct?

How about a pinching D scoring from top of the circle on what is an almost empty net because the goalie is out of position? Think of a sneaky backhand pass from behind the net to a pinching D while the goalie is anticipating a wraparound.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Red

Would a Kucherov, Laine or Ovechkin one timer from the top of the circle be a HD chance? Since it's outside the home plate I guess it would not.

Now let's say a guy like Nordstrom fights checks to get to the net and gets a weak backhand off in to the goalie chest while trying not to fall. That is a HD chance, correct?

How about a pinching D scoring from top of the circle on what is an almost empty net because the goalie is out of position? Think of a sneaky backhand pass from behind the net to a pinching D while the goalie is anticipating a wraparound.

Nope. This was the toe save by Markstrom (right before their actual goal).

But again, these are individual circumstances whereas I think this stat is meant to be digested over a large portion of the season.

ETA: Even the most basic of stats, like assists, vary in individual plays as far as quality goes.