[PGT] Canes 6 Flames 3 - Road Trip Mercifully Over

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I made an earlier post, will refer you to that. Post 93

Shot count means nothing.

Situation and shot placement mean everything

You want to talk goalie by goal, and corresponding chances on the other side, sure

You want to rely on shot count? Waste of time

Expected goals takes into account the quality of each shot & chance.



Flames were arguably the better of the teams for 2 of the 3 periods.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Expected goals takes into account the quality of each shot & chance.



Flames were arguably the better of the teams for 2 of the 3 periods.

No, there are statistical models behind expected goals that are based on lots of data including shot origin but NONE are actual shot placement, which are pretty much actually the most important thing for the goaltender

I’ve looked at the stats six ways from Sunday and understand them just fine

It all comes out in the wash and works out in the long term, statistically, but is insignificant much of the time in small sample sizes. That’s how statistics, probabilities and confidence intervals work

“__ is expected to be true 92 percent of the time, 19 times out of 20”

Sorry. Unless you are disingenuously reliant on the word arguably, Username doesn’t check out

[Strange Brew]

I'm not blaming it on Vladar but I thought on balance the Flames played aOK. Carolina buried their chances and Flames didn't. Think back to Ruzicka's glorious chance in the first when Andersen lost his stick. He pushes it meekly wide.

It's not all about the goalie but I have yet to see any analysis that doesn't convince me Flames had their chances that game. Now I would rather finish strong than start start strong, so there is that.

[Bingo]

Yeah that's where I'm at.

Vladar wasn't good, but he wasn't the only reason they lost. Their special teams were inferior, finish was inferior, and they were outplayed the last 70% of the game for the most part (third period score effects aside)

[dino7c]

.838 goal tending was not the only factor but certainly was a major factor in why they lost.

Team scored three goals and allowed 8 high danger chances. Should be enough to win.

[DeluxeMoustache]

If that is the depth you are willing to dig to, then you will frankly never understand

Statistics are different than the actual discrete events which are unique

A high danger scoring chance that is put bar down is counted the exact same as a high danger chance that is put right in to a goalie’s bread basket.

How many shots did the Flames take that went over Anderson’s shoulder, beside his mask?
Like I say, review post 93. Tell me goal by goal what Vladar should do differently.

The team lost because they were out scored. They were outscored because Carolina took better placed shots.

Feel free to drag out highlights of saves Anderson made that were placed similarly to where Carolina placed their goals. I won’t be holding my breath

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

If that is the depth you are willing to dig to, then you will frankly never understand

Statistics are different than the actual discrete events which are unique

A high danger scoring chance that is put bar down is counted the exact same as a high danger chance that is put right in to a goalie’s bread basket.

How many shots did the Flames take that went over Anderson’s shoulder, beside his mask?
Like I say, review post 93. Tell me goal by goal what Vladar should do differently.

The team lost because they were out scored. They were outscored because Carolina took better placed shots.

Feel free to drag out highlights of saves Anderson made that were placed similarly to where Carolina placed their goals. I won’t be holding my breath

Wow you are an #######

Funny the guy so critical of Markstrom at times is bending over backwards here. Seems a little biased

6 goals on 8 high danger is too much...you are playing the top team in the league you need some saves.

IN MY OPINION

Take the condescending BS elsewhere

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ So you don’t want to talk about the particulars, goal by goal. No surprise

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

^ So you don’t want to talk about the particulars, goal by goal. No surprise

The goals weren’t horrific, but he looked a little out of control all game and lost track of the puck a lot more than usual, including on the one where he popped the rebound up.

I know that Markstrom has been heavily criticized over the same type of game.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

If that is the depth you are willing to dig to, then you will frankly never understand

Statistics are different than the actual discrete events which are unique

A high danger scoring chance that is put bar down is counted the exact same as a high danger chance that is put right in to a goalie’s bread basket.

How many shots did the Flames take that went over Anderson’s shoulder, beside his mask?
Like I say, review post 93. Tell me goal by goal what Vladar should do differently.

The team lost because they were out scored. They were outscored because Carolina took better placed shots.

Feel free to drag out highlights of saves Anderson made that were placed similarly to where Carolina placed their goals. I won’t be holding my breath

Seem to remember this go round with Rittich (ironically after a game in Tampa if I recall) ... you have a thing with backups!

I think the crowd saying Vladar wasn't great, but wasn't the only reason they lost is the middle ground.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

^ So you don’t want to talk about the particulars, goal by goal. No surprise

Countless times you have blamed Markstrom for being the 2nd best goalie on the ice...Vlad clearly was in this game.

I've already said it was a tough spot for him and it's only one game. I only push back against "the Flames were badly outplayed" they weren't.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Seem to remember this go round with Rittich (ironically after a game in Tampa if I recall) ... you have a thing with backups!

I think the crowd saying Vladar wasn't great, but wasn't the only reason they lost is the middle ground.

Sure, I remember that. It was a similar situation. Those were numerous one timers including a bunch where they were passed out from behind the net. And they went past a goalie who was square, but pucks were put in places that had room to go in. The general thought there was ‘he just needs to save some of those’. I thought it would be nice, of course, but it was kind of a silly expectation in light of what the D was allowing

In my opinion, a goalie can have a bad night (ie. let in 6 goals) without playing poorly. Some people just can’t live with that, because of the numbers, the cognitive dissonance

They just believe a goalie needs to make more saves, but seem to stop short of discussing exactly how

We (almost) all agree that the team got pretty badly outplayed and deserved to lose.

We also agree Vladar had a bad night. But to me it’s not because he played poorly, it’s because of the specific goal related situations he encountered, and the consequences. Not so much because of things he can control.

I’ll say it again. The shot by Svechnikov over his ear. Johnny tries that all the time. Usually misses. This time, Svechnikov didn’t. He got a bit lucky on the shot. It’s not reasonable to have a blocker beside your ear. That’s just the tiny bit of net available that a guy will score on if he hits it. Just one example. That’s the difference between .838 and .864 on the night. Both numbers bad. One worse. But beyond his reasonable control. (And I have no idea why Sutter challenged to begin with)

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Countless times you have blamed Markstrom for being the 2nd best goalie on the ice...Vlad clearly was in this game.

I've already said it was a tough spot for him and it's only one game. I only push back against "the Flames were badly outplayed" they weren't.

You are correct, we disagree. I don’t think Anderson did anything special.

Markstrom often stunk last season, that’s well known. Irrelevant this year

The Flames were badly outplayed in the last 45 minutes. The Gaudreau breakaway put them back in the game but made the score flattering

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Expected goals takes into account the quality of each shot & chance.



Flames were arguably the better of the teams for 2 of the 3 periods.

By the way, I just took a closer look.

That chart doesn’t say the Flames were better for two periods. It doesn’t actually support that statement at all. Quite the opposite.

- The net slope downward in the first 15 minutes shows the Flames largely controlling
- after 15 minutes, the xGF differential was almost 1.6 in favour of Calgary
- the light red background shows the Canes PP. Flames didn’t let the Canes generate much
- the grey background shows the Flames PPs. Significant movement in xGF due to their PP chances. That first PP contributed nearly 1 goal of the 1.6
- even strength they keep pushing for a couple of minutes then Carolina takes over (upslope on the non shaded background)
- second period the Flames generated a bit then the long upslope is Carolina dominating thoroughly until the two Canes penalties
- the third was even until the Flames pushed a bit, generated a penalty.
- Flames xGF increased on their PP, and Carolina’s increased the last few minutes, including on their PPs


The moves where the Flames xGF made its moves were Flames PPs. Real big move on the first period PP, a net change of +1 xGF in the Flames direction

The stuff on the unshaded background is even strength. The Flames got outplayed. Badly


(And none of that factors in shot placement, which is relevant to the goaltending conversation)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Sure, I remember that. It was a similar situation. Those were numerous one timers including a bunch where they were passed out from behind the net. And they went past a goalie who was square, but pucks were put in places that had room to go in. The general thought there was ‘he just needs to save some of those’. I thought it would be nice, of course, but it was kind of a silly expectation in light of what the D was allowing

In my opinion, a goalie can have a bad night (ie. let in 6 goals) without playing poorly. Some people just can’t live with that, because of the numbers, the cognitive dissonance

They just believe a goalie needs to make more saves, but seem to stop short of discussing exactly how

We (almost) all agree that the team got pretty badly outplayed and deserved to lose.

We also agree Vladar had a bad night. But to me it’s not because he played poorly, it’s because of the specific goal related situations he encountered, and the consequences. Not so much because of things he can control.

I’ll say it again. The shot by Svechnikov over his ear. Johnny tries that all the time. Usually misses. This time, Svechnikov didn’t. He got a bit lucky on the shot. It’s not reasonable to have a blocker beside your ear. That’s just the tiny bit of net available that a guy will score on if he hits it. Just one example. That’s the difference between .838 and .864 on the night. Both numbers bad. One worse. But beyond his reasonable control. (And I have no idea why Sutter challenged to begin with)

Not my hill to die on as I'm not saying the game was his fault.

But a goalie gives up six, and you're right that it wasn't his fault, but if anyone disagrees they have cognitive dissonance?

Do you understand how arrogant that sounds?

I don't have to get into a shot by shot analysis to have an opinion different than yours. What I saw is pretty much backed up by what the numbers say ... the other goalie made more big saves.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Bingo, how arrogant something sounds really has a lot to do with the listener

Cognitive dissonance isn’t something you get diagnosed with, it is basically a term used to describe processing seemingly contradictory information. That’s all. And that’s what this is.

People who are familiar with stats generally know that sub .900 save percentages are generally not good, right? That’s engrained. So if a goalie puts up an .8xx, some people say ‘the goalie wasn’t good enough because he put up a .8xx’. But if you do consider, shot by shot, what actually happened, it can happen that a statistically relatively unusual number of shots were effectively unstoppable within that small sample

So it’s a situation where a goalie has bad numbers but I say he was good. That’s it. Two pieces of seemingly contradictory info.

It would help if people would be open to discuss the nature of the actual events behind the statistics, although it is easier for people to just get upset about things they choose not to understand.

I know full well that you can have a different opinion. And if you don’t want to look at the actual underlying details, you will. That’s fine. You yourself write in your Game Takes about how sometimes there are rare occasions where the stats don’t reflect what you are seeing. You do it, it’s a game take. I do it, it’s, I don’t know, arrogant ? Lol

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Bingo, how arrogant something sounds really has a lot to do with the listener

Cognitive dissonance isn’t something you get diagnosed with, it is basically a term used to describe processing seemingly contradictory information. That’s all. And that’s what this is.

People who are familiar with stats generally know that sub .900 save percentages are generally not good, right? That’s engrained. So if a goalie puts up an .8xx, some people say ‘the goalie wasn’t good enough because he put up a .8xx’. But if you do consider, shot by shot, what actually happened, it can happen that a statistically relatively unusual number of shots were effectively unstoppable within that small sample

So it’s a situation where a goalie has bad numbers but I say he was good. That’s it. Two pieces of seemingly contradictory info.

It would help if people would be open to discuss the nature of the actual events behind the statistics, although it is easier for people to just get upset about things they choose not to understand.

I know full well that you can have a different opinion. And if you don’t want to look at the actual underlying details, you will. That’s fine. You yourself write in your Game Takes about how sometimes there are rare occasions where the stats don’t reflect what you are seeing. You do it, it’s a game take. I do it, it’s, I don’t know, arrogant ? Lol

How often do you see me labelling someone that disagrees with me with a blind spot in processing ability?

That's the arrogance.

You don't have to agree to that though, couldn't care less.

[DeluxeMoustache]

What’s this about a blind spot in processing ability?

I don’t know what you are talking about

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

What’s this about a blind spot in processing ability?

I don’t know what you are talking about

Sure you do, you're smarter than that.

You're basically saying what you saw is right, and those that don't agree are hung up on basic stats like a .860 save percentage ... which is a blind spot. You label it cognitive dissonance because of course there has to be a reason that they disagree with you because you are ... of course ... right.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Sure you do, you're smarter than that.

You're basically saying what you saw is right, and those that don't agree are hung up on basic stats like a .860 save percentage ... which is a blind spot. You label it cognitive dissonance because of course there has to be a reason that they disagree with you because you are ... of course ... right.

Hey, I am interested in discussing what is reasonably expected from a goalie.

I see people saying that the goalie let in 6 so he wasn’t good enough. That’s the start of the conversation. I think it is a good idea to take a more detailed look than at goals and sv%

There are shots a goalie should save, shots he could save, and shots he can’t
Those shots come in different proportions each game.

Like I say, there is a difference between a shot that goes in to a goalie’s logo, and one that goes over his shoulder beside his ear. Those shots are measured the same, first as raw shots affecting sv%, and for some more advanced purposes if they have the same criteria (location, shot type etc.).

But that actual shot placement doesn’t figure in to statistics
And sample size of a single game is low and very subject to the events leading up to each shot, and shot placement

These are pretty basic things that are easy to understand. But people prefer not to

You say Anderson made ‘more big saves’. I’m saying I saw a puck whiz over past Vladar’s ear, but don’t recall Anderson throwing a blocker up beside his ear. Not all shots are made equal.

What is wrong with being right? I don’t think it’s something to apologize for